Torture? I went through worse in basic training

In the 80's, during my 2 years military conscription, I briefly saw and then heard a man being tortured...his screams, whilst no longer haunting me, remain vividly in my mind.

I dont care whether youve served your country which gives you (you believe...)automatic superiority in this debate or not...

To here a grown man scream in a way youve never heard before changed me instantly...

I do not know what became of the man, nor his "crime", but his suffering I have shared with you so that it may shed just a little light on mankinds cruelty to one another...

A lot of the pro torture camp on this thread seem to be coming from some moral high ground....wheras I believe anyone who inflicts pain and suffering, regardless of the circumstances, deserves to feel the full weight of the law... afterall they are WAR CRIMES.

I think we have strayed from the original idea quite a bit. Often times in discussions we are forced to hold a position and over time that position can lose it's original meaning. I believe we can all agree torture is indeed wrong. The original message here was that this "torture" was not exactly the torture that comes to mind when we think of torture.

Another thing that bothers me is that people automatically assume that everyone receives this "torture". This is just simply not true.

If somebody was going to inflict harm upon anybody posting here I would do whatever is necessary to stop that from happening. This action would first come with the knowledge that I would be able to stop a certain even from happening. I would also like to say that as soon as I got the information needed to stop this certain event from happening then mission accomplished. I would have no joy in doing this. In fact I hate to see people in pain but if I knew that's is what would stop others from facing pain then what needs to be down would be done. I would be that bad guy for the greater good.

People who have served do not have an I win card to pull out. What many of them do have is first hand knowledge of what the enemy is willing to do to "win". It's not something that one could explain, they couldn't even give a glimpse. That does not matter because regardless of what you say they are going to do what they do and you will better off because of it. For some the nightmare isn't combat memories, it's those memories making themselves a reality at home.

People can say whatever they like. In my honest opinion everyone living 1st world country is living in an unrealistic bubble. At what point in American history did we start to live the moral high ground? I am not saying that the moral high ground is bad but that is certainly not how we got to where we are today. We stole our land, used slave labor and bombed cities to the ground. That's the truth in case some of you have forgotten. The moral high ground is the right way but for everyone who is in for a rude awakening I fear the day our bubble bursts.

I honestly don't see why we are making a big deal about torture now.

I don't know if its the hatred some people have towards George W Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeild.

I don't know if its the hatred of the Iraqi war.

I don't know if its because it was used as a political platform during the election.

I do know that the US and other countries have been torturing detainees of all nature for thousands and in our case hundreds of years. It is nothing new to any Country.

I keep hearing how we are better then that and Obama keeps saying we have to stick to our morals. We did not start torturing during the Iraqi,Vietnam, Korea, WW2 or WW 1. So exactly when did we begin being better then that and when did our morals include not torturing?

We are in a war and every war will include torture. Thats the way it has always been and will be unless President Obama sticks by his word.

We can say that we will not torture anymore, thats fine. But we cannot prosecute the last administration alone. If we are going to open this can of worms then we should prosecute everyone that has ever been involved in torture.

If they dig back far enough that would include every living President and their administration.

I promise W is not the only living President who has okayed the use of torture.

reply to post by jfj123


Having been to Afghanistan your approach to capture osama would be a joke.There are thousands of caves in the area cant bomb them all.The only way we ever found any locations in those mountains was thou intel. And guess were that intel came from only 2 sources snitches and interrogations of captured insurgents, And i dont think they said please tell us were you guys are hiding. Look ill give you this brand new 360 still in the box. You people are a joke you want your families to be safe from radicals willing to kill you without losing any sleep. But when push comes to shove youll lay down and die.

Having dealt with these terrorists watching them do things such as send a car bomb in the middle of a mosque just to show the afgans the price for removing the taliban. Went into a village not to far from Kandahar alqueda came thou about a month after we helped them dig a well. We handed out dolls and candy to the kids blankets to the adults. When al Queda visited any body who had anything from the soldiers was killed. Ever seen a 5 year old girl shot throu the head because she had a teddy bear?

These people only have one belief and that is convert the world to the Muslim religion and are willing to go as far as they have to in order to further there goals. I was idealistic once but after seeing what were up against im concerned. As far as torture there version of torture was just in humane one tribal leader had his eyes burned out with a hot poker for accepting US govt money. All i have to say is we need this country to toughen up or god help us all.

