Al-Qaeda captures two American soldiers

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
[q]Two, torture can be used in limited circumstances to gain necessary intelligence, but should not be used as a way of instilling fear in the general public. [/q]


my problem with the three options you've given us lies directly in this one. it seems implicit in this statement that torture can and is a successful means of gaining intelligence, especially that necessary intelligence, which, in the minds of those who are more receptive to the use of torture, would mean information about an imminent attack on civilians. that's another assumption, not just on the accuracy of information gained through torture, but on the level of importance of such information.

when you open the door to torture with the hope of meeting these two things (accurate intelligence, critical intelligence) the likelihood of yielding such information seems remote at best.

my guess is the sanctioning of torture by Cheney et al has been done to reassure themselves, the people in power, that they are doing all that can be done to protect American citizens, with little regard to the actual worth of ingelligence gained through torture.
 
As a non-American, I tend to agree with Irvine. When governments start killing civilians and torturing people for information, it is IMO worse than terrorist activity. We know they are monsters, but we should know better and act with more restraint.

This so called "war on terror" is not conventional and changing tactics to match the enemy in this case will not lead to a positive outcome. If torture is acceptable for terror suspects to save American lives, why not torture kidnapping, child molesters or any suspect to save the life of any American. Where do you draw the line if torture is supposedly an effective method of drawing information from a suspect? Humans have rights, and unfortunately, we have to have a consistent policy for everyone and especially for those who are monsters otherwise they don't matter anymore. If you don't believe in maintaining the laws of civilization, well, the terrorists have succeeded in their job, altering our society to suit their image as a result of fear.
 
If we show restraint, the terrorist wont care, but then people will be wanting us to get out of a mess, showing we are weak. If torturing a kidnapper to get a child back, then it's ok I guess. If he lied we still have him in custody.

You know I dont know, this is a mess
 
Irvine511 said:
my question: can we blame anyone but ourselves if we find that they have been tortured?

even if we had politicians who didn't endorse torture or a defense secretary who laughs off waterboarding as a "coercive interrogation technique," i am sure these soldiers would have been beheaded anyway.

The whole premise of this thread was that American interrogation techniques were to blame for the way our two U.S. soldiers were brutalized. But your second statement seems to be in complete conflict. Would these two young men been treated any differently had Abu Graib/Gitmo not occurred? Where do you stand?
 
Bluer White said:

The whole premise of this thread was that American interrogation techniques were to blame for the way our two U.S. soldiers were brutalized. But your second statement seems to be in complete conflict. Would these two young men been treated any differently had Abu Graib/Gitmo not occurred? Where do you stand?



no -- it was that we should not be surprised that they were tortured, thus underscoring the fact that torture makes our soldiers less safe and more likely not just to be killed but to be killed horrifically when they are captured due to Abu Graib and Gitmo -- it's a cycle of depravity and torture-reciprocity. they will do one worse to us than we have done to them. further, we can no longer unequivocally condemn what has happened to these poor soldiers. we've lost that moral high ground.

i also thought i made it fairly clear what's also at stake here -- "however, what was once a difference between civilization and barbarism has now been degraded by the present adminsitration into a mere a difference in degree" -- so it's not so much as trying to push me in a corner and make me choose between two statements, but that both statements are completley linked and totally logical.
 
Last edited:
Justin24 said:
My point is, why should we in a war situation have to be humane to our enemy( Al-Qaeda, Taliban etc)

Because it's the right thing to do.

I see Irvine's point very clearly. We should not throw out our principles because our enemies prove to be unprincipled, which is what Justin24 was arguing earlier. I understand why Justin felt that way--it's a raw emotional response to what happened. But we can't make it policy.

I also have to agree with nbccrusader that we've not descended to the level of our enemies. Gitmo and Abu Gharib notwithstanding I believe our government has made a genuine effort to hew to the basic principles of democracy and human rights. There is a VERY CLEAR difference between the behavior of our troops and the insurgents/terrorists. It's just silly to claim otherwise.

However, I believe that part of the reason we haven't is because we have people in and out of the government and military saying what Irvine has said. "Hey, guys, this isnt' right. This isn't what we're about." If there were no Irvines to question and challenge the wrongs that have been done in short order we'd have a scenario similar to what Justin24 was suggesting earlier where we are right down in the dirt fighting at the same atrocious level as our enemies.

And I can see no logical reason why we have to fight them the way they fight us to win. Beheading their guys and mutiliating their bodies as they've done to us---how is that going to further us towards victory? That makes no sense!

