Torture and Terrorism

[Kilarin]

Your still stuck that someone thinks something is RIGHT, because they have deemed it to be necessary, NO! You can do something and KNOW it's not the right thing to do, like paying taxes.

This is true in two different ways.

1: You can do something you know to be wrong because it is convenient or necessary to avoid negative ramifications to yourself. A lot of the German citizens explained their cooperation with the atrocities going on in their country this way.

2: You can do something you know to be wrong because a higher law overrides it.

lemme tell you, making them do a naked cheerleader triangle doesn't come close to the ***** they do to their prisoners.

Correct. As I said before, they are worse than we are. That doesn't excuse us. It doesn't really enter into the moral debate at all.

I contend that they have a motive for answering the question in a way that supports their position

Certainly. And by that reasoning, listing the invasion of Iraq as the top reason would have been even BETTER for their purpose. You are still assuming that you are better at understanding what the prisoners actually meant than a trained interrogator who was there.

Again, no one said that the prisoner abuse was the ONLY reason foreign fighters were coming into Iraq, just that it was the number one reason they stated. OBVIOUSLY the enemy uses propaganda to convince people to fight for their cause. What the interrogators discovered is that the top point being used to convince Muslims to come fight in Iraq is the abuse of prisoners. We have handed them a big piece of propaganda that helps support the view that Americans hate Muslims and are out to get them all.

Save your sympathy for our troops and not some lice infested jihadist who is getting his first exposure to water.

This is part of the problem. Dehumanizing your enemy. As terrible as they are, there are people in Al Queda who are well educated. Many of them probably have better manners than you do. And even among the poor and uneducated, not all are evil incarnate. Some are just misled people who think they are defending God and Country. It was true of the Nazis, it's true of the Jihadists.

I'm not saying this because I'm trying to build up some kind of namby pamby left wing sympathy for the enemy. Al Queda is terrible and must be stopped. With violence. No question. But attitudes like you just expressed are exactly the kind that led to the abuses Abu Ghraib. The first report I heard of Abu Ghraib was someone posting a picture with a comment about how great it was to see those Arabs getting some back. Do you approve of what happened to those "lice infested jihadists" at Abu Ghraib or do you think it was a crime to treat even EVIL people that way?

First you have to define what torture "is" before we can have a meaningful discussion.

It doesn't make any difference to me really.

The "Harsh Interrogation" techniques that we have approved at the top level range from placing prisoners naked in cold cells and tying them in "stress positions" for hours on end, which certainly qualify as abuse and mistreatment, but probably not as torture. All the way to waterboarding, which has been defined by most people, even by the U.S. in the past, as torture.

Exactly where the shady line is between mistreatment and torture isn't important. I don't believe we should be passing over the line into mistreatment, so we should never be anywhere close to the line of torture.

If the excuse for using torture/abuse is the need for information to protect American lives, then it makes NO difference to the morality of the situation whether the enemy is an army of soldiers organized under a government or a group of terrorist hiding in lots of countries. And that makes me ask if we were wrong in WWII?

Hitler was a WORSE enemy than Al Queda by far. He was at LEAST as evil as them, and had the power to actually conquer the world. The Islamofacisists do not. So, if needing the information to protect Americans excuses mistreating prisoners, WHY did we decide during WWII that we would NOT stoop to that? Surely we needed information more than EVER then? So why did we abide by the Geneva conventions and not abuse prisoners? After the war, the fact that Japan abused prisoners made us look upon them with contempt. If we were right then, then the way we have treated prisoners now is contemptible as well.

[Spidey]

The Geneva conventions don’t apply to illegal combatants. I tried to point this out earlier, perhaps I was too vague. There are some other conventions of war that do not apply here either.

Although there are some who are claiming they do, but I tend to disagree.

Why do you think an enemy caught behind the lines without a uniform can be summarily shot?

[Kilarin]

The Geneva conventions don’t apply to illegal combatants.

Correct. But the reason given for mistreating/torturing prisoners isn't that they are illegal combatants. Lothar said quite clearly that we do not torture to punish. It's that we need the information to keep Americans safe. If that is the reason, then it applies to legal combatants just as well as illegal combatants.

[Spidey]

There is a twisted logic here, and it’s giving me a headache.

No, it’s not the fact that they were illegal combatants that they were mistreated, but due to that fact, it left the door open to such treatment.

[Will Robinson]

.....And that makes me ask if we were wrong in WWII?

Hitler was a WORSE enemy than Al Queda by far. He was at LEAST as evil as them, and had the power to actually conquer the world. The Islamofacisists do not.

That is very debatable. Right now they have shown they have the better strategy and a broader foundation and support in many countries and continents compared to Hitler. So what will be the modern day equvilant of the invasion of Poland? And who will be the one to say that was the line they shouldn't have crossed?

So, if needing the information to protect Americans excuses mistreating prisoners, WHY did we decide during WWII that we would NOT stoop to that? Surely we needed information more than EVER then?

