I don't think anyone who travelled to Iraq at that time actually fully appreciated that they were dealing with a terrorist mindset still locked 1000 years in the past.
Mr Berg and Mr Pearl were civilians not enemy combatants, although these maniacs make no distinction between the two. Being an "infidel" is all that counts to them.
These two men were murdered in the most hideous way imaginable. I don't think "waterboarding" and having ones head slowly sawed off are comparable.
Not even the Japanese in World War 2 were as fanatical as the Muslim extremists who are the enemy of the West now, and look at what it took to defeat them.
I do not like to think we engage in torture but on the other hand I can also understand why it is resorted to.
If torture is so unreliable then why has it been used throughout human history, putting the subjigation/punishment reasons aside?
As for giving the enemy a reason to treat our soldiers poorly when captured? Well they aren't going to put them in POW camps no matter what we do. Capture for an "Infidel" is an automatic death sentence eventually.
But the crucial question remains: Are there any concevable circumstances that could justify the use of torture to extract information?
I think we are hiding behind our sense of morals to avoid the reality.
All in all it's a highly unpleasant world in which we find ourselves living.
I don't think so:Not even the Japanese in World War 2 were as fanatical as the Muslim extremists who are the enemy of the West now, and look at what it took to defeat them.
Both were told they were fighting an evil empire and both were told they'd be going to heaven if they were killed in combat.
I don't think a Banzai-Charge or a Kamikaze-attack is any less fanatical than blowing oneself up in a café.
Desperation.Originally posted by RegRag1977:
If what you're saying is true, and if torture as you said never proved to be a reliable way to get information, then what is the real purpose of it? : "torture for the sake of torture" doesn't seem enough for me, since the Western countries clearly built institutions for it.
Extracting information from somebody that doesn't want to give it is a very difficult task. Even moreso if that information is time-sensitive. There is really no effective means of forcing a person to tell you something if they're willing to die to keep that information secret.
This is why questionable methods are employed.
You can drug your captive to remove inhibitions, but this is going to affect the quality of the information that he gives.
You can torture him for information, but again, his only goal will be to stop the torture. Sometimes the information given is accurate. More often than not, it proves to be inaccurate or at the very least incomplete.
You can isolate a captive and try to break him over time, but that takes time and also doesn't necessarily produce the desired results.
Torture is basically employed in the 21st century because people are short-sighted and want information NOW and are at a loss for other methods.
That's a valid point, but I'd really rather not consider the ramifications of it. They are dark indeed. I'd much rather believe that torture is a well-intentioned but misguided attempt at intelligence gathering at heart.In my humble opinion, the purpose of it may not be intelligence gathering. But there must be a purpose. We should ask ourselves what it really means when a democratic State produces human bodies deprived of any kind of law protection in such an ostensible way. The production of "subhumans" deprived of any status that one could torture or/and kill(without being charged!): what will be the psychological effects of this fact on the tortured bodies (if they are to survive) and their relatives, and what will be the effects on the citizen of the countries that allowed it to happen?
Because if it isn't, then we're swimming in the same moral cesspool as the terrorists.
Survivors of a life and death struggle all know this: There are no rules.
Spectators of the fight seem to think there should be rules, so there is a built in excuse for losing.
I have compassion for your feelings. However, should you take your feelings into a fight, you will lose.
No reasonable person wants to fight. However, unreasonable people start fights all the time.
So, their unreasonable conduct warrants the same.
To eliminate torture? Don't take prisoners.
See holocaust for further details.Originally posted by Pudfark:
Survivors of a life and death struggle all know this: There are no rules.
Spectators of the fight seem to think there should be rules, so there is a built in excuse for losing.
I have compassion for your feelings. However, should you take your feelings into a fight, you will lose.
No reasonable person wants to fight. However, unreasonable people start fights all the time.
So, their unreasonable conduct warrants the same.
To eliminate torture? Don't take prisoners.
See holocaust for further details. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pudfark:
Survivors of a life and death struggle all know this: There are no rules.
Spectators of the fight seem to think there should be rules, so there is a built in excuse for losing.
I have compassion for your feelings. However, should you take your feelings into a fight, you will lose.
No reasonable person wants to fight. However, unreasonable people start fights all the time.
So, their unreasonable conduct warrants the same.
To eliminate torture? Don't take prisoners.
Aimail, what will you do in three years time when you're a platoon commander in 2Para and you discover some of your guys have taken 'souvenirs' after a firefight?
See holocaust for further details. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by arthursmedley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pudfark:
Survivors of a life and death struggle all know this: There are no rules.
Spectators of the fight seem to think there should be rules, so there is a built in excuse for losing.
I have compassion for your feelings. However, should you take your feelings into a fight, you will lose.
No reasonable person wants to fight. However, unreasonable people start fights all the time.
So, their unreasonable conduct warrants the same.
To eliminate torture? Don't take prisoners.
Aimail, what will you do in three years time when you're a platoon commander in 2Para and you discover some of your guys have taken 'souvenirs' after a firefight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What like Gurkhas cutting dead talibans heads off? That doesn't bother me. Just hypocrisy. You'll find plenty of squaddies that were outraged by the Afghanistan kill team fiasco.
No, I'm not talking about Gurkhas I'm asking what YOU will do when YOU are OC and it's your guys doing a bit of needlework.
Or your platoon has just over run it's objective, your company commander wants you to exploit forward but you know it's booby-trapped ahead. At your feet is a wounded baddy. He knows where the good stuff is but he ain't telling....without some persuading.
Your platoon sgt wants to persuade him to talk as he dosen't want to risk his young guys getting their heads blown off.
What you gonna do?
just saw this. I will add it here.
McCain says torture did not lead to bin Laden
"This is a moral debate. It is about who we are," says Ariz. Republican, former POW
WASHINGTON — Waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques were not a factor in tracking down Osama bin Laden, a leading Republican senator insisted Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43...litics-more_politics
"Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information," McCain said. He called on Mukasey and others to correct their misstatements.
I don't think torture should be a national policy, it should be discouraged wherever possible. Anything done should be unofficial, encouraging it and saying that it's okay is a slippery slope. I'm going to counter question you to deal with this. Why compromise your ideals if he doesn't mind dying and give's you information leading to one of your squads getting blown to bits? I probably wouldn't trust a damn thing the guy said.Originally posted by arthursmedley:
No, I'm not talking about Gurkhas I'm asking what YOU will do when YOU are OC and it's your guys doing a bit of needlework.
Or your platoon has just over run it's objective, your company commander wants you to exploit forward but you know it's booby-trapped ahead. At your feet is a wounded baddy. He knows where the good stuff is but he ain't telling....without some persuading.
Your platoon sgt wants to persuade him to talk as he dosen't want to risk his young guys getting their heads blown off.
What you gonna do?
If it was a conventional enemy grunt who didn't feel like dying? Well, does with holding medical aid count as torture because I'm betting he'd probably quite like a morphine shot.
Thirdly I'd be badgering my superior for some bomb dogs depending on what sort of situation your talking about.
Fourthly if my platoon Sgt was so worried on this occasion, I'd avoid likely routes to be mined, it also depends what assets I have. Do I have a big **** off Chally with anti-mine equipment, dogs, UAVs, UGV's, ANA cannon fodder? What's the new objective and how fast does it need to be taken?
My point is that it should not be policy or actively encouraged, so that torture becomes normal.