Torture as a means of getting information is a different issue, but again, not a simple one. Torture obviously is effective if the person actually knows something. It isn't if he doesn't. Either way you get "information." The question is whether it's good information.

Here's an interesting side note. I talked with a well-known WW II veteran who was held in a Japanese prison for a couple of years and was tortured by the Japanese while there. Well the short of it is he forgave his captors and after the war eventually became close friends with the pilot who shot him down over Tokyo. And guess what his take on all this was? "Do whatever it takes to get the information." And this from a guy who'd been tortured himself. Go figure.

I just thought that was kind of interesting. Maybe he didn't hold it against his captors, what they did to him--
they're just doing their jobs and so on, so he figured we can do the same. I don't know. He didn't elaborate.
 
Irvine511 said:
further, we can no longer unequivocally condemn what has happened to these poor soldiers. we've lost that moral high ground.

Can Muslims "unequivocally condemn" the actions of a tiny percentage of Islamic extremists? Have Muslims lost their high moral ground?

Obviously not. Why is America any different?
 
Bluer White said:


Can Muslims "unequivocally condemn" the actions of a tiny percentage of Islamic extremists? Have Muslims lost their high moral ground?

Obviously not. Why is America any different?



i didn't realize that we were at war with a religion.

perhaps we are.

yes, most muslims do unequivocally condemn the actions of a tiny percentage of Islamic extremists, mostly because they weren't democratically elected and it isn't the written policy of Muslims Everywhere.

the analogy holds no water.
 
Actually, I think there is something to the analogy in that while we call it a War on Terror, we really have a war on a specific brand of Islam - one birthed in Iran 30 years ago.
 
Irvine511 said:
yes, most muslims do unequivocally condemn the actions of a tiny percentage of Islamic extremists, mostly because they weren't democratically elected and it isn't the written policy of Muslims Everywhere.

the analogy holds no water.

It absolutely does. I just took one group, singled out a few bad actors, and questioned whether the majority of the group had any moral authority. Just as you did with the United States. The alleged Haditha massacre and Abu Graib debacle was not written policy, and not unwritten policy. It was unlawful.

You asked if we should be surprised that these two specific soldiers were tortured. I asked you if American policy was to blame for the way in which these two were brutalized. You couldn't answer a simple question, because you draw a moral equivalency between the terrorists and the Bush administration. You've said as much. That is your opinion. Many do not agree with it.
 
Irvine511 said:

my problem with the three options you've given us lies directly in this one. it seems implicit in this statement that torture can and is a successful means of gaining intelligence, especially that necessary intelligence, which, in the minds of those who are more receptive to the use of torture, would mean information about an imminent attack on civilians. that's another assumption, not just on the accuracy of information gained through torture, but on the level of importance of such information.

when you open the door to torture with the hope of meeting these two things (accurate intelligence, critical intelligence) the likelihood of yielding such information seems remote at best.

If it unreasonable to believe that the torture used to extract information will lead to accurate, critical intelligence, the only remaining benefit would be the perverted pleasure of inflicting pain. We gain no ground in the terror aspect of torture.

Have we really arrived at that point?
 
nbcrusader said:
Actually, I think there is something to the analogy in that while we call it a War on Terror, we really have a war on a specific brand of Islam - one birthed in Iran 30 years ago.

Actually in the war in Iraq, no we DON"T have a war on a specific brand of Islam. Or if we do now, we certainly didn't have one when the war began. Saddam Hussein's government was decidely secular and the radical brand of Shia Islam that I assume you're referring to was being brutally suppressed by his government. What has unfortunately happened is that AFTER the war began we've seen Iraq become a magnet for wild-eyed jihadists from all over the world. The idea that the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror is ludicrous. Far from moving the war on terror forward, the war in Iraq has hampered our ability to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. Unless the concept was: "Let's invade a country we don't like anyway and draw all the terrorists there so that we can tie them up there and fight them there."
 
DrTeeth said:
It's absolutely horrible what happened to these men. Situations like these make me glad I've always been consistenly against torture.