Of course someone would go through the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in training -- where the frack do you think they came from but the SERE program?

The SERE program was developed to train to withstand Chinese tortures designed to elicit confessions.

Some recruit might think he is superman now, because he can handle a slap on the face and a dowsing in water from buddies. What a very dangerous concept.

Someone wants to hurt you, cut pieces off your body, and is going to put you underwater until you drown -- bring you right back from the edge of death. That's a bit different. Then you will be kept in a well lit room, bound so you can't quite sit or stand, and music will blast all day and night -- if you knew what that was. The room is cold, and you are on the edge of freezing all the time.

You started out a bit tough, but now the bad diet, lack of sleep, and constant, incessant annoyances have your joints on fire, and you are so very weak.

Congratulations, you've made it through 4 days. Now you get to endure this for months, for years.

The things that make you withstand pain are related to health. No movement, and high carbs are going to make you more and more susceptible. The biggest danger is that you might die of pneumonia.

Are you going to be lucky or tough if you still have a mind after 6 months of this? The people in Afghanistan live a daily life that would make most of the people in US combat who think they are tough whine with discomfort. And the hapless people rounded up for a bounty have been destroyed by these techniques, which have been researched and refined. Eventually you will say anything to make it stop. Eventually you will check out, and nobody will be home anymore.

>> The people who developed your he-man training, know it doesn't work to gather intelligence. They attached a note saying just that to the training documents. The Bush administration KNEW that what they were doing was torture -- or why did they have to get Hu and Bybee to squeeze out some garbage that says it was OK to give themselves plausible deniability.

The FBI got out of it with the strongest objections. The top brass in the military said it wouldn't be effective for intelligence and people would make things up to make it stop. The excuse of the Bush administration comes right out of comic books; every torture victim has the information to stop a nuclear disaster. The strange thing is; if the technique doesn't work -- how is it supposed to do the job in the short term emergency?

It's been 4 years -- where is the emergency?

>> Right now, Dick Cheney is breaking the law (albeit his own patriot act). He's claiming that there are secret documents that prove the torture got them intelligence. If they existed -- he isn't supposed to talk about them. The case against the government is coming up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Guess who is the judge? Judge Bybee.

You see, in the Bush Crime Family, the people who investigate are usually the people involved. No better incentive to make sure nothing important is ever dug up. Bybee will look at some papers, tell everyone it is super secret stuff that would prove the Governments case -- but to release it would jeopardize national security. Cheney will go on TV and say how he was looking forward to clearing his name -- but this is national security after all.

When the enemy is in the gates. When these "training techniques" will now be used against our troops, missionaries, unfortunate Americans in harms way.

It doesn't matter that, even if they got good intelligence (they haven't), it doesn't justify the crime of torture. Prisoners are to be given food, clothing, and decent treatment. The only rough handling allowed is to restrain them from escape or hurting themselves or other. That's it. All you are entitled to know is name, rank, serial number. Maybe their home address -- because most of these people were not in the military.

America has to be good to be WORTHY of winning hearts and minds. If our military condoned torture -- or the weasel phrase of "enhanced interrogation techniques" then THEY are the bad guys. They are the brown shirts. Just in a position of power because they have bigger guns.

If we want to play the biggest tough guy on the block, there aren't enough bullets to be "safe." The rule of law only works if people believe that it gives everyone a fare shake.

From what a kid might see today of how Banksters steal from everyone and then get the government to rescue them from poverty. What a kid might see of "leadership" or small minded people who are really industry hacks telling them "America can't get off Oil." This is becoming a nation of small minded people with low expectations. We must stoop and work in the shadows because it is a dangerous world.

Well in WW II, when the US was facing a more dire menace and the battle wasn't so asymmetric -- we didn't stoop. We believed in honor. That isn't some fancy ribbon on your chest. It's that you don't bend your principles just because someone else is desperate and bends theirs.

A HERO would die disobeying orders to water torture an Iraqi. A hero would face ridicule and shame and perhaps dying without anyone knowing he really was a hero.

