The treatment of the Terrorists and Al Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo has been an issue I’ve never really come to grips with. What would I do if I
knew mistreating an Al Qaeda Terrorist captured on the battlefield would save innocent lives, but normal interrogation tactics will not work on this
individual? Would I walk away or do what it takes to protect the lives I’m sworn to protect?
Let’s just imagine for a moment that we are charged with questioning a Monster who has information that would save perhaps dozens if not hundreds or
thousands of innocent lives. We know that if we are not successful it will enable those deaths.
We also know if we don't resort to extreme methods we will fail and because of that failure many people could die.
What do YOU do? Do you walk away and let the innocents die because you are opposed to any methods that might work? Do you save those lives and do
whatever it takes to that Monster to save innocent lives?
This is one of the toughest topics to come to grips with for me. Most of those people they have locked up would immediately start killing us again if
they could. These people were captured on the battlefield and could care less about the Geneva Convention themselves. They are brutal monsters who
blow up women and children, cut of the heads of people who don’t agree with them and even kill their own people without remorse.
The ball is in your court. What do YOU do?
|
Interesting there has been no response. I did not truly expect any though. I'm honestly interested in peoples thoughts because I'm not settled on
this and whenever I read a story about the alleged mistreatment of captured Al Qaeda I have not come to grips with my own thoughts. I'm opposed to
torture but I can see how it could be unavoidable in very limited cases. Then, even if an action like this does save lives, there would be no way to
prove it. If the interrogator walks away and innocent people die because of it?
|
