If waterboarding is so harmless, why isn't it in the Army Field Manual?

john, go watch GI Jane............

If defending your civilization is so trivial that having your sensitivities offended takes precedence and becomes your paramount concern why don't you just convert to Islam and be done with it?

Let the water flow!

Lets re-name water boarding "The cleansing of the terrorist's soul." I am sure that would make the $#1t stains feel much better about themselves than that 72 virgin thing. Maybe it is the thought of clean water that scares them so bad

Rob, that would DEFINITELY be a war crime. Trying to convert them from Islam via the method of Baptism? We'd never hear the end of it.

RG

War is not pleasant , but somehow the left seems to think it can be waged with kid gloves and hands tied behind the back.

The Islamic terrorists started the war on the West , and now the West is being forced , in a politically correct environment, dominated by the left , to confront some very awkward issues such as torture.

Anyone who has read WW2 history knows the absolute carnage that occurred. If young Kadr who is now lounging in Gitmo had been a WW2 combatant he would have been buried where he was wounded , and not treated as some sort of bizarre mistreated "hero" by the left.

One example of WW2 is Iwo Jima with some 26000 marines casualties (6,891 killed and 18,700 wounded), and most of the 21000 Japanese were killed. The scale of the casualties eventually led the US to use the atomic bomb.

Even today the left attempts to paint this as a form of US genocide , while ignoring the fact that the Japanese military was planning to use the entire Japanese civilian population as a from a mass-kamikaze which would have resulted in millions of dead.

My point being ... if you start a war or a proxy war don't expect to be treated kindly ... Al Qaeda , Iran , Taliban etc.

I believe the proxy war on Israel driven by Iran will explode soon , because eventually Israel will be forced to make a survival decision regarding Iran.

Can't agree. Waterboarding is torture, if wikipedia is anything to go by...

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]

Now I agree, the occasional waterboarding does not make the U.S. morally equivalent to the Taliban. But it's not good either.

So the question is, should any government, at any time, allow waterboarding? How about if you were Jack Bauer and a nuclear device is about to go off and your prisoner knows where it is but won't say?

The morality and legality of torture, or if you prefer, outrages upon human dignity, is well established. Such actions are illegal in our society. Today they torture a suspected terrorist, and I do not object, because I am not a terrorist, and so forth.

We have a right to the integrity of our persons, no less than the right to our free speech. These rights are called rights because they cannot be taken away or violated by those in authority, for any reason. If we allow torture on them then eventually it will be used upon us.

I support the war in Afganistan, as a just war for a good cause. The rule of law says we hand over our prisoners to the nation in which we operate. Done, so be it. If, on the other hand, Canadian soldiers torture a prisoner, then they have committed a crime and justice will be done.

A standard directive that could be issued before an op is, "Prisoners are not required." The PPCLI will cheerfully ensure that no prisoners are taken. Shooting a combatant to ensure that he stays down and doesn't try to bring a weapon to bear as you over-run a position is not the same as torturing the helpless.

We will win in Afganistan. In fact, we have already won. We need to finish the job, without giving up what makes us Canadian.

Hypothetical questions about the ticking bomb are ridiculous. Personally, I would torture the victim, get the data, and then turn myself in to be prosecuted for torture. I certainly would not attempt to defend myself with the pitiful statement that the end justifies the means.

How many times must people learn that the end does not justify the means?

"Perhaps that's the true legacy of Vietnam and to an extent, WW2 - the notion that one can lose a war and still go home again. After all, Germany, Italy, and Japan still claim spots on the map. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake on our part."

Yeah, a little genocide sure would have taught 'em.

Idiot.

"How about if you were Jack Bauer and a nuclear device is about to go off and your prisoner knows where it is but won't say?"

Our moral superiority dictates the "one" persons rights trumps the thousands or millions. After all it's just hearsay and war mongering over any debate until the event actually takes place isn't it? Only a right wing nut would pose a question like that in the first place.

/heh.

How many times must people learn that the end does not justify the means?

Depends on what the "end" is...and you damn well know it. Neither you nor I have any idea how many lives have been saved or how many 9/11 wannabes have been stopped by such means.

I take no shame is saying that, if some water-boarding would have resulted in us getting the intel to prevent the 9/11 plot, I would gladly have held the bucket or hose. If you don't think that that is a case where the end justifies the means, you are sick.

The kind of torture that Kate alludes to in her post is exactly what used to go on in places like Abu Gharib - before the US was there performing "torture" tactics such as putting women's underwear on prisoners' heads. In those times, the "end" was nothing more than ensuring that a bunch of sadistic freaks got their jollies. Big difference.

"Yeah, a little genocide sure would have taught 'em."

There's that leftist methodology again. In this case, the suggested loss of political nationhood as the consequence of launching a war of agression becomes the equivalent of "genocide". Strawman snark is so much easier than actually carving out an reasoned position.

There's an entire blogroll devoted to it, actually. They call themselves "progressives".

Then, in the next breath, this particular debating class will assert that the nation of Israel shouldn't exist, because the Jews were forced upon "Palestinian" land...

b_nichol:

Not "genocide" - just killing all of the fascists.

I don't even think liberals have come up with a pejorative like "fascistophobe" since they're not yet a PC-protected group. So, I assume that it is OK for me to promote "fascisticide."

90% of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were, by the USAs own admission, wrongly imprisoned.

They don't use torture as a means of interrogation; they use it as punishment, and to instill fear in their enemies.

Thousands of innocents tortured, for no good reason other than for them to go home to their families and tell them not to screw with the USA.

The Liberals will be back in power some day, and they will have scores to settle. As it stands, the RCMP and other police forces use tasers today in Canada as torture devices, even on handcuffed handicapped people, with the specific intent of intimidating and punishing citizens.

An Ottawa Police spokesperson was quoted in the news recently that their force doesn't keep statistics on Taser use because "we'd be writing ten reports a day". Ten taserings a day in dull Ottawa?

The Indian Posse, The Malvern Crew, The Crips; if society ever breaks down even for a few days these groups will take great pleasure in going on a torture spree, one that does not discriminate between sexes.

All of which to say if you think torture is such a great idea, wait until it happens to you.

"How many times must people learn that the end does not justify the means?"

Better just hope the enemy holds that same view.

Sounder:

Why would only a "right wing nut" only ask this question? I bet thousands of teachers and professors (many being left wing) have asked this question of their students.

It's a good question. It makes one think. To dismiss it out of hand suggests that you aren't really comfortable with that thinking thing.

Even in liberal democracies, the rights of one person definitely does not trump the rights of thousands or millions. At least not in practise in any country in the world - not when it gets down to brass tacks. That might be good or bad, but it's certainly the case.

90% of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were, by the USAs own admission, wrongly imprisoned

Yes...and name one that was killed or tortured.

They were threatened with torture, menaced with dogs, forced into sexually suggestive poses while naked, and forced to wear women's underwear on their heads.

All of which are acts that are reprehensible and brings shame to those who wear the uniform. But they are not acts that come even CLOSE to what used to go on at that prison before the US was there.

I think I'm stealing from Bill Whittle. But, try to imagine watching your daughter raped and disembowelled before you while your fingers are removed one by one with bolt-cutters. How long before you beg to be posed naked with a thong on your head? Yeah...I thought so.

You can't compare the two. And the fact that you think you can shows just how delussional you are.

william hughes - just a few questions.

You state that we have 'the right to the integrity of our persons'. Does a terrorist accept our right to this?

You say that this right can't be taken away or violated by the govt, but it can be, by a terrorist.

I don't see this war on Islamic fascism as a 'war to be won' in the traditional sense. What we are fighting, in my view, is a reaction (Islamic fascism) to the dysfunctional tribal states of the ME (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt..). The West bears absolutely no responsibility in this fight. Its origins, its causes are strictly within the economic/political/social structure of those ME states.

These ME states externalized the unrest within their own countries to the West, setting up the West as the False Cause. But the real cause is their own medieval political and economic tribal system, which denied power to their population and attempts to keep them as passive, submissive slaves. The tactics used are faith and fear; and fear and faith.

The Al Qaeda movt emerged as a reaction to this degenerate system, where the new found wealth of industrial oil devt simply set up the dominant tribe as billionaires..and kept the rest of the people as peasants. Instead of moving into a civic democratic mode and enabling a middle class, Al Qaeda's reaction was to revert to an even earlier history, the pre-industrial age of fundamentalist 'simplicity' and presumed purity.

It won't work. You can't reverse history. And the population is too large. And they like their cars and cellphones. You can't go back.

The fight is within the ME, between the fundamentalists who want isolate Purity; and the current corrupt tribal elite; and the mass of the population who want to have economic/political power.

But, as the inevitable occurs, aided and kicked along by the West who are doing all the sacrifice and work for the ME, of confronting the fundamentalists and enabling democracy...these people will become marginalized and move into the purely criminal zone of society.