The people who watch a "Few Good Men" who are kind of fascist at heart -- hear that speech "You can't handle the truth" and nod sagely, as if they get what that arrogance means. It means this soldier has to protect Democracy from itself. When the privates were cleared of charges at then end but kicked out, the real lesson is learned, "We were supposed to protect that man on the bed -- not the code." It isn't a club, and it isn't protecting the honor of the president -- the most important thing that men like Cheney destroy is our honor, because men like him are color blind to such things.

Originally posted by jd140
I honestly don't see why we are making a big deal about torture now.
....
If they dig back far enough that would include every living President and their administration.

I promise W is not the only living President who has okayed the use of torture.

Ugh. I'm sure Dick Cheney's lawyer will be saying the same thing.

Obviously, the over 2 million people in prison should be set free. Why do we make a big deal out of theft, murder, and rape? It's been done before.

Yes I know about all the support for torture during the Reagan administration. The School of the Americas.

NONE of that did any good for our country -- but it made a hell of a lot of money for other rat bastards moving US corporations into those latin countries to suck out their wealth.

These same globalists have shipped our manufacturing overseas, and get us to pay the bill on wars that enrich them.

What a noble concept, to let atrocities go on because its part of the status quo by now.

>> We don't know yet about the renditions. Everyone who got a photograph of themselves involved in torture got prosecuted -- as if that were all there was. "Trust us."

WE don't have real threats in Afghanistan and Iraq. The real threats are people like Bush and Cheney that sold us out to corporations. That have us jumping at shadows so that the Pentagon can make more money, and have more "no questions asked" policies that are self-justifying.

People like Bush and Cheney are wealthy and have power, because they know how to manipulate, how to compromise people with crimes so that they defend you by defending themselves.

They didn't want gays in the military and in the Secret Service at one time, because the thought was, that it could be used to blackmail them -- creating a security risk. Right now, I doubt we have ANY security, because every one of these rat bastards in power has a rap sheet held by some corporation, or some Karl Rove pulling the strings.

China doesn't hurt their investment. The Saudis don't hurt their investment. We survive now, not because our tanks and bombs protect us -- but because everybody is enjoying the easy access to our halls of power -- except of course the American Public because we don't have any Polaroids.

>> A lot of you folks are going to be really embarrassed one day, about your excuses and apologies for these horrible acts. I hope that day is soon.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by jfj123

 

Having been to Afghanistan your approach to capture osama would be a joke.There are thousands of caves in the area cant bomb them all.The only way we ever found any locations in those mountains was thou intel. And guess were that intel came from only 2 sources snitches and interrogations of captured insurgents, And i dont think they said please tell us were you guys are hiding. Look ill give you this brand new 360 still in the box. You people are a joke you want your families to be safe from radicals willing to kill you without losing any sleep. But when push comes to shove youll lay down and die.

And yet we don't have Osama. Which wouldn't justify stooping lower than him. GETTING a criminal, like Osama, who MIGHT have killed more people than a Pharmaceutical company that covers up its bad drugs (about 30,000 Americans die from this a year), isn't as important as doing the right thing.

We justified every criticism Osama and his ilk had towards the US. Why should anyone care that Osama attacked the USA -- why couldn't he just say it was retaliation for what we have done around the world, or that it was pre-emptive? I mean, the rest of the world kind of lost any appreciation for those poor souls on 9/11.

"And guess were that intel came from only 2 sources snitches and interrogations of captured insurgents"
>> The intel that didn't work.
You know what would have worked? Not hiring mercenaries and telling our special forces to stand down when we had Osama cornered. The Afghannis that has him surrounded, were bribed and he walked into Pakistan.

How many people have to get tortured because Bush put some idiots in command? The Deicder really made a bone-headed decision that day, should that require 1 or 2,000 tortures to set things right? If, as I believe, OBL was already assasinated in December of 2001 -- why are we still on this journey? The amazingly improbably series of events that allowed 19 Arabs with box cutters to penetrate our airspace and take down steel buildings in pancake collapse would require;
1) Norad to stand down, or get really f-ing confused with 5 drills conscerning terrorists flying airplanes.
2) The CIA to issue more passports to known terrorists like they did at the Embassy in Saudi Arabia where most of the bad guys came from.
3) Steel sky-scrapers that somehow withstood a fire (two weeks before the North Tower was open to the public) and a huge detonation in the parking garage that destroyed 3 floors, that are strangely susceptible to fire due to shoddy construction.
4) Another President, and Security personnel to ignore 72 warnings.
5) Not having any fighter jets available to track down planes. Apparently, nobody thought that Russia might send bombers one day either.
You know, I could go on. There was a lot of incredible things that failed. Osama must have had some higher power on his side to have accomplished so much with Box Cutters.