It is horrible in a way, and I feel for their families. But they signed up for war, as did the insurgents. Who didn't sign up for the war are the innocent civilians and foreign workers being injured and killed :(
 
Bluer White said:


It absolutely does. I just took one group, singled out a few bad actors, and questioned whether the majority of the group had any moral authority. Just as you did with the United States. The alleged Haditha massacre and Abu Graib debacle was not written policy, and not unwritten policy. It was unlawful.



you are correct about Haditah, you are incorrect about Abu Ghraib which was the logical conclusion of the deliberate obfuscation of the rules of conduct and military chain of command after the Gonzales memos. further, we practice torture, or outsource it, and this has been written about extensively, and all of this was independent of Abu Ghraib or Haditha. think of the secret prisons across Eastern Europe. think of the lengthy discussions about waterboarding. think of the "McCain Amendment." all of this is POLICY, new policy, implemented by Cheney and Rumsfeld, both of whom are public servants in a democracy appointed by a man whom 60 million people voted for. no one has voted for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has no mandate to set policy for the Muslim world.

there's a huge difference between the official policy of the United States -- remember, we're thinking far beyond AG and Haditha, which is awful that we have to do so -- and the actions of a rogue terrorist group.

i'm also amazed that, with your analogy, you're saying that the United States government is both an equivalent entity to Muslims Everywhere as well as at war with them.



You asked if we should be surprised that these two specific soldiers were tortured. I asked you if American policy was to blame for the way in which these two were brutalized. You couldn't answer a simple question, because you draw a moral equivalency between the terrorists and the Bush administration. You've said as much. That is your opinion. Many do not agree with it.



you are totally putting words in my mouth. garbage. please show me where i have said as much. in fact, i have written extensively about how bad and nihilistic Islamist terrorism is, and that's why we must defeat it by proving that we are better, that we deserve to win. i know i'd like to fufill your fantasies about everyone who dislikes Bush and his conduct of the invasion of Iraq as some kind of Michael Moore follower, but that's not the case at all. one can despise our leadership and not draw equivalence with fascists -- it's really easy to ask a question when you need a certain answer to justify whatever point you're trying to make, i'm sorry i wasn't able to do that for you.

in any event, did you read my response? blame is irrelevant here. it's totally beside the point outlined in the initial post and which i followed up to. we should not be surprised, nor can we claim the moral high ground, when our soldiers are themselves victims of torture.

can we blame Bush and Co. for degrading us as a nation and as a culture and for making our soldiers less safe? now that's a relevant question, and the answer to that is yes.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


If it unreasonable to believe that the torture used to extract information will lead to accurate, critical intelligence, the only remaining benefit would be the perverted pleasure of inflicting pain. We gain no ground in the terror aspect of torture.

Have we really arrived at that point?



i'm going to start a thread tomorrow about The One-Percent Doctrine -- i think that might explain some of what the rationalizations for torture were in the minds of some in the administration.
 
I don't understand the endless hand-wringing about our treatment of captured terrorists on the part of some, mostly on the left.
If this was conventional war and we were talking about captured enemy combantants in uniform I would hope our government would follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter. But terrorists are by profession unlawful combantants and thus fall outside the rules of war. He doesn't wear a uniform, he hides among civilians. targets mainly innocents and no specific government can be held responsible for his actions. It is my believe that he is entitled to no protections. But we give them humane treatment anyway because we are a humane and moral people and don't want to lower ourselves to their level. On the rare, and they are rare, occasions that we fail to do this, we are as a people shocked & disgraced. Congressional heaings and military investigations follow and guilty parties are held responsible. That in itself makes us, for lack of a better term, better than them.

Bottom line, while I certainly understand the logic behind "Don't become a monster to kill a monster", if the detainment and interrogation of captured terrorists is partly responsible for the fact that there has been no new attacks on American soil in 5 years, I'm fine with it...within reason.
 
INDY500 said:
I don't understand the endless hand-wringing about our treatment of captured terrorists on the part of some, mostly on the left.
If this was conventional war and we were talking about captured enemy combantants in uniform I would hope our government would follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter. But terrorists are by profession unlawful combantants and thus fall outside the rules of war. He doesn't wear a uniform, he hides among civilians. targets mainly innocents and no specific government can be held responsible for his actions. It is my believe that he is entitled to no protections. But we give them humane treatment anyway because we are a humane and moral people and don't want to lower ourselves to their level. On the rare, and they are rare, occasions that we fail to do this, we are as a people shocked & disgraced. Congressional heaings and military investigations follow and guilty parties are held responsible. That in itself makes us, for lack of a better term, better than them.

Bottom line, while I certainly understand the logic behind "Don't become a monster to kill a monster", if the detainment and interrogation of captured terrorists is partly responsible for the fact that there has been no new attacks on American soil in 5 years, I'm fine with it...within reason.

