If we condone torturing those we capture, are we putting our own troops in danger of being tortured

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ca4eba92097.jpg[/atsimg]
This is a topic I am a bit on the fence with.
Although I do not condone torture as a viable method for retrieving or gaining information from detainees, in the modern world torture is a vastly broader act then it was years earlier.
During the middle ages different types of torture was used to extract confessions or to obtain the names of accomplices or other information about a crime, depending on the accused's crime and social status. Mainly these were all still physical in nature inflicting pain or bodily harm in conjunction with some device.
This continued for centuries but in more recent years seems to be switching to the use of psychological torture alone or in combination with physical methods.
Now this is where it gets grey for me. Making a prisoner listen to objectionable music all day long or as in Saddam Hussein's case they put a tv with the South Park movie he appeared in and let this repeat for days. This in itself fits the definition of torture but is much milder then say being put in an iron maiden. Some at Guantanamo Bay were allegedly told there families were going to be killed or were killed to make them talk. Isolating prisoners from everything, including sunlight and anything that makes us feel human, were also allegedly used. I have less of a problem with these situations then say water boarding, burning or being fed rotten food after not eating for days.
Where do you draw the line?
So in essence, I guess I do condone certain types of torture. But to answer the title of this post correctly, I would have to also say yes, it does put our troops in danger of the same treatment. This is why I would not acknowledge the use of such techniques publicly, which is what our government has done in the past when faced with certain questions. Inciting lots of public unrest when found not true!
Where do you all stand on this topic?

There is a time and place for it. If an individual holds key information that would mean thousands of people injured or killed then by all means, do whatever it takes. It is a judgement call and a case by case basis. I do not particularly care for it, but if it means sacrificing one for many, I am ok with it, sometimes it is a necessary evil.

I do not think it would put troops in any more danger than what they already face, plus there are a good many that say they will not be captured and would turn their firearm on their self if being captured was a certainty.Some are even tortured as part of their training.

reply to post by AnteBellum

You are LIGHT BRIGHT Amazing!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb17c519abe1.gif[/atsimg]

I think it is vital-since I am on the side being currently attacked. The whole arguement of personal freedom and rights goes out the window for emeny combatants and Non-US citizens.

As I see, from what we can see with our own eyes-as presented by media and amatures photographers/reporters in the areas of interest is that the "Extremist Muslims" are far more dedicated to the cause at hand.

They just don't have the means readily available for them to carry out their wishes.

The US and West on the other hand have the means to unleash HELL on everyone of those countries that harbor terrorist but we/they don't. They sit back-mostly and wait to be attacked again.

Maybe the next attack they get on the USA will be so horrific that it will final convince everyone that the gloves needs to come off and a world wide smack down needs to take place. Twice as brutal as they are to us.

It is the only way you/we will win-with the least amount of losses. Of course, my opinions only. Yours?

Anyway, waterboard & More-away!!!! get that intel we need to end this war(s). End of story.

I feel that regardless of the choices our/your government makes on this topic, other Governments/Military forces are going to have their own policies and deal with their prisoners with their own means. I don't really think they are going to make that decision based on what someone else does, unless of course as a retalliation.

No, your putting YOURSELF at risk of being tortured.

reply to post by AnteBellum


Yes. We are. Not only are we condoning by our actions our own soldiers being tortured if the tables are turned, but we are exposing them to torture as "revenge" as well.

Of course NOT torturing is no guarantee that our own men and women will not be tortured.

Its a classic "prisoners dilemma," where your best course of action would be for you both to agree NOT to do a thing, but because of human nature, people rarely do agree (or should I say HOLD to their agreement.)

What normally happens is that one side defaults on the agreement trying to get a better outcome for themselves, and what ends up happening when they do is that BOTH sides end up with the less than optimal outcome.

The idea that torture should be okay IF the stakes are high enough completely over looks WHY the stakes are high in the first place. Its superficial thinking to say "its ok for the US to do it if it saves American lives" when they overlook that the same people doing the torturing to "save lives" are the people whose actions and greed put those lives in danger in the first place.

By torturing prisoners we would only become what we are fighting against, there are more humane ways to get information from people

Originally posted by Traydor
there are more humane ways to get information from people

What would they be?

Pretty please, with sugar on top, tell us.

Hell, my kids do not fall for that when I am trying to find out who left the milk sitting on the counter.

reply to post by AnteBellum


i thought torture was illegal under the geneva convention correct me if i am wrong. if you are refering to the arab or muslim states then thats different because they will just behead prisoners without hesitation. torture has never been a reliable way of obtaining information as people will say anything under torture. i liked the way the russians used to obtain information, they used sexy women to seduce politicians who squeel like pigs when they applied their trade lol.

reply to post by gazzachel


I believe this is in effect now:

United Nations Convention Against Torture

reply to post by gazzachel


If I recall correctly, the Geneva Convention applies to civilians of the countries involved in a war and the military members in uniform of the countries in conflict. When you cross groups such as Al-Qaeda, they do not fight under a sovereignty of a nation, and they do not wear a uniform or necessarily claim allegiance to any country. So following the Geneva Convention in this case is hard to do because it does not really address this issue of people not belonging to a country or fighting under a flag.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by gazzachel

 

If I recall correctly, the Geneva Convention applies to civilians of the countries involved in a war and the military members in uniform of the countries in conflict. When you cross groups such as Al-Qaeda, they do not fight under a sovereignty of a nation, and they do not wear a uniform or necessarily claim allegiance to any country.