Tell me, do you really believe we didn't stoop to it?!? Or was it that the media knew who's side they were on and had no trouble wearing the flag pin and cheering for the Americans while killing the stories that hurt military moral?

So why did we abide by the Geneva conventions and not abuse prisoners? After the war, the fact that Japan abused prisoners made us look upon them with contempt. If we were right then, then the way we have treated prisoners now is contemptible as well.

Again, I seriously doubt there were no Japanese tortured and then how does Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit into the rules of warfare? How about Dresden?

You seem to have a very selective view of our acts of cruelty and a naive assumption that just because it wasn't a political football in those days or on cable TV it must not have happened.....

As far as I can see the only difference in this last war with any other was the President actually stepped up to the plate and acknowledged that it was at least to some degree acceptable procedure, before that it was simply left to the guys in the field and trench coats to do what needed to be done.

The tactics of winning wars haven't changed much...journalism and politics have.

[Kilarin]

There is a twisted logic here, and it's giving me a headache.

too twisted for me I am afraid.

Hitler was a WORSE enemy than Al Queda by far. He was at LEAST as evil as them, and had the power to actually conquer the world. The Islamofacisists do not.

That is very debatable. Right now they have shown they have the better strategy and a broader foundation and support in many countries and continents compared to Hitler. So what will be the modern day equivalent of the invasion of Poland? And who will be the one to say that was the line they shouldn't have crossed?

I suppose I'll have to grant that things could change, but right now I just am not seeing it. They simply do not have the military power. They can be annoying, but even if they manage to get ahold of a few nukes, they do not have the power to overcome the military might of the western world. Their only chance would be to convince us to convert, and while I'm seeing a lot of whimpyness in dealing with islamofacisim, I'm not seeing any sign of the western world deciding to turn to Islam.

You seem to have a very selective view of our acts of cruelty

As I've said, I still haven't figured out the logic of the ethics behind collateral damage. There DOES seem to be a difference in intent. When a soldier drops bombs on an enemy weapons factory, it is not his intent to kill civilians. It is his intent to destroy the factory. He will make every effort possible to avoid collateral damage. When collateral damage does occur, it is a side effect, an unfortunate "accident", not the primary purpose. When the VP of the United States hands down authorization to waterboard prisoners, it is clearly his intent to cause pain and suffering as a means of getting information. The harm is very intentional.

This is shaky, VERY shaky, I can already think of several weaknesses in the argument myself. Like I said, I haven't figured out the ethics of collateral damage yet, and would be very interested in anyone else's opinion.

and a naive assumption that just because it wasn't a political football in those days or on cable TV it must not have happened.....

Valid point. I'm certain abuses happened. But there is a big difference between unauthorized abuse that breaks the law of the country doing it (which always happens) and abuse that is systematic and authorized from the top.

I think this quote illustrates some of what I feel:

Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.

But what it really boils down to is this: I'm Christian, and I take quite seriously Christ's injunction: Mat 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;.

I can love my enemy, and still kill him, if it is the only way to stop him from hurting someone else. But I don't see how I can love my enemy and waterboard him.

[Will Robinson]

Kilarin, I appreciate your perspective with the exception of one angle. You equate the examples of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki with bombing weapons factories etc.
The goal in those cases was to bomb civilians en masse and if a few strategic targets went out with them all the better! Basically the same goal as modern day terrorists...to terrorize the enemies support into losing the will to fight.

As to the McCain quote, I think it shows why our public policy should always be that we don't do it and leave it to the guys who have their lives on the line to decide when and why they might say: Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway. /pirate voice

[Bet51987]

OT...

...The goal in those cases was to bomb civilians en masse and if a few strategic targets went out with them all the better! Basically the same goal as modern day terrorists...to terrorize the enemies support into losing the will to fight.

Exactly right. We specifically targeted non combatants and the defenseless. We destroyed hospitals, schools, child care centers and homes. We murdered women, children, and young mothers pushing baby carriages..... on purpose.

A quarter of a million of them which is more than all terror groups combined since then. President Truman was a terrorist and the most disgusting president we've ever had and I used to cringe reading about this in school. So, yeah. In some respects we're no different from them.

Bee

[Kilarin]

You equate the examples of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki with bombing weapons factories etc.

Ah yes, I had forgotten the fire bombing of Dresden. Kind of like you forget a bad nightmare. I'm with Bettina, I have to say I'm horrified by it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I just don't know. The numbers are good that we saved lives overall, US AND Japanese. But still, surely there had to be a better way. The civilian damage was simply horrific.

[Will Robinson]

...President Truman was a terrorist and the most disgusting president we've ever had and I used to cringe reading about this in school. So, yeah. In some respects we're no different from them.

Bee

Well one difference is extremely huge, that being what we take and don't take from others in the wake of a victory. And thanks to our superiority in dishing out massive terrorism you, nor all the other people of the world, never had to learn how speak Japanese or German so you could pledge allegiance to the emperor or Hitler.....

[Kilarin]

And thanks to our superiority in dishing out massive terrorism you, nor all the other people of the world, never had to learn how speak Japanese or German so you could pledge allegiance to the emperor or Hitler.....

