Fevers were running high in the wake of 9/11, and many high-level officials from the president to CIA bomb-ticking “24” paranoids—to say nothing of amateur sadists at Abu Ghraib —lost control of reason. No amount of rationalization will justify the use of unduly “harsh treatment,” or if you will, “torture.” Granted legitimate POWs are a respectable cut above the thugs of al Qaeda and deserve relatively humane treatment from their captors. Terrorists, however, are not “noble” soldiers defending their country right or wrong. They are murderous fanatics who in battle normally under fire would be killed unless the order to take no prisoners was lifted for the purpose of interrogation, which indeed would be extremely harsh under combat conditions, yet short of methodic torture even though if the captive situation were reversed chances are beheadings would be the end result.
There is understandable ambivalence over the current buzz over the release of the “torture” memos, precisely because the “harsh” treatment was perpetrated on such unsavory characters. Still, we are a nation of laws and not men who occasionally are irrational despite the excuse of 9/11. After all, if there were indisputable evidence that some captives were responsible in the masterminding of violating our country, then a speedy court martial would result in speedy execution, rather than the nonsense of illegally trying to extract relevant information which clearly was not the case or the officials would have uncovered the whereabouts of Killer bin Laden in lieu of such fantasy that the data led to more plots against the nation.
Even if it were true that torture draws reliable intelligence, this nation should be above medieval inquisitions which could also spread to all captives including our own. Those who were allegedly engaged in such unlawful tactics should be reprimanded and a public censure against the previous administration for violating the trust of the people.
I can't tell...are you serious or is this a satire piece? I need to know so I can address it properly.
I agree with your statements. While the terrorists don't have rights because they give them up, who are we to torture them? We should be civil so that they will be, but be vigilant in case they aren't.
Please cite an example of their benevolence in the treatment levied toward our soldiers (or civilians).
If such tactics don't work, why do we send the troops who have a higher than normal probability of capture to "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" training? The stated reason for the SERE course is to increase their ability to resist giving up secrets in case they are captured.
If SERE courses are based on what the troops can expect if captured by the enemy, the Taliban & Al Qaeda SERE candidates must be forced to endure 3 gourmet meals a day, comfortable beds in spacious cells, and be treated with respect lest the press get wind of anything less and hold kangaroo courts against the instructors.
I can't, but does that justify us mistreating them? Should we mistreat them simply because they mistreat us? Who is the better man then?
Sorry for double posting, but it won't edit.
When I say civil, I don't mean luxury. I mean solitary cell, a jail uniform, and bread and water.
Nobility is nice. Until its head is chopped off.
They've never done any waterboarding on Jackass. It would be way too tame.
I guess their people in prison and our dead people can argue who the "bigger" persons are. That will show em. I bet they feel really bad about it right about now.
And after all, sleep deprivation/water boarding/fuzzy caterpillars doesn't work on the dead.
We are not torturing these animals for fun, we do it to get information.
CIVIL? Intill you turn your back, then they will cut your head off.
These blood thirsty fanatics deserve everything they get, and more.
SERE is melodramatic nonsense. Torture our own soldiers to experience what it's like to be tortured. If captured by al Qaeda training entails beheading just to feel what it's like, duh?
And none of them have claimed they were tortured, our records state they were not tortured, the supposed torture was done on three people, all of them talked, all three of them gave us information we needed. If we were as torture happy as we are portrayed then we would be doing it to anyone and everyone we captured. The people were captured and held until their story could be verified and if there was not enough evidence to hold them they were set free. Most were captured or killed on the battlefield they promised they were not apart of months later. Two were water boarded, and one was told he was going to be put in a box with a vicious blood thirsty caterpillar, causing him to spill the beans without even doing it. The ones that had information we wanted to know were interrogated daily over the course of months and years until they broke. The ones we knew had vital information we used enhanced methods like water boarding. This is not a government that last its way or was using 9/11 as an excuse for wholesale torture. Since President Obama declassified what was done and how it was done it seems the panic on the left was not justified. It was not illegal, and to top it off it seems that everything that the previous administration had done was so correct the current administration is continuing the practice. The “illegal “prisons around the world are still in use, rendition is still being used through three administrations. And President Obama is stuck with the same problem President Bush had. We can’t let them go but we don’t want to keep them. The trials that took 7 years to work their way through the courts has been halted by the new administration. This prevents us from jailing or executing or freeing the real bad ones.