Having dealt with these terrorists watching them do things such as send a car bomb in the middle of a mosque just to show the afgans the price for removing the taliban. Went into a village not to far from Kandahar alqueda came thou about a month after we helped them dig a well. We handed out dolls and candy to the kids blankets to the adults. When al Queda visited any body who had anything from the soldiers was killed. Ever seen a 5 year old girl shot throu the head because she had a teddy bear?

Oooh, There are bad guys. When we founded this nation, when we dealt with Nazis in WW II, when we had the cold war -- apparently these were all school kids. Bush and his daddy before him, have sanctioned the slaughters of innocents. The CIA had an entire floor in Chile dedicated to helping them wipe out dissenters in gruesome ways. Sure, Al Qaeda bad. But I think you mean the Taliban. No matter, as soon as we leave, the country will revert to all those bad ways of life. Your point about us getting tough, is supposed to impress a guy who just shot a little girl? What would be left of our soldiers if they had to be "tougher than that?" How far should we go? The only way we can win is to be better than the bad guys.

The other problem is that we didn't have enough troops in Afghanistan -- we needed ALL of them that got sent to Iraq, so that when we leave off our Teddy Bears, someone is in the streets to look out for that little girl. 1 in 25 people needs to be an occupying force -- less than that, and when you leave to go to the fortress, the bad guys come back and retake the streets and punish anyone who cooperated with you. THEY are always there and THEY are going to go lower than you ever want to go.

The only alternative to a large presence, complete control, and building up as much infrastructure as possible is to just carpet bomb the place and put up a parking lot. Who do you liberate then?

These people only have one belief and that is convert the world to the Muslim religion and are willing to go as far as they have to in order to further there goals. I was idealistic once but after seeing what were up against im concerned. As far as torture there version of torture was just in humane one tribal leader had his eyes burned out with a hot poker for accepting US govt money. All i have to say is we need this country to toughen up or god help us all.

Whatever. Every damn war America has been in -- we hear about how horrible the other side is. If it's not Muslims, its the Russians, if it's not the Russians, its that BS that the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter said about Saddam's troops. The Muslims are many and have some primitive throw-backs to a tribal era. Shoot one, and you have 50 cousins who need to shoot 3 of your people. The solution the Bushies and NeoCons have given us, is to be ChristoFascists. How do the Christo-fascists get converts and power? By scaring everyone about Muslims. How do Muslims get converts and power? By showing pictures from abuse at Abu Ghraib.

These nuts don't get much traction where there is prosperity and a lack of fear.

We don't need this "toughness" that turns us into thugs and criminals in the world.

Originally posted by benoni
In the 80's, during my 2 years military conscription, I briefly saw and then heard a man being tortured...his screams, whilst no longer haunting me, remain vividly in my mind.

I dont care whether youve served your country which gives you (you believe...)automatic superiority in this debate or not...

To here a grown man scream in a way youve never heard before changed me instantly...

I do not know what became of the man, nor his "crime", but his suffering I have shared with you so that it may shed just a little light on mankinds cruelty to one another...

A lot of the pro torture camp on this thread seem to be coming from some moral high ground....wheras I believe anyone who inflicts pain and suffering, regardless of the circumstances, deserves to feel the full weight of the law... afterall they are WAR CRIMES.

I think most of the tough guys who like war, never had to really deal with the nasty stuff. Just enough hassle to think they could bear it.

I don't think most human beings are mentally designed to kill and torture -- it takes a lot of screwing with someone's head to accept it.

I don't want to impugn some of the heroic sounding people -- but some of this "they are really bad -- we need to be tough" arguments, sound like what a Candy ass blogger for Bush might put in a blog, to try to convince everybody that torture has some magic that is going to impress the bad guys. I guess you can read my other posts for that opinion.

And the rationale is always based upon the super bad guy with some secret that could destroy or save lives -- not the Taxi cab driver who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

>> Even if it were Osama Bin Laden,... imagine how his followers would change their minds if we treated him fairly and with dignity and put him at a fair trial. Imagine if he were cleared of charges?