That is, they'll rapidly lose their ideology and move into criminality as an economic lifestyle. I think we'll see more and more Islamic fascists engaged in purely criminal acts: kidnapping, hostage taking for money; art and jewellery theft; extortion..etc.

(Moral) relativism isn't my strong suit, either, Kate.

But, it's been able to thrive because when a vacuum is created--the Englightenment having largely sucked Western Civilization dry of the Christian faith it was built on--relativism, "'so sorry we've offended you, our bad, let us fall down dead and let you walk all over us," quickly fills in the moral/ethical hole that's been created.

Because relativism precludes personal responsibility and accountability, making it convenient to hide behind "collective guilt" and "the government" paying the penalty--meaning all of us, as we watch our tax dollars sucked into every socialist, relativist, leftist black hole the secular, humanist, relativists amongst us can create--it seems an easy way out for most people.

It's an easy way out, that is, UNLESS you can counter its moral vacuousness with another, more viable and productive, system. The fact that religious faith (i.e., Christianity) has taken such a hit--even on the part of otherwise open and intelligent individuals--is the West's Achilles Heel. We're going to be duped again and again by the "isms" if the moral/ethical/religious foundation upon which we're standing is simply another humanist philosophy.

One thing you'll notice about the men and women who went to war in 1939-1945 is that most of them, and their families, were adherents to the Christian faith. They understood that there is a greater good for which they would be willing to forfeit their lives--also the understanding of the West's leaders.

Fast forward to today: How many young men and women feel any obligation to a greater good or would even THINK to sacrifice their lives for it? We've lost an immeasureable weapon in the fight against darkness and evil.

And it's frustratingly difficult to get a discussion going about it, even on "conservative" blogs.

If the doctor misdiagnoses the malady, the patient grows increasingly more ill and eventually dies. Our blind spot today--or, our misdiagnosis of the malady of the Western World--is, IMO, our relegating the importance of religious faith to the attic of history.

"The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)." - Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 2745

Ok. So in their Islamic ideology, no Muslim should be punished for killing a kafir. This is well understood from the Hadiths and recognized through sharia.

And the leftists in the west are wringing their hands about what?

"There's that leftist methodology again. In this case, the suggested loss of political nationhood as the consequence of launching a war of agression becomes the equivalent of "genocide". Strawman snark is so much easier than actually carving out an reasoned position."

No, there was nothing to indicate "the suggested loss of nationhood" in your statement. Is that what you meant? A 73-year occupation of all the Axis countries? So, in addition to Germany, Italy and Japan, the Allies would perpetually occupy Hungary, Romania, Austria, Slovakia, etc.

"There's an entire blogroll devoted to it, actually. They call themselves "progressives"."

I have no idea what your point is here.

"Then, in the next breath, this particular debating class will assert that the nation of Israel shouldn't exist, because the Jews were forced upon "Palestinian" land..."

So you're now saying that I will argue that Isreal shouldn't exist? Is that speculation, projection, or just something that you made up on the spot.

My charge stands.

What the left does not realize is that they have created a need for torture.

The left wants us to wage politically correct wars in which for example no religious or historical site are destroyed, but to accomplish that we need very precise information, and how do we get it?

by torturing those who have this information.

If the left had not managed to impose on western nations the absurd concept of limited war, there would be no need to ask questions.

There would be no need for precise information on where a certain leader is or where certain weapons are hidden et cetera.

We would just bomb the enemy until it would surrender.

it worked just fine with Japan.

And now Japan is a very prosperous and peaceful democracy - which it was not before WW2.

We ( we the allies ) did not need to know if a factory in Germany was producing row boats or warplane wings, we just bombed everything.

and it worked fine.

Now Germany is a nice cuddly peaceful nation who is also prosperous.

My dear lefties, the choice is yours,

either we go back to carpet bombing ( my number one choice )

or

you let us torture people so we can get the precise information required to wage the politically correct/clean/limited/almost casualty-free war you want us to wage.

(Moral) relativism isn't my strong suit, either, Kate. I wonder how many of the respondents claiming the moral high ground would have fared in the carnage of WW2.

Personally I think the moral issue would fade quickly after seeing friends killed.

I am not recommending wholesale torture , but to take the position that no form of torture is acceptable is absurd. I could probably torture some of the "lefties" who have been so indignant here by simply looking at them ! Would that also be banned ?

The problem with all of the moral relativists is that they lack any common sense of proportion. Here we are fighting with killers who spit on the Geneva convention , behead etc. , but when they are caught the left immediately jumps to their aid. In WW2 they would have been put in front of a wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg&feature=related

Eddie Izzard's Church of England skit. So appropriate here, non?

Keeping our eye on the ball, the aim is to change the gang running Iran. To diminish their proxy attacks on the West through Hizballah pushing Hamas rocket attacks on Iarael.

The majority in Iran want a free western lifestyle.

To reduce the weapons and support to Muqtada al Sadr and al Qaeda in Iraq.

To help Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari keep the Taliban away from Pakistan*s Nukes.

If military pros insist waterboarding is required then I*m no expert.= TG

"Then, in the next breath, this particular debating class will assert that the nation of Israel shouldn't exist, because the Jews were forced upon "Palestinian" land..."

"Strawman snark is so much easier than actually carving out an reasoned position."

Indeed.

The post points up a couple of issues. The first and most fundamental issue underpins the whole debate on fighting the war on terror, the use of torture if necessary etc. That issue is a simple question: "Is what I have worth defending?" I'm not referring to material possessions but rather to a lifestyle, liberty, political structure and process, even territory and community. Some people make out as though they would be just as happy as slaves. I think they are deluding themselves, but self-delusion seems to go with that turf. I personally believe that what I have is worth defending and I'm not about to justify that belief to any supranational body, certainly not the dictators' club aka the UN, or any other group of rogue thugs. If you don't agree with me -- tough!; threaten me and you've got a fight on your hands. The leftists seem mired in a self-loathing, and self-delusion so profound that they seem to believe that their lives are devoid of anything worth protecting. Maybe they're right, but if so, they think only for their lives, not for mine. At the same time as they boast of their cowardice they refuse to walk the talk and go to live under those regimes they purport not to fear.
In the defense of those things I value, I'm not going to quibble over the niceties. Fly airliners full of people into skyscrapers full of people and I'll be quite prepared to pour water up your nose in the interests of preventing a repeat. If it turns out I was wrong about you despite due diligence, heck, I'll buy you a beer. Life's rough; it'll make you a man.
As for no insurgency has ever been defeated -- what rot! The Americans in the Phillipines, the British in Burma, the SAS in Yemen, the Viet Cong after the Tet offensive (read "A Viet Cong Memoir" by Truong Nhu Tang). It takes sophistication, steadiness and most of all patience. They won't be defeated quickly; it takes time -- something the surrender monkeys are afraid of because time is on our side if we have the moral fortitude to stand for our beliefs (see the first point).

Okay, I'll say it: Nothing here that good old fashioned crusade wouldn't cure.

The definition of torture has, like so many words today, been altered to satisfy people with an agenda. That's like "cruel and unusual punishment" in Canada's prisons is the term used when they don't get steak night every week.

Waterboarding may not be pleasant but then again it is not supposed to be. Geeesh.

rabbit, excuse my undeclared sarcasm. I misled you a bit because of it. I really do concur that your question is a very good question.

or this classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY

For leftards, I think it's beneficial to use their delusions to illustrate the point.

Instead of Muslim terrorists, let's say that there is a kidnapped civil rights leader and Rove knows where he is but won't say. Lets further assume that the civil rights leader has only a few hours to live.

What would a leftard do to Karl Rove?

I think we know the answer.

Hypocrites.

This is a big gray area. It's not an easy question and people who have moral absolutes on this issue are not serious people. They fail to think through their positions because they're in no position to be forced to. Fat, lazy, comfortable westerners can afford moral absolutes - for now. When that changes, it tends to change big.

When asked if you support torture, the obvious answer is of course not. The more telling question is to ask under what circumstances you would condone the use torture. How would you police it against abuse? Where would you draw the line? These are serious questions which have serious consequences to real people. They don't suit moral poseurs typing in their mother's basements.

Btian: "(Moral) relativism isn't my strong suit, either, Kate."

That was my comment and you misunderstood it. I'm not taking an "moral high ground" here. I'm making the point that when there's a war on, and we're fighting for our lives and those of our children and posterity, then hard measures need to be taken: Individuals have to be prepared to both kill and be killed. That's war.

The point I was making was that in today's morally relativistic world, where for the most part we believe in nothing but our own comforts and entitlements we see no reason to stand up for anything, including our own survival.

I'm with Kate on her feelings about bleeding heart liberal lefties who've wimped out in this War on Terror. If winning this war means some terrorists will be tortured, then so be it. Look at what the Islamofascists are doing and have done to us. Look at their long-range plans for us Infidels.