Actually, I don't see that any of the 3 examples mentioned, The firebombing of Dresden, or the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had anything to do with stopping Germany and Japan from conquering the world. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but Germany was only 3 months away from total defeat when Dresden was bombed. I haven't seen any numbers that imply that the destruction of Dresden and 24,000 to 40,000 civilians actually aided much in bringing the war to a close. There is much debate about whether it was a valid strategic target, but I don't read any debate about whether it was a critical point in defeating the Germans.

I also find it interesting that the (according to wikipedia anyway) the Associated Press at time issued a report that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. So the press has ALWAYS been a thorn in the military's side.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was defeated, BUT, they were buckling down for a long and messy invasion. There is little question that the nukes prevented that invasion, and thereby saved a LOT of lives on both sides. The question is, could the same thing have been accomplished in a way that didn't kill so many civilians? I don't know.

[Spidey]

“The question is, could the same thing have been accomplished in a way that didn't kill so many civilians? I don't know.”

Yea, we could have used some of your logic…j/k.

Look, I understand what you are saying, and I respect your opinion, but the main problem that I see is, and I’m not necessarily blaming you…but people tend to only point out the negative when wars are fought, how bout some kudos for the good things.

Yes, Dresden “was” an act of terror to demoralize and punish the enemy, but consider the restraint the US used during the war, and how things could have been much worse. I would have divided up Japan, Germany & Italy and given them out to the victims instead of rebuilding them.

And consider the restraint used after 911, If I was in charge…god help us.

Anger is very great during war, and for the most part, I think the US does a pretty good job of not letting it dictate our actions. So how bout some credit where credit is due.

[SilverFJ]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I just don't know. The numbers are good that we saved lives overall, US AND Japanese. But still, surely there had to be a better way. The civilian damage was simply horrific.

I think we should have bombed them more and annexed what was left as a state. Less competition in the auto industry if anything

[Will Robinson]

Actually, I don't see that any of the 3 examples mentioned, The firebombing of Dresden, or the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had anything to do with stopping Germany and Japan from conquering the world....

Well first off I don't know that either party would have tried, it was hyperbole on my part to make a point. Sure we could have gone without those horrific attacks and still prevailed but maybe the number one reason Germany was starting to accept defeat was they knew we were more than capable of carrying out such acts...
If, on the other hand, an enemy knows we will shrink from the first sign of spilling innocent blood then they hang in there longer and ultimately we lose more soldiers having to carefully prolong our campaign!

I think you'll find a few decades from now, when it isn't politically detrimental to themselves to do so, historians will sight the democrats anti-war political posturing back home as an example of giving an enemy cause to hang in there when they otherwise would have backed off. Hell, Saddam would have caved in and forced G.W. Bush's hand to go ahead and inspect if not for the Russians, Germans and French whispering in his ear that they would never vote for the actual invasion!

War is an absolute horrible thing for almost everyone involved, history proves that! But living under tyranny is even worse, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler...etc. etc.
Once war is started, no matter your grand intentions it always ends up the same way - horrific results for many on both sides until one side gives in. It's better in my mind that others think of us as completely willing to out horrificate them.

Like my coach in grade school used to say:
If you're going to be a bear, be a Grizzly.

[Kilarin]

people tend to only point out the negative when wars are fought, how bout some kudos for the good things.

I absolutely agree. If you'll remember, I started out praising how the allies had refused to stoop to torture during WWII. And the fact that the U.S. really DID let Germany and Japan re-establish themselves as independent nations is incredible, almost unprecedented.

In many wars, I would dare say MOST wars, it's not easy to point out one side as clearly "good guys" and the other as "bad guys". WWII is an OBVIOUS exception to this. We were the good guys, and the bad guys were very, very bad indeed. We stopped them. And Praise God for that!

If, on the other hand, an enemy knows we will shrink from the first sign of spilling innocent blood then they hang in there longer and ultimately we lose more soldiers having to carefully prolong our campaign!

This is true, but I still see a difference between attacking legitimate military targets even if they are protected by civilian "shields", and in the wholesale deliberate targeting of civilians. The first helps to end a war more quickly, I think the second may have long term negative consequences that override any short term advantages.

I think you'll find a few decades from now, when it isn't politically detrimental to themselves to do so, historians will sight the democrats anti-war political posturing back home as an example of giving an enemy cause to hang in there when they otherwise would have backed off

Possibly, but I think it's likely to work out the other way. The general opinion of "history" has not gotten softer on the Hiroshima bombing over time. Go back a bit further and "history" is almost universally critical of the way the U.S. broke treaties during the "Indian Wars". I'm certain Jackson thought history would hold him up as a hero. It doesn't.

BUT, this is guesswork. Previous trends can not be used to guarantee future results. Only time will tell.

[Kilarin]

War is an absolute horrible thing for almost everyone involved, history proves that! But living under tyranny is even worse, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler...etc. etc.

Very True.

(sorry for the double post, I'm still getting the "editing error")