Osama didn't do a dang thing to Democracy -- it's the people who don't understand the power of Liberty that hurt our country. They don't understand how powerful it is to believe in a noble country, with enough power to crush you, but enough compassion to not. A country that can impeach a corrupt president, or defend a taxi cab driver from a powerful corporation.

Unfortunately, that isn't us anymore.

Some of the comments here sicken me, and don't remind me of the people who were my dads generation.

Originally posted by Styki

Another thing that bothers me is that people automatically assume that everyone receives this "torture". This is just simply not true.

This is very true. However, my concern if someone can make a case for doing it to one person, how far are they away from doing it to others for other reasons. It's a slippery slope.

If somebody was going to inflict harm upon anybody posting here I would do whatever is necessary to stop that from happening. This action would first come with the knowledge that I would be able to stop a certain even from happening. I would also like to say that as soon as I got the information needed to stop this certain event from happening then mission accomplished. I would have no joy in doing this. In fact I hate to see people in pain but if I knew that's is what would stop others from facing pain then what needs to be down would be done. I would be that bad guy for the greater good.

The thing I think we're all missing here is we are assuming that torture is an effective means of obtaining intelligence and it is not. Even those in the US government who have done it, have said it is not.

People who have served do not have an I win card to pull out.

I completely agree. In fact, I've known a lot of soldiers and the vast majority of them are not like that.

People can say whatever they like. In my honest opinion everyone living 1st world country is living in an unrealistic bubble. At what point in American history did we start to live the moral high ground? I am not saying that the moral high ground is bad but that is certainly not how we got to where we are today. We stole our land, used slave labor and bombed cities to the ground. That's the truth in case some of you have forgotten. The moral high ground is the right way but for everyone who is in for a rude awakening I fear the day our bubble bursts.

Everyone cultures past is rooted in violence but it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean we should stay there. We should always strive to be better then we are. Certainly you're not suggesting we return to the days of slavery, the salem witch trials, the inquisitions, etc... ??

Originally posted by jd140


We can say that we will not torture anymore, thats fine. But we cannot prosecute the last administration alone. If we are going to open this can of worms then we should prosecute everyone that has ever been involved in torture.

If they dig back far enough that would include every living President and their administration.

I promise W is not the only living President who has okayed the use of torture.

So are you suggesting, as an analogy,
If we don't prosecute a murderer from 100 years ago, we shouldn't prosecute any murderers today?

Honestly, any administration officials, past, present and future who have committed war crimes, should be prosecuted.

bush and cheney have a long list of crimes to answer for and torture is just one of them. Frankly, I think they should be responsible for every US soldiers death in Iraq.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by jfj123

 

Having been to Afghanistan your approach to capture osama would be a joke.There are thousands of caves in the area cant bomb them all.

My bad so instead lets just leave them alone and send our special forces in a few at a time to be picked off.

I realize we can't bomb every single cave but we should could have tried.

The only way we ever found any locations in those mountains was thou intel. And guess were that intel came from only 2 sources snitches and interrogations of captured insurgents,

Actually most insurgents talked with simple interviews.

Look ill give you this brand new 360 still in the box. You people are a joke you want your families to be safe from radicals willing to kill you without losing any sleep. But when push comes to shove youll lay down and die.

It's sad that you can't discuss this without personal insults.
Since you have no idea who I am, anything you say about me is meaningless. How many times do I need to post that those people in the US government involved in torture have said themselves that it was not an effective means of obtaining information. So for you to disagree with these people, you must think you know more then those people who were involved in the interrogations themselves.

Having dealt with these terrorists watching them do things such as send a car bomb in the middle of a mosque just to show the afgans the price for removing the taliban.

So torturing people will stop that?

Went into a village not to far from Kandahar alqueda came thou about a month after we helped them dig a well. We handed out dolls and candy to the kids blankets to the adults. When al Queda visited any body who had anything from the soldiers was killed. Ever seen a 5 year old girl shot throu the head because she had a teddy bear?

This is an example of the problem with the military planning out there. US soldiers are stuck with military planners who simply don't understand their enemy.
If you had told me ahead of time what you were going to do, go into a village and do as you mentioned, I would have explained it was pointless unless you can protect that village indefinitely. I understand that but your superiors (use that term loosely) don't get it or don't care.

