^^People have said this before, but it seems to not have sunk in. If we do that, then our enemies will be all the more willing to kill any POWs from our ranks they get. I would think this idea would strike a chord with some of you. Would you like to be burnt at the stake for serving in our military because our enemy considers your actions to be heinous? Has all honor in warfare been eliminated?

 

^^^^Islamofacists are going to kill you anyways!!!! Your an infidel and Mohammed commands you to put the knife to his throat...Allah's praise be upon him. Gee I wonder why there are no living American/Coalition POW's. Why don't you ask that helicopter pilots family about it...I think he was Ukranian...the only survivor of the shot down helo....broken leg....helped up by insurgents...told to run and then shot in the back....and videotaped for posterity.

 

Explain how the wrongdoings of Abu Ghurab were remotely necessary in the gathering of intelligence?

It's these types of posts that had me questioning your service, Lojasmo. I just knew you’d be the one to drag the irrelevant red herring through this thread.

When every other service member and Veteran is deeply scared by that incident you choose to parade it around like it was supposed to happen, and that people actually wanted it to happen. You think the American people felt the repercussions and embarrassment as much as service members and Veterans like yourself? Not even close, man.

Like a bad seed in anything else, the unfortunate mess at Abu Ghurab was a flaw in the Military and is nowhere near how life in American detainment truly is. And even though the events that happened in that scandal constitute torture by Muslim definition, it's irrelevant in this argument because of the reasons already mentioned. Simply put, you must accept the possibility that a bad seed or numerous bad seeds exist in any group or institution. Furthermore, if a particular bad seed has enough pull in the COC where micromanaging does not exist at his/her level, then there’s no way the President can act accordingly (Rumsfeld is another story and I feel he should have resigned after the scandal as he could have made a surprise inpection without prior knowledge).

Back on topic, please…

 

Exactly, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I WILL NOT be captured alive and if I am the only reason I would do it is so they could take me to a higher concentration of their sympathiests so I could blow them all to hell and back with a satchel charge/fragmentation grenade/incendiary device.

Do you honestly think a U.S. Army infantrymen/Air Force F-16 pilot/Navy SEAL has a chance once captured by brain washed insurgents sworn to the destruction of America and everyone who aids them? That is insane. Get with reality.

Go ask someone serving in Fallujah or Mosul or Tikrit or the Afghan mountains how much honor is left in war. How much honor is there in killing civilian convoy drivers with I.E.Ds? This isn't the Revolutionary War were we all suit up in our uniforms, march down to the field and do battle then shake hands afterwards. That is hatred vs. redemption. If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.

 

Svxr8dr's quote is true in this case, MVWRX. Face it man, a God-fearing insurgency lacks the structure you give them credit for.

Your stance would be appropriate if our adversary consisted of a conventional Army or one recognized by Governing body that adheres to a set of rules and ethics. Vietnam would fall under this definition and American POWs still got the extreme shaft on torture.

 

And your stance shows that when it comes right down to it we are no better than them.


Maybe its time for a vacation

http://www.richardneville.com/Satire...rtureTour.html

 

If you would read his previous posts on this subject (or at least choose not to ignore them) you would see that at a minimum he gives justification for his motive and at best feels heartfelt sorrow for the servicemen/American's lost in the attacks (both domestic and foreign) due to, in many cases, a lack of intel. This intel would have likely been provided based only on his previous propositions. I don't know, I could be wrong. I still think he's morally attached to an oath he took a while back. Call me crazy.

 

Any justification, no matter how outrageous the hypotherical circumstance, loses the moral high ground.

Any "intelligence" gathered through torture is useless, it's been proven time and time again, when you torture someone they will tell you either nothing, or else they will tell you what they think you need to hear to make it stop, regardless of the truth or any sort of factual basis.

The sad fact that this administration seems to think that it's OK to torture people for any reason whatsoever, is one more reason they all belong in jail, not in power.

 

Riiiiiiiiiggghht............you do realize that Special Operations forces have been exempt from Geneva Conventions since their creation and have interrogated people (even in the field) since their inception? And you apparently are an expert on FM 34-52 because you make pretty bold statements as to the effectiveness of military interogation. I didn't know you were a 97B. Perhaps you could post some proof of it's inefficiency?

 

As mentioned, the intelligence we procure from these methods is faulty at best. Aside from the inhumane aspects of torture, it is time that could be better spent diggin up real information.

I watched Jimmy Carter on C-Span the other night discussing this very issue. These laws were instituted post WWII after the heinous interrogation methods used by all sides (Japanes, Germans, US...). He couldnt beleive that GW and the WH have been proponents of torture. We are the leading nation of this world. We should be the best example. And as "a man of faith", George W sure does a lot of things that compromise his integrity (but I guess the hard-caore right wingers dont give a ****).

 

I'm not a hard core right-winger by any stretch of the imagination. As far as this blatant and unsound bashing of interogation, I want one of you, since you both seem to be so knownledgable on the subject, to give me some proof that says that interogation is ineffective. I'll be waiting.

 

That burden of proof falls on you. I am not proposing that we condone a shameful act; I am proposing that we stop. If interrogation were effective, why does John McCain oppose it outright??

We are further separating ourselves as a ruthless country that will do whatever it takes, and brake whatever laws necessary, to "win the war on terror" (though the WH has changed their verbiage on this since there is no such thing as a war on terror and we have wisened up a little bit).

 

 

I agree lojasmo, all of that was wrong on so many levels. If it were up to me things would have been done much differently.

 

On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a Memorandum to President Bush regarding a presidential decision on January 18, 2002, (the White House has issued an Order to that effect, dated February 7, 2002, see below) that captured members of the Taliban were not protected under the Geneva POW Convention ("GPW"), to which the legal advisor to the Secretary of State had objected. He advised that "there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [the ] does not apply ...to the conflict with the Taliban." Mr. Gonzales argued that grounds for the determination might include:

1) a determination that Afghanistan was a failed state "...because the Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people, was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its international obligations" (see definition of statehood in Cpt. 1.3 and discussion in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 to 245 (2nd Cir, 1995) ) and/or

2) a "determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government but a militant, terrorist-like group."

Mr. Gonzales then identified what he believed were the ramifications of Mr. Bush's determination. On a positive note he felt they preserved flexibility stating that:

"The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners..." He also believed the determination "...eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status." The determination, Mr. Gonzales said, also reduced the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). His expressed concern was that certain GPW language such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" are "undefined' and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be "...difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." He believed that a determination of inapplicability of the GPW would insulate against prosecution by future "prosecutors and independent counsels."


Basically, the tactics used in abu ghraib were given the green light from the administration. It's a shame that the buck stopped with those poor misguided soldiers in Iraq.

Back on topic, more from the ghraib:

"He wasn't dead at first," said Spc. Jason A. Kenner of the nameless detainee, explaining that guards were told not to remove the prisoner's hood when they took him to the shower room. "We didn't know how much he was injured. He went into the showers for interrogation, and about an hour later he died on them. I was sent to find out what was going on. Later that day, they decided to put him on ice. ..."

"After he passed, the sandbag was removed and I saw that he was severely beaten on his face," Kenner testified. "At the time, they would interrogate people in the shower rooms. He was shackled to the wall. ... The shower room was just used because there was no other space available."

"In their testimony, Kenner and [another guard Spc. Bruce] Brown agreed that the CIA brought the prisoner to Abu Ghraib and ordered guards to take him to the interrogation facility without removing the hood. They disagreed on who was involved in the subsequent questioning: Kenner said it was the CIA alone while Brown said the CIA and military intelligence officers worked together."