I'm not sympathetic towards them and figure that if they put themselves in the line of fire, they probably deserve what they get.

A way of making sure they're not tortured is to stop fighting...which puts the responsibility clearly and plainly on their shoulders.

Warwick:

My approach would be as follows: There exists a concept called "the right of self defense" where one is allowed take drastics action - even kill people - to protect oneself or others. Regarding torture, I would borrow from the right of self defense:

- The threat must be serious and immediate.
- The force must be the minimum possible.

Rabbit,

I would agree. The problem with that on a state level is policing them. As we know, give the state power and the state jackboots will abuse it. Give the state power to torture and they'll be after your grandma in no time.

I think torture can be a necessary evil in some instances. It's just difficult to impossible to codify and use under the law. I don't have an answer as to how a modern society goes about managing the uglier aspects of defending against aggressors but moral absolutes (ie. there is no way to justify torture under any circumstance) is a cop-out. The leftard idea that if we put a pair of underwear on some guy's head we're morally equivelent to head-hacking terrorists is even worse.

"- The force must be the minimum possible...."

You've obviously never Won a fight in your entire life have you rabbit?

OMMAG,

Torture isn't a fight. It's more akin to kicking the guy while he's down. You avoid that sort of thing unless you really have to do it...

People like John responding to his daughter's question (as to why this happened as they stand looking over the smoking hole that used to be Chicago) why something this terrible could be allowed to happen.

"Well dear, Daddy didn't want the evil torturers in our evil government to pour water on the bad man's face."

They should use pigs blood instead of water.It worked for Pershing.
General Pershing Fights Jihadists

"General John J. Pershing fought Muslim insurgents in the Philippines before World War I. His methods were politically incorrect, but quite effective.

Today, he'd be hammmered ruthlessly by the press, court martialed, and thrown in the brig for G-d knows how long. But keep in mind that "Pershing is the only person, while still alive, to rise to the highest rank ever held in the United States Army—General of the Armies—equivalent only to the posthumous rank of George Washington."

I guess Pershing was doing something right.

One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it’s interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.

So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.

The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.

They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a Muslim fanatic anywhere in the world."

Why not just force them to eat pork instead of having a bath if it offends western sensibilities so much.
Personally I think the practice of sending them to Egypt and turning them over to their own is the greatest idea the American administration has ever had. Less cost for accommodation for the taxpayers to absorb, and the air over Florida remains less foul.
Let the Islamic traditions of justice serve itself on those that defend it the most. A few weeks in an Egyptian interrogation room and “gods warriors of peace” become Jewish.

OMMAG:

You've obviously never Won a fight in your entire life have you rabbit?

I boxed recreationally for many years (now I do boxer's workouts but rarely spar), and I did win bouts against some good opponents. So yes, I've won some fights.

The idea of using minimal force is not mine, but the courts. It's fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense.

Rabbit has it about right, and the next part of that is you are willing to face the consequences of your actions, i.e. a jury of your peers.

Torture should NEVER be done by regular army. Screws up the battlefield consequences, disincents the marginal opponent and degrades the army itself, they know it is wrong.

Intelligence gathering is another story. however, I would still say that they get more information and better information from better interrogation techniques...good cop bad cop need not involve the bad cop beating the guy to a pulp.

Waterboarding is probably the least damagin of the torture techniques, no bruises, no permanent physical damage. The psychological damage may be otherwise.

A question is Russian Roulette where the prisoner believes there are bullets in some of the chambers torture, even though there are none in the magazine or chamber? Of course it is.

But that isnt the argument here. Of course you then have to answer the question, once you cross the brisge of torture, which torture methods do you not use and why. It becomes increasingly unclear as to how you distinguish between them. The only factor becoming which method yields the most accuate information the fastest.

The argument is that they do worse and that we are in an existential battle here.

1) They do worse - First point is I thought we werent into moral relativism here. Either our methods are correct and just as are our goals or they arent. There isnt a scale here. Would it matter if they had the same aims they have but fought like we thought they should. Capturing prisoners, feeding them appropriately etc etc.

I dont think that changes the nature of the fight in terms of goals and objectives. I think what we are doing is right, certainly in Afghanistan and in the shadowy counter terrorist war we are engaged in with our security apparatus.

The danger is if we adopted those methods that were one step less than theirs and then they got better. Do you think the local populations would care. They would see no difference. Look at Michael Yon's post. there is a reference to there being less munition fired, letting the extra bad guy get away but the benefits come from turning the population on your side.

I think Petraeus is proving you can fight the battle the right way, and win. Chechnya is an example of fighting the wrong way and winning, for the moment. Are we prepared to fight that way?

2) An existential fight - Maybe, but not at the moment. If it really was existential then out come the nukes and the draft.

This lower level doesnt make the fight any less important. It just means the rules are different. This is why Iran will never overtly target US troops in Iraq or in the Gulf. It means that the US would be free to play to its strength, overwhelming and dominating force and technology to overcome the enemy.

The nature of Counter Insurgency is one hand behind your back. And it is wrong that you cannot win against an insurgency. It happens and right now Petraues is doing the right thing to win it in Iraq. Afghanistan is different but we are doing the right things, just not enough fighting troops from Nato.

We arent in WWII. In some ways I wish we were. Thats a fight the West can win and in short order.

So where does that leave us. We should be fighting in a manner that we can feel comfortable with, regardless of the enemy. Either we are right in goals or we arent. Generally that means torture is not an accepted method, certainly not by reg army.

Secondly, we are not in an existential fight. No need to be engaging in these tactics at this stage.

If one truely is in the ticking time bomb situation then this might be justified, no different than when lethal force is justified facing an armed intruder in your house. In both cases though one must be willing to face the consequences of ones actions. Thats what makes it a moral choice not the comparison to other persons worth or background.

Now are there too many things lumped in with whats required....yes. Korans's, halal food etc, I guess if it can be provided but you know I just think that Geneva only requires them to be kept in decent condition and not intentionally degraded.

It isnt so much about losing ones soul as winning period. As a society and a civilization we are more likely to win being the best of what we are, that means the nice stuff( wealth creation, implanting rule of law, respect for individuals) and the nasty stuff (force projection, leveraging technology etc) Do both properly and the West will continue to triumph.

How do the Russians deal with Islamic savages?

When the Lebanese Christians prayed for Israel to help and Israel sent troops to Lebanon and together with Lebanese Christians started to push the Syrians and Arafat’s bandits out of Lebanon, Arafat demanded the intervention of the USA to press the Israelis to withdraw. At this moment some excessively active Palestinian Sheikh decided to make his contribution "to the just struggle of Muslims", and took hostages 5 Soviet specialists who had worked there on contract with some Lebanese company. He then informed the Soviet Embassy that if the USSR does not use all its political and economic influence to make Israel withdraw, then every 24 hours one of the hostages will be beheaded.

The Soviets immediately sent to Lebanon a Special Task group, activated the local residential net and kidnapped 5 men very dear to this Sheikh.

And in a couple of hours the brave Sheikh received a package. Inside he found the head and genitals of one of his friends and a message in which he was informed that if in 6 hours all five Soviet citizens were not standing at the Soviet Embassy’s gate, the Sheikh would get a head every hour. And when the heads and genitals end, all the training camps of Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon and Syria will be leveled to the ground.

In the morning all five Russians were brought to the Soviet Embassy gate, with apologies.

--------------------

How do Muslims deal with Muslim savages?

A cruiser going from Turkey to Russia. A group of armed Chechens on board announces: "You are all hostages! Sit still! Obey! Go out! We want the liberation of our brothers from the Russian jails"

In 3 hours the Turkish Police and Special Services found and arrested ALL the relatives of these Chechens living in Turkey. The Police then informed the guys on board the cruiser that in 5 hours the cruiser with all the passengers in good health must enter the Port of Istanbul. After which all the Chechens must leave their weapons on the deck of the cruiser and go down the ladder with their hands raised high above their heads. Otherwise the members of their families would be shot.

And in five hours the ship entered the port, and the "Chechen heroes" went down the ladder as good guys, with their hands raised high above their heads.

------------------------------

I wonder if the Muslims remember how Ghengis Khan dealt with them?

Negotiation? Violence with extreme prejudice is the only thing known that they fully understand.

If an enemy who has information about an imminent large-scale attack on civilians refuses to talk, we should respect his right to privacy. Sometimes people just don't feel like talking, and when they feel that way it's rude not to respect that.

IF a bomb will go off that kills and maims hundreds of men women and children at a market or a mosque, the point is that we could rest easy, thoughtfully plying our emery boards, knowing that we haven't, you know, lost our souls.