These people only have one belief and that is convert the world to the Muslim religion and are willing to go as far as they have to in order to further there goals.

Very true. Also they are a minority in the muslim world. That's why we call them muslim extremists.

I was idealistic once but after seeing what were up against im concerned. As far as torture there version of torture was just in humane one tribal leader had his eyes burned out with a hot poker for accepting US govt money. All i have to say is we need this country to toughen up or god help us all.

When that person had his eyes burned out, did he talk and give intel?

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by jd140


We can say that we will not torture anymore, thats fine. But we cannot prosecute the last administration alone. If we are going to open this can of worms then we should prosecute everyone that has ever been involved in torture.

If they dig back far enough that would include every living President and their administration.

I promise W is not the only living President who has okayed the use of torture.

So are you suggesting, as an analogy,
If we don't prosecute a murderer from 100 years ago, we shouldn't prosecute any murderers today?

Honestly, any administration officials, past, present and future who have committed war crimes, should be prosecuted.

bush and cheney have a long list of crimes to answer for and torture is just one of them. Frankly, I think they should be responsible for every US soldiers death in Iraq.

I'm simply asking why are we making a big deal about it now?

Why not 100 years ago?
Why not 50 years ago?
Why not 30 years ago?

This is the second time this little bit of my post has been quoted. Alone it looks like I make the arguement you accuse me of. All together I am asking what makes us better then what we have done?

Everyone is saying that we are better then that. I am asking when have we been better then that?

I'm starting to think it is brought on by the hatred people have for the last administration.

Originally posted by jd140

I'm simply asking why are we making a big deal about it now?

Why not 100 years ago?
Why not 50 years ago?
Why not 30 years ago?

This is the second time this little bit of my post has been quoted. Alone it looks like I make the arguement you accuse me of. All together I am asking what makes us better then what we have done?

Everyone is saying that we are better then that. I am asking when have we been better then that?

I'm starting to think it is brought on by the hatred people have for the last administration.

Dude, have you ever researched history? And I don't mean ANCIENT history or even 100 years ago. And your statement in your previous post about going after every president and their administration is silly. Um, they are dead. That is a ludicrous statement.

However, back to the answer of your question. Have your ever heard of the Geneva Convention? If not maybe you should take the time to research it and read it.

I really shouldn't say anymore on this since I'm not hear to teach you. You are set in your ways and I have seen your stance on this subject come through in many of your posts. It's not a big deal to you to inflict pain and suffering on other human beings. You think that it is justified. What about the people that were tortured when they had little to no evidence against them? The ones that produced NOTHING.

You see, there is valid research done on torture. People will SAY whatever they feel the people torturing them WANTS them to say just to make them stop. Period. The information gathered is tainted.

As for the report where some major incidents were averted by this information? Well, that's still to be seen. Those are statements being presented by the guilty parties (Cheney mainly). He is trying to cover his butt. Period. It was stated quite clearly last night by our president that all of the statements being made publicly by the past administration did not quite jive with what is found in the 'sealed' documents. Yeah, we have seen the public documents on this torture but not the classified ones. I would like to see them before making such a quick judgment.

reply to post by dariousg


Sure I have heard of the Geneva Convention. We signed it in 1882.

The treatment of soldiers part was added in 1929. I exaggerated the 100 year part of my comment. Sue me.

Excluding the first WW. We have broken the Geneva Convention in each war.

The question I asked and you completely ignored is.

Why are we only making a big deal about this now? Is it the extreme hatred alot of people have for the Bush Administration?

My opinion of the subject doesn't have anything to do with the subject. I honestly want to know why now.

Oh and I did not say we should try every President in history. If you bother to pay attention to what you read you will notice I said every living President and their administrations.

Before you try and make someone look stupid you should make sure you know what you are talking about. You could be the one who looks stupid.

I know I certainly violated the Geneva Conventions, willingly, knowingly, and purposefully.

I carried a cut-down Winchester Model 12, modified pump shotgun, and DIDN'T USE FULL METAL JACKET!

It worked, it was most efficient, and it was deadly.

Probably why the Germans in WWI raise so much hell over the Americans and their trench sweepers.

And to the yah-hoo that suggest soldiers who clamor for aggressive interrogation tactics, and then suggested that they kind of brushed up against doing the dirty stuff, that guy is full of crap.

