Should POW's be Tortured

[Normal Dude]

Should POW's be Tortured ?

Almost always no (captured spies, terrorists, etc. are not POWs) - the liklihood that a military person with any functional knowledge of a major plan/offensive will have any information that is useable is close to zero.

Precisely.

 

[Wildy]

Which is why war crimes tribunals exist.

But only for the loser. Winners never commit war crimes.

Similarly, given the inaccuracy in bombing technology in the second World War, "terror bombing" was largely unavoidable. Today we can deliver bombs to within yards of the target; in 1941, both sides were lucky to hit the same ZIP code as the target.

Today modern technology makes it possible to deliver firepower with almost pinpoint accuracy; the USAF can put a missile through a selected window of a building. Even this doesn't necessarily make it "practical" to avoid killing civilians in the room next door, but it's a start. And the USAF does try, in general, to hit the right window of the right building; if nothing else, it's more cost-effective.

Comments like this about how accurate remind me of that comedian (who I don't seem to remember, maybe Arj Barker?) who said:

I'm having an argument with my brother over how accurate the bombs are. He says that they are so precise that they can hit a 50 cent piece, but as I see it when it hits that piece and takes out the whole block then the definition of precision becomes a little hazy.


But talking more about the laws of war, does it not in the examples that are being given favour the more advanced side? If you don't get the joy of having precision guided missiles but you can still deal damage with an IED or ambush, both of which are more likely to kill innocent civilians, that you aren't supposed to do it? Face it, when you are fighting a war no matter how much you want there to be some, you don't really have proper rules. Usually there's no referee who would give you a red card if you break the rules. That's all dealt with afterwards.

So in the end determining whether torture is a war crime all depends on if you lost.

 

[fuelair]

But only for the loser. Winners never commit war crimes.



Comments like this about how accurate remind me of that comedian (who I don't seem to remember, maybe Arj Barker?) who said:

I'm having an argument with my brother over how accurate the bombs are. He says that they are so precise that they can hit a 50 cent piece, but as I see it when it hits that piece and takes out the whole block then the definition of precision becomes a little hazy.


But talking more about the laws of war, does it not in the examples that are being given favour the more advanced side? If you don't get the joy of having precision guided missiles but you can still deal damage with an IED or ambush, both of which are more likely to kill innocent civilians, that you aren't supposed to do it? Face it, when you are fighting a war no matter how much you want there to be some, you don't really have proper rules. Usually there's no referee who would give you a red card if you break the rules. That's all dealt with afterwards.

So in the end determining whether torture is a war crime all depends on if you lost.

Given that your scenarios (IED/ambush) DO NOT CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE ARMY OF ANY COUNTRY but to terrorists (they can call themselves whatever they want, the rules of warfare - including POWs etc. do not apply to them) your point is moot for now. If that comes up with a real, legitimate armed force, we'll get back to you on it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, they were targeting cities with large military production/supply facilities - which are recognized as legitimate targets by rules of warfare. The fact that they were not accurate enough (especially in night bombing) to avoid civilian only areas is unfortunate (and an argument for making sure all war production is done away from population centers) but does not make them war criminals by any rational standard.

So this explains the firebombing of tokyo now?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No - you have it backward. The Laws of Armed Conflict are the same for parties to a conflict whether they are chunking spears or JDAMS.

But the laws are based on the highest technological development available. Would incinerating a city be a war crime now? Almost assuredly, but few call the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime.

So the standard changed when the most advanced participants changed and they expect everyone else to change with them regardless of their own military technology.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Given that your scenarios (IED/ambush) DO NOT CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE ARMY OF ANY COUNTRY but to terrorists (they can call themselves whatever they want, the rules of warfare - including POWs etc. do not apply to them) your point is moot for now. If that comes up with a real, legitimate armed force, we'll get back to you on it.

And like the terrorists who founded the USA also often did not fight according to the laws of war.

They did criminal things like intentionaly target officers when shooting an all kinds of violations of the laws of war at the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Also this means that when the NAZI's tortured french resistance fighters they where doing nothing wrong as they where just extracting information from terrorists.

 

[fuelair]

And like the terrorists who founded the USA also often did not fight according to the laws of war.

They did criminal things like intentionaly target officers when shooting an all kinds of violations of the laws of war at the time.

I hope you do realize that they were rebels legally, the colonists involved could all have been hanged for treason (or murder, etc. if caught). We won so none of that happened, but.....

i.e., a rousing so what? (not to be offensive, just real.)

 

[fuelair]

Also this means that when the NAZI's tortured french resistance fighters they where doing nothing wrong as they where just extracting information from terrorists.

From a military standpoint, that is correct. It was not correct if they did the same to a member of the allied military. I also do not assume from your exact question we are talking about punitive torture.