Which is why we created the label "al Quaeda" and "terrorists." So we can ignore that in many cases they are citizens of a nation fighting for that nation. The need for uniforms is merely a way to say that the tyrants in charge have more "right" to fight for their best interests than a people do.

In other words, it ensures that revolutionaries and the unwashed masses who may rise up are not offered the same protections a dictator/king/predisdent's paid and uniformed forces are. That requirement is merely an argreement among the powerful to recognize one anothers right to suppress their own countrymen.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Which is why we created the label "al Quaeda" and "terrorists." So we can ignore that in many cases they are citizens of a nation fighting for that nation. The need for uniforms is merely a way to say that the tyrants in charge have more "right" to fight for their best interests than a people do.

In other words, it ensures that revolutionaries and the unwashed masses who may rise up are not offered the same protections a dictator/king/predisdent's paid and uniformed forces are. That requirement is merely an argreement among the powerful to recognize one anothers right to suppress their own countrymen.

I was not aware that WE created the label al-Quaeda, my impression was that OBL created that. The reason it applies to the people in uniform, whether right or wrong, it adds significance that the individual was fighting for their country and the beliefs thereof, or simply taking orders from a superior who otherwise may or may not be contested. And it provides the ability to make formal charges against those in charge in the respective country, but with al-Quaeda, they do what they want, when they want, without any regard to any convention. There is no possible way to hold al-Quaeda responsible for anything in lets say war crimes in any court of law. Their system totally negates any laws or conventions as they completely ignore it.

Speaking from experience of someone who has served over in the big ol sand box multiple times......

You guys are all forgetting one thing.......

The people we are fighting dont follow sanction ROE..........they follow their own rules

our soldiers do get tortured and they do get killed, beheaded, drug through the streets etc etc etc, and theyve proved it time and time again..........

The US and other Coalition forces are the only ones in any of these wars who are actually even REMOTELY following this idea of "non torture"

There is a time for restraint, and theres a time to let loose the dogs of war........

Our enemies arent beholden to any of the rules that we must follow.............remember that.......

Simply no.
The enemy would torture no matter what.
Regardless if we politely slapped the captured enemy with a feather, while providing meals from the home land and reruns of I Love Lucy, they would still despise the US and torture our captured soldiers/reporters/PMCs/citizens.

i think the saying
"treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves"

violence doesn't solve violence,it only leads to extinction of species,and all those in this thread,saying yeah..lets throw a smack down on the world,have clearly never been to war,or been in intense situations,were you are convinced you about to die or are dead..

as you wouldn't be saying lets go to war..or torture prisoners for information,because as someone already stated,torture wont get credible information....but it will get confessions...

you have to remember its not just soldiers who are taken away and tortured for information,its anyone thats suspected of being a terrorist,or whoever is deem a threat...

one day,some big men in the middle of the night,may take you away,and torture you,for information,it may be just simple misidentification,there a good reason there are international policies in place about torture,weather they are implemented or not..its sending out the message,we are not a barbaric species.

Originally posted by AnteBellum


Now this is where it gets grey for me. Making a prisoner listen to objectionable music all day long or as in Saddam Hussein's case they put a tv with the South Park movie he appeared in and let this repeat for days.

Looking forward to a South Park episode with Osama meeting up with Hussein in hell. This has got to be in the works!

I don't think the US should be torturing and, yes, it could put our troops in danger of retaliatory torture. However, being tortured and living to tell about it is a damn sight better than getting beheaded or other such middle eastern jihadist tactics.

Originally posted by Aggie Man However, being tortured and living to tell about it is a damn sight better than getting beheaded or other such middle eastern jihadist tactics.

Well, not really because as is proven time and time again in all Resistance to Interrogation training, regardless of how much an elite, hard as woodpecker lips an operative you think you are - you will break... It may take time but you will break; your cover story can only buy time. Eventually, everyone will talk if there is no limit to what they think the interrogator can do.

However, now our enemies know what we can do and threats of torture - the laying out of tools, implements etc. won't even work because they know it's a bluff. Thanks Barry!

It’s not so much the torture or the enhanced methods being used as the threats and possibility of their use that can motivate a subject to talk. Why do you think we have to take them to black sites now? I assure you they don't make threats - they were better off with us in charge rather than our "contractors".

You will talk and likely people, people you know may die as a result.

Best to have the ultimate RTI plan in place when it comes to severely wounded comrades when conducting clandestine or covert operations especially. Also, remember to save one round for yourself.

I've been to SERE school that was bad enough and it was training and we all knew it yet hard men cried at night in their cells in training. No friggin way was I ever or am I ever going to be anyone's prisoner. No thanks!