The stuff coming out in the newspapers about the legal wrangling on what isn’t torture has me concerned for the future of our sailors, soldiers and marines. As a Navy retiree who had some training concerning treatment of prisoners (normal indoc stuff as well as SERE) I’m appalled that some civillian legal beagles are “approving” certain treatments of captives. As a country, we have screamed bloody murder about treatment of our military people in past and recent conflicts, yet we are looking for ways to do the same to others. We teach our troops that this is what could happen to you and what you should do to combat it and then we turn around and do the same. If we expect reasonable treatment of our guys/gals, then isn’t it reasonable to treat theirs the same? I know someone is going to say that we are dealing with terroists, jihadist et al and that we have to fight fire with fire. At the same time it is very difficult to take the high road when you are on that low road and just not admitting it. I know that our people have been harshly treated in conflicts of both the recent and the past, but I think, with the weasling going on in DC, that we are setting our inevitable captives up for even harsher treatment in future conflicts. And be there no doubt, there will be more conflicts in our future.
The regretable and abhorent incidents of mistreatment to Iraqi detainees recently highlighted in the media, and the ongoing incarceration of detainees at Guantanimo Bay are important issues that require urgent action.
Based on reports, Iraqi detainees subjected to alledged or apparent abuse by memebers of the U.S. military represent the break-down in chain of command and poor leadership structure in a limited number of units.
While this in no way diminshes the severity of these abhorent and regretable acts, it is critical to acknowledge this is not indicative of U.S. Military conduct.
Those directly responsible for these abuses have been swiftly brought to judgement. Penalties commensurate with their misconduct are being administered at this time, via due process in compliance with the Unifrom Code of Military Conduct.
These acts to not reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Military as a whole, nor the policies of the United States of America.
**These acts to not reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Military as a whole, nor the policies of the United States of America. **
The specific acts commited at Abu Ghraib might not represent the policies or practices of the US or the US military, but I think what the original post is referring to are the legal arguments recently produced by the government arguing that the president has, in fact, the power to use torture.
Agree, but now there are reports in the paper that lawyers in the pentagon and other departments are looking at the genva convention and weasling. Does that mean some people are going to be scape goated because they aren’t at a high enough pay grade? Punish the guilty, but make sure it is all the guilty (all the way to the top of the CoC if need be) and with no excuses.
Agree, but now there are reports in the paper that lawyers in the pentagon and other departments are looking at the genva convention and weasling. Does that mean some people are going to be scape goated because they aren’t at a high enough pay grade? Punish the guilty, but make sure it is all the guilty (all the way to the top of the CoC if need be) and with no excuses.
Larry
I can understand the concern you have for those who continue to wear the uniform. This whole situation seems to be a group of people not trained to do interrogations “effing” around with prisoners when they shouldn’t have been, and doing so in front of a camera. Pretty stupid. However, interrogations like this probably go on all the time by those in and out of military uniform who are trained to do it, they just aren’t on film. So what’s the difference? Do we allow it at all? Do we allow it as long as we don’t have to see/deal with it in the public eye?
I’ll tell you what my biggest concern is: the continually greying line between military personnel and civilian contractors in combat areas.
First, thank you for your service. I would agree that it is a nice thought that we should be above all of this and my idealistic side wants it to be that way. I really do. I believe that how we treat them makes no difference other than protecting the ideals of America, that it has no bearing on how our people will be treated.
First I think there is a distinction between detaining the average Iraqi and those who are terrorists (al queda). I think the treatment in Iraq was embarassing because I think they knew that most of them didn’t know anything about what is going on, or very little anyway. Most of what I saw didn’t have much to do with interrogations but more amusement for the perpitrators. On the other hand, I think that terrorists are all animals and have proven that with the acts the have already carried out prior to any of the stories coming out of Iraq and they don’t need any justification.
“If we expect reasonable treatment of our guys/gals, then isn’t it reasonable to treat theirs the same?” I think your logic is faulty. I think we can “expect” all we want and we could put them up at the Ritz and they would still cut off heads.
I think that it is important for us not to abuse people just because we have them in custody or because our troops are frustrated, but if we are dealing with people who we believe have information about pending attacks then we need to be able to employ the tactics necessary to encourage that discussion. If redifining the rules is what it takes to avoid 9/11 or even an attack on someones son in Iraq then we need to do that.
I can understand the concern you have for those who continue to wear the uniform. This whole situation seems to be a group of people not trained to do interrogations “effing” around with prisoners when they shouldn’t have been, and doing so in front of a camera. Again, I don’t think the original post was in reference to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but the adminstration’s efforts to adopt the use of torture as official policy.
I’ll tell you what my biggest concern is: the continually greying line between military personnel and civilian contractors in combat areas. That is a worrisome thing. I really wonder why it isn’t getting more attention.
I can understand the concern you have for those who continue to wear the uniform. This whole situation seems to be a group of people not trained to do interrogations “effing” around with prisoners when they shouldn’t have been, and doing so in front of a camera. Again, I don’t think the original post was in reference to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but the adminstration’s efforts to adopt the use of torture as official policy.
Yes. That is true. My point was the use of torture is an official policy, it just doesn’t make the news until some fools screw around in front of a digital camera. And my question was: what is the difference? Should there be a difference?