Let's be sweet with them, and day by day repeat to them that terrorism simply isn't done:

youtube.com/watch?v=wveW9Tw2JKE&feature=related

" Perhaps that's the true legacy of Vietnam and to an extent, WW2 - the notion that one can lose a war and still go home again. After all, Germany, Italy, and Japan still claim spots on the map. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake on our part. "

This throwaway line contradicts any claim you have to be defending western civilization.

to hell with any discussion. i'm of the kill em all school of warfare. you never have to say your sorry to an asshole enemy that no longer exists.

Sorry rabbit, boxer or not, minimum force makes no sense in battle.

If extremists fire one round, you empty 50 mags on em.

If extremists detonate one IED, you hit them with a mortar barrage that ensures they all get their virgins.

If extremists behead one of your comrades(fellow soldier in theater), you bring down a shit storm that they will be talking about for generations.

Irwin Daisy summed it up quite properly. Extreme violence is the only language our enemies understand.

GO ARMY!

Spot on Kate and excellent comments batb concerning how we got to this stage in history with reason and common sense (no longer common) being replaced by mushy sentimentality.

Reading the comments here from the "sentiment" crowd explains exactly why we are not winning this war. My word even the definition of torture is so distorted that we consider anything unpleasant torture.

Showing mercy to brutal enemies is actually cruelty.

OMMAG:

I agree. You don't pull your punches in battle. You hit 'em with everything you've got.

But with regards to torture you're dealing with a helpless prisoner. You have responsibilities at that point, one being to avoid needless suffering.

Let's take a closer look at some incidents of the past few years:

"NEW YORK A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image. Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of "rape and murder" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were "blatantly sadistic." "

www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001218842

"Blatantly sadistic" are Rumsfeld's words, let us note, not the media's.

"CBS/AP) Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage.

"It's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid," he said glumly in congressional testimony televised throughout the Arab world as well as in the United States.
...
In addition to the known abuse cases and at least 25 prisoner deaths already reported, acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee said the Army is investigating 42 potential cases of misconduct against civilians that occurred outside prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: To those Iraqis who were mistreated by member of the U.S. Armed Forces, I offer my deepest apology.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Rumsfeld then dropped a bomb, revealing that there were more photos, even videos depicting abuses far worse than what has been seen so far.

RUMSFELD: There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman.

MIKLASZEWSKI: U.S. military officials tell NBC News, the unreleased images, show American soldiers severely beating one Iraqi prisoner to near death; apparently, raping an Iraqi female prisoner; acting inappropriately with a dead body; and Iraqi guards apparently videotaped by U.S. soldiers raping young boys.

SEN. LINDSAY GRAHAM ®, SOUTH CAROLINA: We‘re talking about rape and murder here, we‘re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience, we‘re talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4945202/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and "a lot more pictures" exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

"If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe."

Hersh: children raped at Abu Ghraib, Pentagon has videos

Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."
Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad [...]

The women were passing messages saying "Please come and kill me, because of what's happened". Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.

www.boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh-children-raped.html

Morally torture is wrong.

Practically it does no good, save winding up wingnuts who take their guidance from TV shows.

No actionable intelligence has been gained from its use and it does cloud, severely, the "we're better argument".

Prosecuting the 9/11 planners is going much more difficult because they were tortured.

Morality in the art of survival is the province of those facing no personal risk. Bringing your morality into war only ensures a game of Russian Roulette, which, if morality is important to you, pretty much handicaps your success and heavily favours your opponent. Survival belongs to those who are able to set morality aside... Bring the threat of irreversible violence to my family and waterboarding will be the least of your concerns.

Afghans and Iraqis die at the hands of the Taliban and Al Quaeda every time the west debates its morality in public. Unless you can convince your enemy to fear you, you will never know peace. The answer to "can't we all get along" is "no". Never has been true, and never will be. Ever.

The fate of western civilization does not hinge upon waterboarding.

Nor does the war on terror.

Two of the tenets western civilization are the rights of the accused, and the humane treatment of prisoners.

Even though I do not consider water boarding torture, I also do not approve of the use of water boarding by anybody, particularly by the government or military. I don't care how many people claim the future of our civilization is at stake when water is poured down somebody's nostrils.

It is just as much baloney as those who claim global warming is a threat to our survival.

Just to add something else to the debate - I've been reading the Looming Tower, which looks at the history of Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of Al-Qaeda and the author suggests that the torture of Ayman Al-Zawahari (the ideological leader of Al-Qaeda) in Egypt in the 60s transformed him from a moderate to a committed violent and radical fundamentalist.

So the question is, what are the by-products of torture? Who is being radicalized by torture? Are we really getting good info from it? And how can we trust GW Bush that they've only tortured three and that they got good info out of it after his history of truth telling?

fdsafasf

What you refer to isn't the official, lets get some intel violence but the kind of thuggery you'd get at any jail if there was no oversight. Jail guards tend to be bullies. They have to be policed. This is why if you allow torture, it's very difficult if not impossible to codify and police its use. Any power a government has, a government will eventually abuse.

But what the creeps did in abu ghraib did was for their sick amusement, not for some strategic or tactical purpose.

No one is arguing in favour of torture for fun.

Gray,

In the world wars, there was useful intel procured by torturing people. Unlike what you claim, it can be useful. The "it's ineffective" argument is used by people ideologically opposed to its use under any circumstances. It's dishonest.

This issue is not black or white. It is decidedly gray - pun inteded ;)

This is "survival of the fittest" time, folks. Surf's up.

1. Waterboarding was a bad idea. Period. The US should have known better; it was a path they never needed to go down.

2. "you cannot win a war against an insurgency"

If you believe this as an essential article of faith, then it becomes a mantra and you can't help but lose. The British didn't believe it in Malaya and they throttled that insurgency. Also, not all insurgencies are alike; some succeed, some fail.

3. If you attempt to defeat terrorism by a legalistic approach (not "legal" you'll note but "legalistic" - the two are not synonymous except to lawyers) such as treating it merely as a criminal law issue, you'll probably lose.

"An Ottawa Police spokesperson was quoted in the news recently that their force doesn't keep statistics on Taser use because "we'd be writing ten reports a day".

Ten taserings a day in dull Ottawa?"

Is it the same ten Liberals or is the OPD spreading things around to be inclusive of NDP & PQ dolts as well ???

"It's fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense."

Yes, fundamental the legal right of self-defence, but absolutely irrelevant to the idea of self defense in war.
BTW, even the court defined idea of justifiable force in self defence isn't based on a minimum; it's what seems reasonable for a person in that situation. For example, if a person knew you were a boxer, it might be considered reasonable for them to hit you with a plank. They don't have to spend an instant figuring out if it's necessary.

Moral relativism is garbage. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and no amount of hypothetical quibbling is going to change that.

Utilitarian means of measuring right and wrong leads to no good place.

I am all for using overwhelming force to settle our conflicts. "Carthage must be destroyed" and all that. I forget who said that the duration of peace in the middle east is directly proportional to the scale of the slaughter, but he was right.

I am unwilling to comprise on our Western morals, our sense of right and wrong, while doing it. Nor am I willing to abstract away the personal responsibility. If someone decides to use torture, then that person is guilty of torture, no matter how good the outcome.

We have acceptable rules of engagement. Torture is not in there, and I don't think it should be.

"reasonable for them to hit you with a plank"

If you were threatening them, i mean, not just cause they didn't like your suit.

What is lacking here is a clear hierarchy of priorities, the non-negotiable principles, as it were. Be it "the dignity of man" or the safety and security of the state, once you chose which god to worship, you must subordinate everything else. If you don't think this is true, then either your "most important thing" isn't, or you refuse to acknowledge that priorities can conflict.

So, why do we have "issues"? Because on one side, the list of priorities is short and well-defined; one the other, indistinct and unrealistic. This WILL change. Unfortunately, by then the butcher's bill may be truly appalling.

Yes friends, torture and rape are always wrong.

Well, unless you name is Conrad Black. Then your anticipated sufferings are the subject of cartoons in the Toronto (Red) Star.

In Newspeak this phenomenon is called "nuance".

Dean:

My whole point is that the concept of self defense could be transplanted to that of "justifiable torture", although I admit that war-time conditions might stress the analogy a bit.

Regarding "minimum force" and "reasonable force", I believe we are talking about the same thing. Here's a quote from some weird self-defense site (www.bojuka.ca/self-defense-canadian-law.shtml):

In general, reasonable force can be defined as the minimal force required to deter or prevent an assault from occuring or being repeated.

And the best defense against a boxer is to throw them a steak, whether they be human or dog.

A little background on ... Seymour Hersh !

" Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!” In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation. "

Ignore the idiot leftarded troll (s)!

