It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Before Political Parties, A Constitution, or Geneva Conventions....Washington said No Torture

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:27 PM
Before the Geneva Conventions, even before there was a Constitution or a Bill of Rights, George Washington himself stood against American soldiers torturing enemy soldiers.

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."

"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands."

I believe in taking the high road. Why? Because when you take the high road regarding an enemy soldier you show them your compassion. You show them that you value human life whether they be your adversary or not.

How does this help? Because the enemy soldiers who are brainwashed into thinking the enemy is a cruel, unjust, and inhumane one who wants nothing other than to kill you, treating them with just a little compassion proves that they have been taught wrong.

Think about it. These men and women and even children that we throw into these prisons have had it pounded into their thoughts that Americans want nothing more than to hurt them and even kill them. When we capture them and do that, we just proved that is our motive. But if we show that, even though we are in a war against them, we can treat them with respect and acknowledge them as a fellow human being they will see that they have been lied to. They might even be so inclined to help us out in the long run.

When the Americans captured German soldiers fighting for the British Empire, many of them wound up joining us and even stayed in America.

Could you imagine? Showing the enemy that we aren't a bunch of thugs and showing them how much better life is in America because we treat people and life with respect? We don't force you to do this or do that and brainwash you into hating. Could you imagine the enemy then deciding to fight for us?

Doing the opposite only creates even more enemies. If we take the high road, the enemy runs out of people that support their cause and they may even wind up fighting for us.

Now that is some good war logistics right there. How could we lose?

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:38 PM
i think the simple explenation for this is that, back before unadulterated political corruption, there were some human beings in office who had compassion for... other human beings. People were seen as people, and leaders were picked for their positive virtues towords man - weather it be friend or foe. George is still our nations greatest leader, though by no means perfect.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Kevin_X1]

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:08 PM
Those quotes had nothing to do with extracting information from a prisoner.

Obviously, they are concerned with how prisoners are generally treated, in a non-interrogation situation.

Your high road would have American families slaughtered for a politically correct, feel-good "Anti-Mean" ideal.

If it saves American civilian lives, go ahead and pour water in the faces of murdering animals.

Call it torture all you like, you can use that word to describe anything.

Posts like yours, for instance, can equally be referred to as torture.

See how easy that was?

Waterboarding does not cause injury, btw.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by DohBama

ummmm.... yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

torture sure is PROVEN to save alot of lies. you know, all the EVIDENCE and SOLID, TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION we receive from waterboarding sure does work in our favor.

if anything, we have waisted the lives of many individuals from other countries, and waisted our soldiers lives with the information gathered from torture

to say waterboarding causes no injusry is... wow. o my goodness some people. im sure you would disagree after a little dose. you would probably be so mentally broken you would need to be fed through a tube for the rest of your life. get real!

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by DohBama

I didn't realize not being a person who commits violence against another person was a political issue.

You can say that being nice cause American's to be put in more danger (though I don't agree with that) but doesn't lowering ourselves to the level of the enemy do the exact same thing?

You think the terrorists are successful in their recruiting little children because they are telling them how nice we are to them? No; it's because they are showing them pictures of beaten, bloodied, and naked prisoners.

Anytime someone mentions water boarding, it's just deflection. It's to deflect away from the actual atrocities that are being bestowed upon these prisoners.

No one mentions stripping prisoners naked and piling them on top of each other. No one mentions women guards smearing their menstrual blood on prisoners faces. Never mind the evidence of sodomy with foreign objects often resulting in internal injuries. Endless beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, stabbings, etc, etc, etc...

Let's just stick to discussing water boarding. We'll not mention the rest.

I suggest you read this findings report about the abuse at these facilities.

I hope I never have to meet anyone who can read these things and still defend them.

The point of my post is to discuss how abusing prisoners could possibly make for a winning strategy in this war. My question is, Do you think we'll win the war faster by showing compassion or by beating them senseless? Which do you believe gives the Taliban and Al Queda fuel to light the fire of hatred in the hearts of the vulnerable?

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
The US didn't torture then and it still doesn't today.

But God help you if you were deemed to be a spy. Washington raced them to the nearest tree and they were hung by the neck until dead. No trial, no were done.

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by RRconservative
The US didn't torture then and it still doesn't today.

But God help you if you were deemed to be a spy. Washington raced them to the nearest tree and they were hung by the neck until dead. No trial, no were done.

Beatings, sleep deprivation, sodomization, electric shocks, forced nakedness, sexual humiliation don't qualify as torture?

Even if you want to limit what the mainstream media admits is being done to the detainees--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced nakedness-- how can you still not call that torture?

Why do people only consider torture to be a scene from some movie like Hostel? That's extreme maniacal torture.

Torture is anguish of the body or the mind. Would you say that if someone stuck you in a room and refused to let you sleep for days on end, you wouldn't think you were being tortured? If someone stripped you naked and piled you on top of other naked people you would just consider that an inconvenience?

If someone strapped you down and forced water down your throat simulating that you were drowning (which I know by experience is a very unpleasant feeling) for several minutes, you would just think, "Hey I was thirsty anyway. Thanks guys!"?

If someone did these things to your friends and family thinking they had some information they wanted, you wouldn't worry about their well being or the long term effects on their mental state after being subjected to such things?

If you wouldn't, I don't think you're a person I would ever want to get to know better.

top topics


log in