Yeah. We probably violated the Geneva Conventions in every conflict. So what?

What the ignorant don't realize that there are no rules when it comes to the killing, which is not the subject of this thread.

There may be rules concerning captivity, but there's really no rules when a man is engaged in mortal combat.

You guys talk about battles, war, and such. Hell, war is nothing more than a series of individual mortal engagements.

You want to kill this SOB, and then the next one, and the next one until you've killed them all, or they've killed you.

War or battle is a cumulative term for individual mortal struggles.

After you've looked around and saw all the friends you lost, and then you see some prisoners, I can tell you that you won't have a lot of forgiveness, kindness, sense of fair play, or sense of legal obligations.

Too bad.

Just the way it is. And all the fairy armchair moralists, if they don't like it, can pucker up and french kiss my rosy red ******.

Originally posted by jd140

I'm simply asking why are we making a big deal about it now?

Why not 100 years ago?
Why not 50 years ago?
Why not 30 years ago?

Who cares.
Should we not prosecute murderers now because we didn't prosecute some back 100, 50, 30 years ago?
Should we allow slavery now since we once did?

This is the second time this little bit of my post has been quoted. Alone it looks like I make the arguement you accuse me of. All together I am asking what makes us better then what we have done?

Everyone is saying that we are better then that. I am asking when have we been better then that?

At one time, we allowed slavery. We decided that it wasn't morally correct, etc.. so we outlawed slavery. We became better then what we were.

Maybe NOW is the time for us to become better then we were. Throughout history, there have been pivotal moments where people have stood up and said no more or never again. Maybe this is one of those times.

I'm starting to think it is brought on by the hatred people have for the last administration.

We currently look down at the inquisitions, salem witch trials, etc.. for a reason and it has nothing to do with bush and darth cheney.

The fact is that torture has never been a reliable means of obtaining information. People can thump their chests all they want but it won't change fact. Those pro-torture clansmen have a hatred that they can quench only with the pain of another. They honestly don't seem to care whether or not the person being tortured is innocent or guilty as long as they look like the people they hate.

reply to post by jfj123


When you capture a house full of guys sitting around with a large weapons cache, it's not hard to figure out if they are terrorists. If you return fire on the battlefield, cause wounds and then humanly give medical treatment, it's not a far stretch to lump them in with terrorists. Most of the Gitmo crew were caught red-handed, fighting Americans, inside of the conflict zones. Those are the ones you go heavy on, they don't get due process. The prisoners who are there because they were ratted out, or have some circumstantial evidence against them should separated out and treated fairly.

reply to post by Redpillblues


your better off with pigs..they will get rid of the bones and all..

I agree, but they feel dogs are unclean too. We let the dogs get some scraps of suicide car-bomber a couple times. Hope the 72 virgins were sceeved out by the missing pieces and wouldn't touch them.

reply to post by smokingmonkey


The idea of being intercepted on his way to paradise, converted into a greasy, steamy pile of hog crap is not going to make momma proud, nor will it entice new recruits.

Originally posted by smokingmonkey
reply to post by jfj123

 

When you capture a house full of guys sitting around with a large weapons cache, it's not hard to figure out if they are terrorists.

Correct.

If you return fire on the battlefield, cause wounds and then humanly give medical treatment, it's not a far stretch to lump them in with terrorists.

Correct.

Most of the Gitmo crew were caught red-handed, fighting Americans, inside of the conflict zones.

Are you sure?

Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain.

420 were released without charges. It would be very surprising to release enemy soldiers without charging them with something.

Three have been convicted of various charges:

* David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.[12][13]
* Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.[14]
* Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).

So one guy was a driver.
and one guy made a video.

Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.

If they were terrorists, why would the release them? Obviously not to be nice as some were tortured. Seems kinda odd, doesn't it?
en.wikipedia.org...

Those are the ones you go heavy on, they don't get due process.

Sounds like a lot of these people that you're suggesting we go heavy on, are going to be released and not charged with a single crime.

The prisoners who are there because they were ratted out, or have some circumstantial evidence against them should separated out and treated fairly.

That's the problem though isn't it? They have tidbits of evidence that may suggest something or may not. In any case, they're being detained without any right to council to prove their innocence.

If they're guilty, let em rot but what about all those who are there who are completely innocent??