I guess the Malay insurgency was never defeated either? Funny also how Europe was able to take over most of the globe with some wheel locks and wooden sailing ships, yet we “can’t win an insurgency”. We could ask the Syrians how they dealt with their radicals…

I do have a tough time with torture, in the army we were subjected to various forms of psychological and simulated physical torture as part of our ‘escape and evasion” exercise. There is nothing nice about it. I can see the dark road ahead if we allow torture to easily, yet at the same time I know the mere ability to be able to carry it out can be enough of a threat to get some very nasty people to talk. It’s easy to say that torture is not worth it, would it be easy if you knew a thousand lives hung in the balance? How about your family? Moral decisions from the comfort of our couch are easy, in the real world it’s about deciding what is the most right and least harmful in a world of shifting grey.

I also don’t fool myself with what would happen to me or my comrades if we were taken hostage/prisoner by the Taliban or AQ. AQI has shown themselves to be so brutal that they would have horrified some Medieval jailors. In the end I would allow limited torture, with strict oversights, I would also not discuss what those oversights are, no sense in letting the bad guys know where we draw the line. A quick comment on propaganda, everyone thinks of the US photo’s when they think of Iraqi prisons, yet few are aware that the same prisons were used by Saddam as slaughterhouses and many have mass graves beside them.

Rabbit said: "The idea of using minimal force is not mine, but the courts. It's fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense."

No not really. The origin of the idea is "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". That creed was considered merciful at the time, as killing an accused man's entire family was considered reasonable. Kept them from looking for some payback later.

The "right" of self defense comes almost entirely from British Common Law, and is fairly recent. Serfs and slaves have no such rights, only free men do and even then they are subject to the Crown, against whom they have no right to defend themselves. Its what the word "subject" means.

Phantom:

I don't know what you thought that I thought that I said, but the Canadian criminal code states the following...

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

I suspect most criminal codes place similar limitations on self defense. Texas might be an exception.

This is what I meant when I said "The idea of using minimal force is not mine, but the courts. It's fundamental to the concept of the right of self defense."

Texas Canuck writes, @1:26: "Okay, I'll say it: Nothing here that a good old fashioned crusade wouldn't cure.

“The definition of torture has, like so many words today, been altered to satisfy people with an agenda. That's like ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in Canada's prisons is the term used when they don't get steak night every week.”

(Yeah, TC! And regarding “cruel and unusual punishment”, I’m “tortured” every day by the extreme psychological and emotional abuses of the CBC, which deliberately disregard the dignity of my person and my freedom of expression rights by viciously skewing the “news” with innuendo and downright, calculated lies, all the time, and on my dime, to boot.)

Fair play is definitely important, but in a fight for one’s very life, against a sadistic, evil (yes, that’s the word) enemy—imagine that person, masked, armed, and willing to do extreme harm, in your house at 3:00 a.m., terrorizing your family—one does what one has to do. Yes, it may be quite dehumanizing—I can imagine the “atrocities” I’d be willing to commit to save my children from a sadistic monster—but, in that situation, I believe the end would justify the means. (I didn’t either plan or start the vicious attack.)

Concerning the jihadists, I believe it’s like fighting an evil, sadistic monster. Making nice and playing by the rules, which this enemy boldly and proudly disdains, is both stuck on stupid and a recipe for suicide.

No thanks.

Surely everybody in Canada knows by now that I am a VietNam vet.

I was never an interrogator myself, but have friends who were.

And I have to say that there is always a tendency on the part of those who have never taken the field to over-intellectualize this subject. Sometimes they have good ideas and sometimes bad ones.

But all of this intellectualization turns a very difficult subject into a very abstract one. In the field unless you enjoy some incredible superiority, necessity is your guide. What you do is based on what is necessary.

Let me give you an example. The enemy has abducted your wife, your mother, your daughter, and your sister. They will begin to torture them to death in 24 hours.

You have a prisoner who knows where they are located, but he will not tell you, and so a rescue mission is impossible.

What are you going to do? What are you going to do? They begin raping them and cutting off body part in 24 hours, so what principles, what intellectualization are you going to use?

All you have to do is get your prisoner to talk and give the location.

Now let me add another component. Let's say your sister is my wife, and so if you stand by because of some abstraction and refuse to do everything necessary to get information out of this prisoner and they chop up my wife because of this, I'm going to find you, gentle poster. And I'm going to gut you like a fish.

That's where the whole thing begins. Not in a bunch of abstract notions by people in various ivory towers.

Torture is used to extract inte -- when you can't get it any other way or plain don't have time for a long process.

You know, in the field in the American armed forces if I as a combatant refuse a order from a superior when time crucial, they can shoot me dead for putting my own comrades at risk.

"I will walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within my sight or hearing."

If I fail to do this in a combat zone and fall asleep or otherwise am negligent, they have the right to take me out and shoot me.

So when it all gets down to it, my education about these things was formed in a rough school. I was one of the people that they take of the chain when the fertilizer hits the fan. And in a tight spot, I'm going to do whatever is necessary. And I'm going to expect you to do what's necessary to.

rabbit, nothing personal, but treating a war situation, being waged by an unscrupulous, evil enemy, as if it were a criminal justice matter is ludicrous. (This is another one of the West’s Achilles Heels.)

If that's the way you think the West should proceed—and you’re by no means the only dupe to think so—get ready to put up the white flag and say good-bye to the freedoms of democracy. (If you have any females in your family, I suggest you buy some burqas right now. Get ready to home school too if you want your females to be educated: for what, though? Also, if you don't already, be prepared to worship Allah five times a day and live under Sharia law.)

THINK about it . . .

We're in a war...

...and I want to be on the winning side.

Let the water flow!

"you cannot win a war against an insurgency". What's this,has North America not been successfully colonized? (Caledonia, Ont. aside of course)

Torture is an unpleasant subject, to be sure. While I'm sure all of us from time to time entertain fantasies of seeing some horrible monster of a terrorist tortured to a painful death, we know that, in practice, the best solution is a simple gunshot to the head.

When it comes to using torture methods to extract information from prisoners, I'd suggest that it remain illegal, but allow those charged with acts of torture to claim the defense of necessity. "Necessity" would be considered proven if, and only if, the information that one might extract by said act of torture could reasonably be expected to prevent the deaths of civilians or troops, or enable a significant military victory.

That, it seems to me, would cover the hypothetical situation where you have captured a member of a terrorist gang, and are convinced he knows where the hidden nuclear device is located. You torture the guy, knowing full well you put yourself at risk of imprisonment by so doing. If you are put on trial for torture, your defense is either the obvious, the bomb is found and defused, thanks to the torture of the terrorist; or alternatively, the bomb is not found but subsequent investigation shows clearly that it was reasonable to expect that the torture subject did have the information sought.

Lookout:

There are many entries, and you probably missed the thread of my argument amongst them.

I was proposing guidelines for when torture might be allowed, not guidelines on how to conduct war. Given that torture is (we can all agree) repugnant, it must either not be used at all or used with the utmost discretion.

I suggested using the same guidelines as for how we determine whether self defense is justified in the criminal code - that is to say, it must be kept to a minimum and only in response to a serious and immediate threat.

Thank you, rabbit, I appreciate your response.

However, it seems to me that your formula, indeed, adheres to the criminal justice model of waging war that I reject: as you know from my recent post, I believe this model to be unintelligent, self-defeating, and, in fact, suicidal when dealing with a deranged and barbaric enemy.

Please refer to the examples both I and Greg in Dallas have recently given re "the necessity of the moment", when evil is actually ravaging good. In such circumstances, nice ideas of fairness and balance have already been desecrated.

Given that fact, on what grounds would you accord equal rights, under our criminal justice system, to a vicious enemy that operates quite outside such constraints?

The only thing our current enemy understands is sheer brute force, nothing else. Well, maybe one other thing, the power of their comrades in the West, the green shirts of the left. They follow very closely what the left has to say and the pressure they put on our political leaders. The green shirts are directly responsible for prolonging the war and the CASULITIES we sustain. Directly. I wish I had saved the article published years ago quoting the two North Vietnam Generals now living in the States. They stated that they would have given up had it not been for the likes of Hanoi Jane and her fellow war protesters. The left was their biggest ally and had it not been for them and the hope it gave them they would have given up years ago. If anyone out there knows where to get a hold of that particular article please let me know.

For the record, I am against the war and our guys being over there. I am against it for the same reason I was against the Vietnam War. It’s become a political war dictated by politicians and the press more so than those that are doing the fighting. Fight with no holds bared or get out. I do however, agree with the reason for being there. At one time the Hanoi Jane’s of this world would have been shot as traitors aiding the enemy, so it should still be. The time for open discussion and reflection is when it’s over not when our guys are still in harms way. Discuss and debate it when you come home, with your tail between your legs as the green shirts would have, or when you WIN.

Lookout:

I read Greg's scenario. It would easily pass the guidelines I proposed.

