http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/interrogation_tactics I have to disagree with the widely use of torture because the information most of the time isnt 100% accurate, the person being tortured will say anything to stop the physical and mental damaged. Do you agree or disagree with the use of torture and is your reason because other countries would and have done this to American citizens?
These al qaeda types have shown a propensity to sing like a bird, often with valuable information. Anything that could potentially save American lives is fine with me. Make 'em talk...whatever it takes.
It would be nice to say we live in enlightened times and America wears the white hats, but that may be a bit naive. I never served in the arm forces but have several friends that have and I don't consider them bloodthirsty. Of course, none of them have told me they took part in torture. I have no idea if they did, but considering some of the units they served with, I suppose it's possible. What they have relayed to me is that civilians have zero concept of what war does to your perceptions. They all said they did things they could never imagine, and will never forget. I imagine many of them would rationalize some form of torture to save their buddies. Do they think of national security in the same light? I don't know. It is a terrible moral dilemma that I am fortunate enough not to have faced. I suppose in the abstract, if it means the possibility of harm coming to my family, I would be in favor of it. But you're right Mastermind, a case can be made that under enough pain, people will say anything to make it stop. I just don't know enough about the particulars(thank God), to make an informed judgment. I think that disturbs me as much as the idea of torture itself. This is a tough one for me. Great thread BTW.:thumb:
Rule number one regarding prisoners of war is to treat them like you expect your own POW's to be treated. Now, what the CIA and Delta Force do covertly in the field with terrorists and spies is another matter and out of the control of central authority . . . Most of the Abu-Gharaib and Guantanamo prisoners are just grunts in the Taliban field army. When we have them in prisons they should get the full Geneva treatment or our own soldiers will suffer in future wars, in response. This is the United States of America and we do not run jails like Mexicans and our jailers do not operate like the Gestapo. The very notion that a sitting US President is openly ordering and justifying torture of prisoners is about as un-American and un-constitutional as it comes. Interrogation experts say that most information gained from torture isn't reliable and better methods of obtaining confessions are available. Methods that will stand up in court.
I agree with you, i dont enough about the particulars, however, if it came down to a question about my family safety, i think I would be for it in a limited capacity. But, I guess if you say that, you have to think about the country in that capacity of safety. Its a tough call for me as well, because of the moral diliemna it poses. Put my head underwater enough and Id say anything, but a couple shots of JW Black will do that to me as well. Go Figure
Now this I can agree with, what they do out in the field away from central authority is a different thing. But once you put your signature of authorization on a piece of paper endorsing the use of these methods you are opening pandora box all over the world.
I was in a Mobile Communications Group slated for SE Asia. We had to go through a combat/survival school at Ft. Sill Oklahoma. One weekend we were unexpectedly "captured" and put in a POW camp. The instructors posing as NVA tried to make us talk using mainly psychological torture. We knew it wasn't real, yet after about 18 hours we began to wonder and were really freaked out to the point of wanting to give up info just to get out of there. The point is that you don't have to put bamboo under fingernails to get intelligence. As the Nazis would say: "Vee haf our vays".
What if time is a factor? What if our soldiers don't have 18 hours? Didn't Samuel L Jackson make a movie a few years ago that covered something like this? Tommy Lee Jones was defending him for some bs charge but a soldier from Vietnam came and testified against him for a situation just like that. I think he executed or threatened to execute someone. I forget how he justified it. It was to save another unit or something like that. Hard for me to be so in the dark to particulars and make a judgment. Seems like both arguments are valid in certain circumstances.
This is why I have a different position with regards to what happens in the field, both in battle and in covert intelligence ops. But our treatment of subjects held legally in our prisons, should be governed by our laws. We need to go back to our pre-2002 policy of abiding by the Geneva Convention.
Are all the guys being held actually army guys and not terrorists? Should a foreign national not in uniform get the same consideration? They have not in previous wars. Of course, there was a lot more organization as far as armies, front lines, etc. Maybe the Geneva Code is outdated in this respect. Pretty convoluted today. I suppose the government can claim or make anything look a certain way to fit their needs. I don't know man, just doesn't seem cut and dry to me.