 

[Cylinder]

But the laws are based on the highest technological development available. Would incinerating a city be a war crime now? Almost assuredly, but few call the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime.

So the standard changed when the most advanced participants changed and they expect everyone else to change with them regardless of their own military technology.

The standards do rise with technology but are are not necessarily tied to the "highest technological development available." I would paraphrase the standard as using the most proportional method of attack to the extent practicable considering military necessity and operational expediency. In no case can the attack be indiscriminate, meaning that it must be conceived, planned and executed in a manner that restricts its effects to legitimate targets and minimizes its effects on protected populations.

In your IED example, I would argue that attacks targeting military convoys not using civilian vehicles (VBIEDs) or prohibited ordnance (e.g. poison gas or banned fragmentation) were fairly consistent with the LOAC. The party to the conflict setting these devices still have the problem of perfidy - that is, they are disguising themselves as civilians when transporting and deploying these devices.

 

[drkitten]

But talking more about the laws of war, does it not in the examples that are being given favour the more advanced side? If you don't get the joy of having precision guided missiles but you can still deal damage with an IED or ambush, both of which are more likely to kill innocent civilians, that you aren't supposed to do it?

Er, no.

IED and ambushes are both recognized and legitimate military tactics when targeted against military targets. Even the more advanced militaries recognized that sometimes you (meaning, they) don't have the high-tech backup and it comes down to what some poor squaddie can accomplish with himself, a grenade, and a can of petrol that he scrounged somewhere.

The key is who the IED and/or ambush is aimed at. Putting an IED along the route that a military convoy is expected to travel is perfectly fine, even if it ends up going off at the wrong time and killing civilians. Putting an IED on the front steps of a church timed to go off at a civilian wedding is a no-no.

So in the end determining whether torture is a war crime all depends on if you lost.

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.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

I hope you do realize that they were rebels legally, the colonists involved could all have been hanged for treason (or murder, etc. if caught). We won so none of that happened, but.....

i.e., a rousing so what? (not to be offensive, just real.)

Ah but the being a rebel and traitor is not the only reason to label them a terrorist, they also did not follow the rules of war at the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

From a military standpoint, that is correct. It was not correct if they did the same to a member of the allied military. I also do not assume from your exact question we are talking about punitive torture.

I am not talking of punitive torture. I am wondering if useing torture to interrogate terrorists such as the french resistance is a crime.

 

[drkitten]

I am not talking of punitive torture. I am wondering if useing torture to interrogate terrorists such as the french resistance is a crime.

Depends on the local laws. For that matter, the question of whether torturing POWs is a crime also depends on local laws except in very unusual circumstances (such as when one party has just lost a war, and thus another nation-state is in a position to impose international standards of law on them via force majure).

Torturing POWs is a crime in the United States, technically speaking, only because national law makes it so; the United States has both signed and ratified the appropriate Geneva Conventions, thus incorporating them into US law. The US has specifically not ratified the 1985 UN Convention against Torture, which outlaws torture of any person generally.

Cynics might suggest that that's because the USA makes a policy of torture and is thus unwilling to be bound by any instrument that would outlaw such a policy. Absent force majure, there is no way to bring the USA in line with most of the rest of the world in such a regard.

Germany obviously had not signed the 1985 Convention in 1945; if they had, it would have been illegal to torture French resistance members. Germany has now ratified the Convention; if for some reason they decided to replay WWII, such torture would be illegal.

 

[billydkid]

Of course they should be tortured. In fact, I think the government should pick people at random from other countries or even this country to torture just as a matter of principle and to keep people in line.

 

[fuelair]

Of course they should be tortured. In fact, I think the government should pick people at random from other countries or even this country to torture just as a matter of principle and to keep people in line.

A touch extreme, I would think. Maybe just Canadian tourists - as an example to the rest!

 

[billydkid]

A touch extreme, I would think. Maybe just Canadian tourists - as an example to the rest!

Stinking bleeding heart liberal commie!!!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

All of humanity is about to end i 6 hours. The only one with info to stop it is an enemy combatant. Should humanity perish for the sake of taking moral high ground? That's the most extreme case. Where do you draw the line?

Remember there are polite and impolite ways to kill and hurt people.

 

[fuelair]

All of humanity is about to end i 6 hours. The only one with info to stop it is an enemy combatant. Should humanity perish for the sake of taking moral high ground? That's the most extreme case. Where do you draw the line?

Remember there are polite and impolite ways to kill and hurt people.

Would need other data. But if torture needed would start with painful but not going to wreck for public appearance. Then get unpleasant.

 

[wowowowye]

Obviously not. A prisoner has relinquished their rights as a citizen (or in this case, had them removed), but they have not relinquished their rights as a human being.