I know that we are fighting a war against an enemy that don't follow our - or any - rules, but that fact does not liberate our forces to take any action without restraint. They must still behave in a way that Canadian or U.S. citizens find acceptable. That might not always be fair, but that's the situation.

It's probably a case of either disallowing torture completely, or satisfying the public that torture is used with restraint and only in dire situations. Clear, official guidelines is likely the only way to achieve the second outcome.

A second advantage to a "legalistic" approach is that it would make it clear to the armed forces what the situation is. They would not be handcuffed by a fog of uncertainty surrounding the use of torture.

Spot on, Greg.

Shit happens, deal with it, move on.

This may seem flippant, but playing Hamlet is gonna drive you nuts. Torture is like p*rn - hard to define, but you will know it when you see it. Otherwise, it's merely "harsh measures" dictated by necessity, with the moral culpability borne by the instigator of the conflict.

To over-simplify, it's "harsh measures" when it's a reactive event, it's torture when it's pre-emptive.

Does anyone here believe that information obtained under torture has anywhere near a good chance of being accurate? Forget the morality issue for a moment and think of this: a person suffering will say almost anything to end the suffering. You can have a low grade jihadist with an IQ at room temperature confessing to setting a suitcase bomb under the White House if he's in enough pain. A determined fanatic will tell you lies under torture.

The best way to get accurate information isn't via physical pain. It's by getting inside the guy's head.

Now back to the morality play....

Dear rabbit -

You are obviously a very decent person. I respect that.

But you say, re the actions of our troops, including, it seems, in extremis, and when having to act from necessity, "They must still behave in a way that Canadian or U.S. citizens find acceptable." (To find out, do our troops stop, in theatre, post an email poll and wait for the results?)

And, to which citizens do you refer: those preferred by our weasel MSM, like Jack Bin Layton et al? (You probably won’t have a choice.)

If so, God help us.

As I've said before, please THINK through the logical consequences of your “pleasant” scenario. (When it doesn’t make sense, the most pleasant idea can end up in disaster.)

Sincerely –

lookout

We realize it would take a fatal leap of imagination, but try to read "insurgency" as "people who believe they are defending their country from an invasion" and perhaps it will help explain their tenacity, and the stupidity of the idea that it can be exported.

Dilettante, is that the Royal "We"? If not, to whom are you referring?

Any of the sanctimonious assweasels here who, nose aloft, condemn any aggressive interrogation of terrorists as an abomination against Humanity, would, in a heartbeat, torture the shit out of somebody if they thought it might save the life of their child, or themselves, and they know it.

Dilletante,

Where have you been during the war?

"people who believe they are defending their country from an invasion"

Have you heard of Al Queda in Iraq? It's apparent you are ignorant of the fact that many, if not most of the insurgents aren't even from Iraq, for that matter.

Same for Afghanistan.

So whose country are they defending if it is not their own? Might it be a "Muslim" country? I suppose you haven't heard of the ummah either. Or the Islamic pledge to win back all countries that were so-called formerly Muslim, such as Andalusia, and establish a worldwide caliphate.

"and the stupidity of the idea that it can be exported."

The only stupidity is the preposterous notion that you think you have a clue.

As it happens, I'm at this very moment daydreaming about subjecting Kate to some "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Not necessary. I'd sell my soul along with every state secret I know, for a Cheeze Whiz and celery sandwich.

Dunked in neocitron.

kingstonlad: bad!

And, Kate, if I could deliver Neocitron, along with a Cheeze Whiz and celery sandwich, I would.

Get well soon!

Game, set and match, to Caveman for 9.25pm post

nwars (that's evident), not so.

Please see my 9:43 p.m. letter to rabbit.

We're talking war here, not merely convenient, self-serving secrets.

Shake your head.

It's been proven that torture doesn't work.

It is a fact that using torture deprives us of the moral high ground. It makes us no better than our enemies.

Why would we do it, considering it doesn't work, and also makes us like the very thing we're supposed to be fighting against?

Did any of you see the 90 year old WW2 veterans protesting against the US gov't.'s use of torture?

They were angry because they defeated Hitler and never had to resort to using torture.

I take exception to people who talk about the idea that "we" should have obliterated our enemies at the end of WW2.

"You" had nothing to do with it. "You" weren't on the battlefield in that war - nor in any war.

Where do "you" get the gall to start talking tough about what soldiers in the field should do?

Mel Shortner

mel shortner - Your ideas are interesting. Could you document that there was no torture in WW II, in which my father and grandfathers fought?

It was a very different war: the Axis soldiers were usually well trained civilians, fighting for their country under the Geneva Convention. (Soldiers, sailors, and airmen on both sides of the line often had a high "professional" regard for one another. See "Band of Brothers".) Our fighting men were not constrained by politically correct shackles imposed by the MSM, opportunistic lefty politicians, and an infantile “armchair” populace propagandized into being unrealistic panty waists at home.

On the other hand, the present war in the ME is an altogether different proposition: while our enemies are every bit as committed to imposing their ideology—religious, versus racial purity—and taking control of the rest of us as Hitler was, they are fighting a downright dirty guerrilla war: they do not wear identifiable uniforms, they hide behind the civilian population, the gross mistreatment of prisoners is a regular occurrence and part of their strategy, and they use the most vile forms of torture as an every day tactic against both military personnel and innocent civilians.

Especially considering the ridiculous constraints imposed on our troops, fighting a vicious enemy, by the unrealistic “armchair” Pollyannas in the West, the strategic use of torture may, on occasion, be necessary, in order to preserve other lives and WIN THE WAR. As the terrorists have chosen to remove themselves from both civil behaviour and following the rules of military engagement in their every day tactics, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention. To constantly accord them such privileges is ludicrous: why deliberately handicap the West’s chances of defeating a vile enemy, that has made a calculated CHOICE to fight outside the clear conventions of war, all the while fighting dirty to enslave the rest of us and remove our hard won freedoms?

The strategic use of waterboarding—horrible, but almost benign compared to the Taliban or Al Qaeda’s methods—with guerrilla terrorists like this most certainly does not lower us to their moral level. As I’ve said before, people need to THINK THROUGH their ideas to their logical or illogical conclusions: in the present discussion, there is no equivalency between the military of the West strategically using torture, under necessity, which is probably a rare occurrence, and a vicious, playing dirty enemy, which shows no compassion or mercy, even for its own civilians, as it uses extreme torture on a daily basis as one of its main strategies.

mel, I think your proposition is a few bullets short of a full magazine.

Over 90% of all insurgencies were defeated in the 20th century. Places like Yemen, Malaysia are examples were an insurgency was defeated and in those cases was defeated by the military. Perhaps those that think an insurgency is a successful means to an end should suggest a case where it was successful.

One of the most significant writers I've found WRT the war on terror - anywhere - is Ralph Peters, writer of several books, including "Beyond Terror" and "Never Quit the Fight" Following is his take on what must be done to WIN. Many of these points apply to soft powers as well, such as Canada. For this debate his item #11 is the most relevant:

25 Things a Superpower must do to fight terrorism.

From the Ralph Peters' book, “Beyond Terror”
chapter “When Devils Walk the Earth”

1. BE FEARED.

2. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF TERRORISTS YOU FACE, AND KNOW YOUR ENEMY AS WELL AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.
Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

3. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO BE POWERFUL.
Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialogue may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp.

4. SPEAK BLUNTLY.
Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

5. CONCENTRATE ON WINNING THE PROPAGANDA WAR WHERE IT IS WINNABLE.
Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

6. DO NOT BE DRAWN INTO A PUBLIC DIALOGUE WITH TERRORISTS, ESPECIALLY NOT WITH APOCALYPTIC TERRORISTS.
You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

7. AVOID PLANNING CREEP.
Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal--intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigour you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance-consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

8. MAINTAIN RESOLVE.
Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. WHEN IN DOUBT, HIT HARDER THAN YOU THINK NECESSARY.
Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knife-point operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but, whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show, don't tell.

10. WHENEVER LEGAL CONDITIONS PERMIT, KILL TERRORISTS ON THE SPOT (DO NOT GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SURRENDER, IF YOU CAN HELP IT).
Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnapping, highjackings and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

11. NEVER LISTEN TO THOSE WHO WARN THAT FEROCITY ON OUR PART REDUCES US TO THE LEVEL OF THE TERRORISTS.
That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behaviour).

12. SPARE AND PROTECT INNOCENT CIVILIANS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, BUT DO NOT LET THE PROSPECT OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES INTERFERE WITH ULTIMATE MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT.
This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between us and them, the choice is always us.

13. DO NOT ALLOW THE TERRORISTS TO HIDE BEHIND RELIGION.
Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

14. DO NOT ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO BROKER A PEACE, A TRUCE, OR ANY PAUSE IN OPERATIONS.
One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

15. DON'T FLINCH.
If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

16. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT ALIENATING ALREADY-HOSTILE POPULATIONS.

17. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, HUMILIATE YOUR ENEMY IN THE EYES OF HIS OWN PEOPLE.
Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

18. IF THE TERRORISTS HIDE, STRIKE WHAT THEY HOLD DEAR, USING CLANDESTINE MEANS AND, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, FOREIGN AGENTS TO PROVOKE THEM TO BREAK COVER AND REACT.
Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not a superpower strength but the raw power to do that which is necessary is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us--or complain of our inhumanity--no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalised are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

19. DO NOT ALLOW THE TERRORISTS SANCTUARY IN ANY COUNTRY, AT ANY TIME, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway, sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

20. NEVER DECLARE VICTORY.
Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.

21. IMPRESS UPON THE MINDS OF TERRORISTS AND POTENTIAL TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE, AND UPON THE POPULATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS INCLINED TO SUPPORT THEM, THAT AMERICAN RETALIATION WILL BE POWERFUL AND UNCOMPROMISING.
You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.

22. DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE TERRORISTS AND THEIR ACTIVE SUPPORTERS LIVE IN TERROR THEMSELVES.
Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hardcore apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

23. NEVER ACCEPT THE CONSENSUS OF THE WASHINGTON INTELLIGENTSIA, WHICH LOOKS BACKWARD TO PAST FAILURES, NOT FORWARD TO FUTURE SUCCESSES.

24. IN DEALING WITH ISLAMIC APOCALYPTIC TERRORISTS, REMEMBER THAT THEIR MOST CHERISHED SYMBOLS ARE FEWER AND FAR MORE VULNERABLE THAN ARE THE WEST'S.
Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

25. DO NOT LOOK FOR ANSWERS IN RECENT HISTORY, WHICH IS STILL UNCLEAR AND SUBJECT TO PERSONAL EMOTION.
Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed.

When you point a nuke at someone there are four nukes pointing back at you.

All this tough talk is wonderful until you remember that Russia and China still have enough ICBMs pointed at us to render Western Civilization dust.

Remember, Russia has a significantly more credible claim to winning WWII than England or the USA, who were bystanders in comparison and, in USA's case, fact. America didn't care about Hitler or England; it twiddled its thumbs for two years and only entered when attacked by Japan. No surprise, given that America is ethnically more German than English.

By tough guy logic, Moscow should have nuked the USA for not being on the winning team from the start and sitting idly while the Germans took over Europe.

[quote]By tough guy logic, Moscow should have nuked the USA for not being on the winning team from the start and sitting idly while the Germans took over Europe. [/quote]

dfsafsa,
Since Moscow didn't have nukes at that time, but we did, the Russians stopped at Berlin. You are right! The eastern (Russia) front was definitive in the defeat of Germany

The Nuclear threat is not an academic exercise; our Military have those Options on the table as we speak. I would guess that the Anti-Bush rhetoric is actually more of a nervous twitch to the stark reality of what may happen, by way of justified response or by dumb accident.

In the Aftermath of 9/11, and before we knew who was responsible, the CBC Town meetings suggested Canada had a role. I, for one, was in Canada at the time & swear I could hear the ND silo's targeting. Stupid shit-heads.

dfsafsa:

Don't forget that for the first year and a half the Germans and the Soviets were nominal allies in the invasion and division of Poland!

Lookout:

It may be of interest to you to know that our soldiers were constrained as well by the Geneva Convention during WW2- the Geneva Convention which has now been thrown out and deemed "quaint" by the present American government.

However "quaint" it might have been, American soldiers were able to defeat Hitler while abiding by it - and in less time than the present war in Iraq has lasted.

That's likely why the 90 year old WW2 veterans were a little angry at the way the government has thrown out the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, the enemy is evil. But do you not see the obvious absurdity of waterboarding - performing 'simulated drowning' - on a Jihadi who's already sworn to die for Allah and is glad to do so? What information do you expect to get from one who does not care if they die?

All of this is quite aside from the fact that torture simply doesn't work, as any military person knows.

All that it accomplishes is for us to lose our claim of being civilized. Which is supposedly what we're fighting for.

Further, I'd ask you to stop using derogatory terms such as 'pantywaist' to refer to those who oppose torture. None of the soldiers who won WW2 were "pantywaists", and a lot of their blood was spilled to protect the very values which deem torture an obscenity. To them it was worth fighting for, and, as I said, they were able to defeat the Nazis in four years while our present torturers have been unable to bring Bin Laden to justice in seven years.

Lastly, though I know people regularly state things on the internet they'd not have the courage to say in real life, I don't appreciate your ad hominem towards me in the last line of your post. Please just deal with the issue at hand.

Mel Shortner

I don't think it has been mentioned yet here, but Yahoo News (McClatchy Newspapers) by Hannah Allam, gives the tragic details of five hostages in Iraq. They are four Americans and an Austrian. I can hardly believe it but..... five severed fingers have been delivered to American officials. Confirmation is that they are of the hostages who have been held for over a year.

The do gooders are crying about detainees, to boot yet, this in Afghanistan. Do not give them to the Americans say they. Such consideration. (sarc)

Some people here are insisting that torture never works.

That's absurd. It's every bit as absurd as saying that torture always works.

Not every enemy combatant is some superhero progranmmed in some inscrutable manner to resist all pain and pressure. As someone who has been in war myself, I can tell you that is nuts.

A lot of people will cave as soon as you sock them in the jaw. A lot of people will spill their guts if you just threaten to harm them.

I despise torture, war, violence, and everything connected to them. However, for my sins I have had to serve in combat zones and have a picture of this formed by the reality of what actually occurs.

As detestable as it is, sometimes intel that saves people's lives can be gathered by shooting someone in the leg.

You know, wars and the people who fight in wars are not an immaculate priesthood who joined so they could serve the heavenly choir.

Necessity is the absolute. You know, it's all about survival. The survival of yourself, the survival of your colleagues, the the survival of your country, the survival of your allies, and you want to be very careful about how you tie the hands of the men who are going to risk their lives to ensure that survival.

I can promise you right now, I don't want to be in a foxhole with any of you people who are not willing to slap somebody around to make sure that I live or the people I love live. Please stay away from my unit. We have a tough enough time without your moralizing.

I apologize for the comment you didn't like, mel. However, your response to my remarks shows that you've overlooked quite a lot of what I said--in fact, it seems any facts I provided with which you disagree.

I still disagree with your thesis, as do many others here, and you've given me no reason at all to change my mind.

Oh, and I forgot something.

All of us had to carry around Geneva Convention cards.

Do you think any of the VC gave a flying f-- about the Geneva Convention?

Read about Senator McCain's 5 years of torture and the torture of his men. Does that sound like somebody gave one tinker's dam about the Geneva Convention to you?

Do you think people who like to behead the people they don't like and chop off body parts cares about the Geneva Convention?

I think that everyone who's involved in forming policy about matters as horrible as torture should have to go serve a year in a combat zone as a combatant before they get to open their yap.

Greg

I hadn't gathered from your earlier post that you are still in the service. My deep appreciation to you for your service to your country.

You say you are in a foxhole, by which I presume that you are in Afghanistan or Iraq. Thankfully, you've been able to procure a wi-fi connection so that you can participate in this conversation.

The fact remains, however, that the Geneva convention has served the world well for many years. And I re-iterate that the Axis forces were defeated handily without the violation of the Geneva convention - something that didn't happen in Vietnam and hasn't happened in Iraq.

The soldiers who defeated Hitler didn't think of the Geneva Convention as mere "moralizing". They thought of it as part of the civilization they were fighting - and dying - to preserve.

And they did preserve it - valiantly and triumphantly.

Mel Shortner

Mel,
I'm a VietNam veteran.

You sound like a nice guy.

When you've been in the military during a war, it sticks with you, and the ideas you have have been paid for at great cost.

I think I made a post about the Geneva Convention that overlapped the one you made. Although I'm a veteran, I'm not a history buff, but the idea that no enemy in World War II was coerced to give up intelligence is like something out of an Ed Woods movie.

Lookout

I apologize for overlooking any facts in your post. Looking back on your post, however, I am not sure what you're speaking of. You said that the war in the ME is different and I alluded to that in my reponse.

You said there are 'ridiculous constraints' imposed on our soldiers, and I'm not sure what you mean by that. The US government has essentially turned its back on the Geneva Convention. Are whatever 'constraints' there are on our soldiers 'ridiculous' simply because they are not completely un-constrained such as the savage terrorists are?

If that's the case, then we're back to the idea that we're really not defending anything if we're simply going to be as savage as they are.

You speak of winning the war - is that the war on terror, or simply the war in Iraq? If that is the case, then what is the definition of 'winning'? Would it be that no-one in the West, ever, would be subject to a terrorist attack again? If so, how does torture aid that cause?