I believe that how we treat them makes no difference other than protecting the ideals of America, that it has no bearing on how our people will be treated. In some cases, that’s true. The reason we shouldn’t torture our enemies isn’t because it will keep them from torturing us, because it often won’t. It’s that torture is barbaric and wrong.
but if we are dealing with people who we believe have information about pending attacks then we need to be able to employ the tactics necessary to encourage that discussion. If redifining the rules is what it takes to avoid 9/11 or even an attack on someones son in Iraq then we need to do that. So you’re saying that the end justifies the means?
And my question was: what is the difference? There is a huge difference between a group of degenerate thugs in uniform abusing prisoners in defiance of military policy and adopting the use of torture as official government policy. A huge difference.
And my question was: what is the difference? There is a huge difference between a group of degenerate thugs in uniform abusing prisoners in defiance of military policy and adopting the use of torture as official government policy. A huge difference.
no. no. no…
"However, interrogations like this probably go on all the time by those in and out of military uniform who are trained to do it, they just aren’t on film. So what’s the difference? Do we allow it at all? Do we allow it as long as we don’t have to see/deal with it in the public eye? "
That’s what i had said. You don’t think governement agencies use torture? It IS official policy. It just “isn’t” when the wrong people get caught using it. So, again, what is the difference?
I believe that how we treat them makes no difference other than protecting the ideals of America, that it has no bearing on how our people will be treated. In some cases, that’s true. The reason we shouldn’t torture our enemies isn’t because it will keep them from torturing us, because it often won’t. It’s that torture is barbaric and wrong.
but if we are dealing with people who we believe have information about pending attacks then we need to be able to employ the tactics necessary to encourage that discussion. If redifining the rules is what it takes to avoid 9/11 or even an attack on someones son in Iraq then we need to do that. So you’re saying that the end justifies the means?
I see your point about not using torture because it is barbaric, and I think that pre 9/11 I would have agreed with you and if we were fighting a state I would agree with you, but regarding terrorist intent on detroying that which is not Muslim, I don’t apply the same standard
As to the second point, in short, yes. If we could have avoided those 3000 deaths of 9/11 by using “torture” tactics then I would been all for it. Letting those people die because we want to hold a higher ground seems silly to me. I understand this is a fine line and a scary place to be, but I feel like we are fighting a war every bit as important as defeating Nazi’s or communism and in many respects worse. These people don’t understand diplomacy, debate, compromise or anything but overwhelming force.
Why is it Ok to blow up our enemies with missles fired from aircraft or ships, but not Ok to torture them?
The Geneva Convention and the Laws of Armed Conflict.
Why is it Ok to blow up our enemies with missles fired from aircraft or ships, but not Ok to torture them? Is your next question about why is it OK to kill enemy soldiers, but not enemy civilians?
Assuming the war is justified, it’s OK to blow up our enemies with missiles because that’s the nature of modern combat- we’re blowing up enemy combatants, in this case. If you’re able to torture someone, he is obviously no longer a combatant, he’s a prisoner. You have a duty to treat prisoners humanely.
I can understand the concern you have for those who continue to wear the uniform. This whole situation seems to be a group of people not trained to do interrogations “effing” around with prisoners when they shouldn’t have been, and doing so in front of a camera. Pretty stupid. However, “interrogations like this probably go on all the time by those in and out of military uniform who are trained to do it, they just aren’t on film. So what’s the difference? Do we allow it at all? Do we allow it as long as we don’t have to see/deal with it in the public eye?”
#1 don’t do it at all #2 if you do, you don’t do it in the public eye and #3 don’t do it because you find a legal loop hole.
“I’ll tell you what my biggest concern is: the continually greying line between military personnel and civilian contractors in combat areas.”
Agree; so we pay more for contractor with no accountability than for a military individual that has total accountability. Tax payer $$$ hard at work.
I can understand the concern you have for those who continue to wear the uniform. This whole situation seems to be a group of people not trained to do interrogations “effing” around with prisoners when they shouldn’t have been, and doing so in front of a camera. Pretty stupid. However, “interrogations like this probably go on all the time by those in and out of military uniform who are trained to do it, they just aren’t on film. So what’s the difference? Do we allow it at all? Do we allow it as long as we don’t have to see/deal with it in the public eye?”
#1 don’t do it at all #2 if you do, you don’t do it in the public eye and #3 don’t do it because you find a legal loop hole.
“I’ll tell you what my biggest concern is: the continually greying line between military personnel and civilian contractors in combat areas.”
Agree; so we pay more for contractor with no accountability than for a military individual that has total accountability. Tax payer $$$ hard at work.
ahh. See #2 is what I was getting at. If it isn’t in the public eye, then is it ok?
As far as the civilian contractors go. Yes, it is accountability, and chain of command issues that I concern me. Besides, you can make a young troop work 24/7. But, as those of us who were in the service know, contractors live a gravy life. I still don’t see how they save the military money (with some few exceptions relating to very technical fields).
That’s what i had said. You don’t think governement agencies use torture? It IS official policy. It just “isn’t” when the wrong people get caught using it. So, again, what is the difference?
I don’t think I’m following you. Are you saying that the sort of abuses at Abu Ghraib go on all the time, but most don’t get caught? Or are you saying that torture is, in fact, already *official *policy?
If the former, then we should work harder to find and prosecute the abusers. I grant that we won’t ever find or know about all of them.
If the latter, the official policies you’re talking about are not only secret, but illegal, and we should hope that they are exposed and those responsible for implementing them held accountable.