I am interested in reading your suggestions for this presidential dilemma.
It's no use trying to drive a point home to those that don't consider the ramifications. If we handled prisoners and intelligence as we do now in past wars we would probably be speaking German as our national language now. At the very least there would be less Americans (No A-Bomb...Japan mainland invasion, more fighting the prisoners that were released for good behavior), and more of the enemy (again no A-Bomb, no fire bombing Tokyo, Dresden, others).
Liberals can't get enough self-pity from the Vietnam war defeat (plus the young liberals can't relate to it) they need a new defeat to wallow in. The first Gulf War came and went too fast for the old hippies to mobilize. This is the perfect chance for self-scarification of the nation so a few can claim their own self-righteousness. Doesn't matter the damage it does, or if it weakens the US. The rest of the world will accept us, born again, and not take advantage, right? That attitude shows little regard for human nature and a total disregard for history. My opinion, not bothered if anyone agrees or not.
Even if it were true that torture draws reliable intelligence, this nation should be above medieval inquisitions which could also spread to all captives including our own.
No, it cannot "spread".
No terrorist decides to torture an American because of what the CIA does. The terrorists torture anyway, plus their leaders make up stories anyway, so it's quite immaterial what the CIA actually does in that regard.
My personal opinion is that I know that if I ever get kidnapped by terrorists, they will torture and kill me and NOBODY, not the terrorists nor their liberal supporters in the west, will cry or whine or protest. So excuse me if I don't care about the treatment of suspected terrorists by the CIA as long as they survive if unscathed.
I don't think water-boarding qualifies as torture. And I dare any organisation who says that it does qualify as torture to come out and speak up and demand that no aid be sent to Gaza until Gilad Shalit's release. Where are their voices when Jews or Israelis get tortured? Why be worried when terrorists are being tortured? What's so special about them?
I never understood the world-wide outcry over the water-boarding issue. It was as if we live in a world where torture was something non-existent and water-boarding was the worst torture imaginable. Half the countries who criticised the US were known to use (real) torture themselves. And the other half absolutely DON'T CARE about worse torture methods used every day by terrorists and terror-supporting states, but they suddenly cared when the US were accused.
Should we mistreat them simply because they mistreat us? Who is the better man then?
That's simple: the better man is the one who allows the other man to make the decision which level of torture is acceptable and adapts to his wishes.
Honestly, I can tell that probably one of you was in the military... possibly two, but that's about it. I'm ex-military myself and I have to say from my point of view the original post is pure BS. Torture (you'll notice that they never say what was done to torture them, all that means is that it's not quite "up to par" with what is considered "humane") such as depriving people of light or food or water or whatever else has been used in jails as punishment for our own people. The "tortures" that usually end up being used to say how awful and evil we are as a country are usually much less severe than civilians of other countries can experience by their own government!
Sorry, but the thought that everyone has to have a jail cell, clean uniforms, three square meals a day and unlimited TV and education benefits from the government in order to be "civil" really gets on my nerves. The fact that many of the people captured if not ALL of them were captured with a gun in their hands which they were shooting at us just cause we exist never enters people's minds. Or it does, but you don't really think about what that means.