Mel Shortner

Germans were captured by the British as spies during WW2. Some of them faced a sort of coercion. Do exactly as we tell you or face the hangman.

No torture mind you.

[quote]If that's the case, then we're back to the idea that we're really not defending anything if we're simply going to be as savage as they are.[/quote]

Mel Shortner,
We are defending the life of every American period. One American at a time if need be, we have a constitution that embodies individual rights. You can claim savage when we start beheading.. until then f**k off

Water Boarding is a more honorable way of getting to the "Truth" than the way scum bag Lawyers collude in a Court Of Law.

Get over your Stupid EU nonsense.

Our soldiers are NOT behaving like savages: wherever did you get that ludicrous idea? In general, they ARE following the Geneva Convention with an enemy that deserves no such concessions. See my anecdote about the 3:00 a.m. invasion of a murderous thug into your home. It's four of your family against one of him: to be "fair", you're going to give him time to call for backup?

Insisting on an exit date in advance is dangerous and illogical: it's like saying, "My children have only 18 years, 2 months, and six days to live in my house. Period. Then, they must go, no matter what." What if the time's not right? Wars, like kids, don't unfold in easily predictable ways.

You're naive, mel, if you say torture never works. The Taliban and Al Qaeda use it as a regular strategy to terrorize people. How do you think they keep women and followers of other religions in check? They're already using threat of violence and torture—think Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh, and Daniel Pearl—to keep dhimmis (like you, I suspect) in check. "Do what we say or something very bad will happen to you." Dhimmi: OK.

Your post illustrates that threat of violence and torture can be very effective in demoralizing the populace.

That said, I do not believe our troops generally use this kind of threat or actual behaviour. As I've mentioned, in order to gain intelligence, which may be crucial, there may be isolated incidences of the strategic use of limited torture technique, which are not nearly so brutal as those employed by the enemy: how you concoct an equivalency re the “savagery” of our enemy—it IS savage—and our troops—who, as professional soldiers, are not—suggests to me, to use a metaphor, that your magazine—as in argument—is still more than a few bullets short.

mel, another "equivalency" that doesn't hold up: in WW II, the enemy, more or less, was also following the Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda most certainly do not.

Would you arrive, armed with a sword, at a showdown with a pistol packing opponent?

mel shortner

You need to read the Geneva Conventions. You obviously haven't and you obviously don't understand them.

Under the GC's, a soldier caught fighting out of uniform is shot summarily as a spy. Period. The conventions were written in the way they were not to protect soldiers but to protect civilians. The protections were there to reward regular soldiers for following the law and punish offenders in the harshest manner (including death.) The aim of the GC's was to minimize the suffering of the civilian population due to the excesses of war. Carrot and stick.

There was definitely torture going on in WWII (both legal and illegal) and to pretend otherwise is wilful blindness. The UN convention against torture wasn't put in place until long after the end of the war (as the UN didn't even exist then.) The conventions protected only legal combatants and civilians. Illegal combatants and spies had no rights and were subject to whatever they got.

"However "quaint" it might have been, American soldiers were able to defeat Hitler while abiding by it - and in less time than the present war in Iraq has lasted."

Utter horses**t. Germany was "occupied" for many years after the end of the war in order to stabilize the place. The only difference is that the Germans stopped fighting and didn't start bombing their own people afterwards. One reason for this is the beating they took in the war. The allies crushed the fight out of them. The restrictions placed on troops in Iraq and Vietnam were such that the enemy didn't have its will to resist crushed out of them. That and the nature of those enemies.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn't make it fact. The law isn't what you think it should be but what is written down. Something isn't illegal just because you think it ought to be and a law isn't "unjust" just because you don't like it.

There were Nazis and regular German soldiers taken out and shot. They were tortured and anything else that the powers that be decided was necessary. Just because a few vets didn't participate, doesn't mean it didn't happen by others.

Torture hasn't been "proven" not to work! There are people who are against torture that have produced "studies" that say what they want to say. "Proof" is absent.

"Yes, the enemy is evil. But do you not see the obvious absurdity of waterboarding - performing 'simulated drowning' - on a Jihadi who's already sworn to die for Allah and is glad to do so? What information do you expect to get from one who does not care if they die?"

Do you see the absurdity of not recognizing that pain and death are different? They don't talk to save their lives, they talk to stop the waterboarding. You may thing waterboarding is too inhumane to use - a legitimate stance - but talking nonsense isn't a argument.

I have reservations about the use of torture but fairy tales are not valid points in an argument.

Mr. Philip Shaw

I understand that American lives are being defended. They were being defended in WW2 as well. And the Axis forces were defeated in 4 years, considerably shorter than the present conflict has lasted.

I presume you're unaware of the irony in your post. If one abhors the savage acts of the terrorists, i.e., beheading, then one must also abhor the torturing done by American soldiers. We're not accomplishing anything by descending to their level.

Lastly, I'm troubled by your need to use an obscenity regarding me. I realize that many on the net enjoy making statements they'd not have the courage to make face to face, and that's part of the "culture" here.

However, I don't think it speaks well of you or of conservatism that you need to hurl a crude remark simply because we disagree. As well, as a Christian and as a conservative I reject your obscenity and am offended by it. I would appreciate an apology.

Mel Shortner

Warwick, thanks.

mel, despite many well reasoned and well documented rebuttals of your simplistic mantra—that the military of the West, using any kind of torture, under any circumstances, is both useless and puts them/us on the same moral level as our terrorist enemy—you're still stuck in the same, incorrect spot.

Those who disagree with you have very clearly stated their case, some from on the ground experience. What is it you don't understand? (Is there a language processing problem or are you just stubborn?)

Also, I think you need to be a little more thick skinned: there's a lot of feisty give and take here. If it's too rough and tumble for you, you might want to consider going to another blog.

I’m a Christian too, but, as someone once said, “It’s a blood religion”! To stand with the Truth takes guts and stamina. We WILL be maligned: it comes with the territory. (Maybe you could consider the bumps at SDA as a test run . . .) However, mel, you’re not having problems here because you’re a Christian, but because—sorry!—your argument doesn’t hold water.

Over at Mark Steyn’s blog, he quotes this from Orwell:

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc*, and of being bored and repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

*Code for: English Socialism

Mark thinks we could substitute Canval (Canadian Values) for Ingsoc.

I think Orwell’s description is a perfect parallel to what must be happening in the politically correct brain these days. God help us all!

Lookout

I won't belabour this point because we seem to be talking at cross purposes.

Yourself and others have made opposing arguments to my original point. You seem to feel that you have refuted or disproven my argument. This is not the case.

You haven't presented proof of the effectiveness of torture. Neither have you (or others here) refuted my point that if we abandon a standard which has served us for many years we are compromising the very thing which makes us superior to - and different from - others.

As you say, those who disagree with me have stated their case. You then impugn my ability to understand their arguments. I understand them.

But it's not true that they have refuted my point. You can choose to say so, but that doesn't mean it's true, as an examination of the posts here will prove.

However, there is something else here I find more distrubing: because I disagree with you, you call me a "dhimmi". I was not familiar with the term. I looked up and found it means one who subjugates oneself to the Muslim religion.

Lookout, I am a proud Christian, a proud conservative, and a military man. I reject your smear of me, and I think it doesn't speak well of you or your argument that you have chosen to make it.

I think it's a very unfortunate tendency I've observed on this site that people have to smear and slander those they disagree with. It really isn't becoming that so many conservatives here resort to childish taunts from behind the safe anonymity of their computer screens.

Mel Shortner

Mr. Shortner

I respect that you are a Christian and a military man and am sorry that this converstaion has not gone well. However, despite your credentials, I'm afraid you have not made your case.

Assertions, no matter how firmly held, do not make either an argument or a rebuttal to the facts presented by those with whom you disagree. However, I see that no matter what one says here, you are not going to alter your viewpoint. That is your right.

And I hope and pray that our fighting men and women may prevail against a barbaric enemy, which, if it wins, will see that our rights are severely diminished. You might check out the word "dhimmi", Mr. Shortner. The West's present kow-towing to immature, intolerant Muslims, who threaten us with violence if we do not do what they say, shows that our dhimmitude has already started.

In my opinion, it's later than you think, sir.

Lookout

You say that "assertions, no matter how firmly held...are not a rebuttal to facts."

However, it is I who have presented facts. You and your friends have vented your assertions. "Warwick" claims that studies which prove torture is ineffective can be ignored. Yet why this is so he does not explain.

It seems to me that a great deal of your positions on this subject are a matter of "talking tough" from people who have never been on a battlefield or even in the military.

I am still deeply offended by your implication that I am somehow on the side of the enemy (Radical Islam) because of my position. Perhaps it is an obsolete code of honour (not unlike the Geneva Convention) which makes me painfully aware of the absence of a meaningful apology for this outrageous slur.

Mel Shortner