Now, I'm sorry if anyone here takes this too personally, it's not meant to be aimed at anyone in particular, I'm just tired of the attitude that the soldiers who are asked to be the nicest in the world and who are guarding people who wouldn't think twice at the first opportunity to kill their captors aren't doing their jobs right. Unless you've been there it's hard for anyone to imagine, and that includes me. It's amazing how many people would be outraged if one of their friends was indangered to the point where they would go to all sorts of lengths to get an answer out of someone, but they don't think that a soldier is in just that predicament. Only difference is the soldier's friends are the other soldiers that they work with day in and day out for weeks, months, sometimes years at a time. The self control involved in not just killing these people, the effort for a soldier who saw their friends wounded/killed by them or their "buddies" (which many if not ALL have by the time they come back), something to chew on for you.
mommie4life welcome to JU. I think you'll be surprised by the number of (regular) members here that are veterans (from both the US and abroad) and have our active duty personnels interests at heart. While it might not change any minds here, it's good to hear all the voices. Some folks might be more inclined to hear it from someone from their own generation, rather than from their parents generation.
Unfortunately my generation shows a definate lack of knowledge of their history or their own government a lot of times. My grandfather was a WWII vet. I remember him waking up swinging his entire life. It's because of him that I was interested in the military in the first place. So many were killed back then from weapons that weren't as advanced as what our soldiers or our enemies have today, yet we still managed less casualties in Iraq than in any war to date. Seems to me they're doing something right.
You know sometimes I wish that our country would adopt the manditory two years of service for all citizens that some countries have. It gives you a whole different perspective on what war is, about what you can do yourself, and about how fragile the life we know today is. Honestly, there hasn't been a really bloody war in my lifetime or in my parent's lifetime for that matter, we don't konw the kind of war that my grandfather endured and I just pray that we never will.
*EDIT* Sorry, this kind of came out like I was arguing with the person above. Wasn't meant as an argument, just ran off of the topic of my generation.... I pay attention to my history and the world around me just irritates me to no end how many out there are blind to it or just don't think that it pertains to today in anyway. *end rant*
Thanks for the welcome. I'm not always this argumentative. There's just some topics that people seem to conveniently leave out the parts that they don't want to see and that irritates me.
We all have our own "buttons".
I'd like to see two year mandatory service too, but I think it would just be a platform for some to burn their draft cards. The expedience would be good for many, but on deeper thought I don't want people in uniform that don't want to do the job. I did my share of baby-sitting on active duty. It only took away valuable time from those that wanted to do better, and was disproportional wasted on the few. Conscription would increase that IMO.
"not the terrorists nor their liberal supporters in the west" A vile connection here; I refuse to believe that you really think that liberals support terrorists--ala Glenn Beck. [/quote]
I still stand by my statement. Your original post states over and over again that any sort of "torture" by any of our people was inexcusable and that they should be punished for it, which is what I was disagreeing with. I don't see any posts where you contradict this, but feel free to point them out.
I'm curious how you managed to be a WWII vet.... you would have to be a couple years older in order to have met the draft requirements by the time the war ended. Though, there was more than one person who ended up getting in underaged by a year or two.
77:Rounding up prisoners and shipping them to Quantanomo never should have taken place because it is vulnerable to the charge of wrongful imprisonment of those left to rot without counsel. Your claim that only three were dealt "harsh treatment" is based on the fallacy that they imparted important information, but it does not mean others were not subject to the same treatment and if not, prison of any kind is never a picnic precisely because of natural hostility between cellmates and guards. I concur that releasing the memos was a huge blunder just as the release of those awful photos of AbuGhraib. Some questionable tactics should be left unsaid and dealt with promptly and effectively by competent oversight; otherwise it effects the current self-righteous crap from the left and the irrationally militant defense from the right. I would rather see more outrage over the lackadaisical criminal justice with respect to the horrendous kidnappings, torture and murder of children and women that continually rears its ugliness.
maybe bout the 183rd time she waterboarded you--not the 182nd or 181st much less the first 100--it'll finally break you and you can then point her to a ju discussion from a couple years ago in which you shared your perspective on the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