The problem with your argument is that they few the US as terrorists, so that justifies them doing cruel things.

And who gives a shit about American Soil, or Canadian Soil, or Middle Eastern Soil.. There shouldn't be any attacks anywhere on this globe.
 
INDY500 said:
I don't understand the endless hand-wringing about our treatment of captured terrorists on the part of some, mostly on the left.

I think you answered your own question.
INDY500 said:
But we give them humane treatment anyway because we are a humane and moral people and don't want to lower ourselves to their level. On the rare, and they are rare, occasions that we fail to do this, we are as a people shocked & disgraced. Congressional heaings and military investigations follow and guilty parties are held responsible. That in itself makes us, for lack of a better term, better than them.

That's pretty much it. We, as a nation don't tolerate inhumane behavior. And when our own people on rare occasions do inhumane things we are rightly shocked and take measures to hold the guilty responsible. We are shocked and wring our hands and have hearings and investigations because this is not what we are about.

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution, when they forbade "cruel and unusual punishment" meant that these were rights for U.S. citizens. Obviously they could only be applied within our borders (we can't force the citizens of other countries to abide by our rules) but I don't think that they meant it was fine for other human beings (who are not citizens. or lawful combatants) to endure "cruel and unusual punishment."

And what real evidence is there that torturing suspects has prevented another terrorist attack on our soil. Is that why the Brits got bombed last summer? Cause they weren't torturing people enough? And the same with Spain?

One reason we may not have experienced another attack is that Al Qaeda has been disrupted (despite, not BECAUSE of the war in Iraq. Though one could argue that all the jihadists are distracted with killing our soldiers and Iraqi people over there rather than plotting and carrying out more attacks on the U.S. Which the most cynical of people could argue is a good thing. Better the Iraqi people and the our guys who volunteered to go over there then all us civilians, huh).

Another reason is that we have taken measures (though I'm sure there are many more holes to plug) to secure our safety and tighten security.

These terrorists are not cowards (though it feels good to say they are). They are fanatical, willing to suffer and to die for their demented beliefs. They won't be swayed from terrorist acts simply because they hear about their fellows being tortured.

And as posters on both sides of the debate have pointed out, there is no proof that torturing suspects got valuable information from a suspect that led to an attack on U.S. soil being prevented.
 
maycocksean said:




I don't think the drafters of the Constitution, when they forbade "cruel and unusual punishment" meant that these were rights for U.S. citizens. Obviously they could only be applied within our borders (we can't force the citizens of other countries to abide by our rules) but I don't think that they meant it was fine for other human beings (who are not citizens. or lawful combatants) to endure "cruel and unusual punishment."




I don't get it

when people put the "so-called founding fathers" on a pedestal


I am sure you have heard of slavery, and the treatment the "Indians" received at the hands of these "fathers"

perhaps, Father could be the appropriate term

rape can lead to paternity
 
deep said:


I don't get it

when people put the "so-called founding fathers" on a pedestal


I am sure you have heard of slavery, and the treatment the "Indians" received at the hands of these "fathers"

perhaps, Father could be the appropriate term

rape can lead to paternity

All true. I'm not trying to put the "founding fathers" on any kind of pedestal.

Perhaps you missed the point of my post. Which was that just because people are not U.S. citizens or "unlawful combatants" does not give us the the right to abuse any way we like.
 
maycocksean said:


We are shocked and wring our hands and have hearings and investigations because this is not what we are about.


It's the, as I put it, "endless" handwringing. Or better stated, the propensity by some to dwell on the negative, mostly for political gain. It's a defeatist attitude in a war we can't afford to lose and it leads one to believe that some people actually hope we don't win.

And what real evidence is there that torturing suspects has prevented another terrorist attack on our soil.

None, none what-so-ever. But you can't say that it hasn't either and if there was, would that make it suddenly OK? I am pro-detainment (Gitmo) but not pro-torture. Who is? But, if you believe this is a real war (some don't) then it's kill them before they, as they've stated is their goal, kill us. At which point you have to trust those in charge to make the right decisions.
 
Last edited:
INDY500 said:


It's the, as I put it, "endless" handwringing. Or better stated, the propensity by some to dwell on the negative, mostly for political gain. It's a defeatist attitude in a war we can't afford to lose and it leads one to believe that some people actually hope we don't win.

I agree

We have to win a war we probably shouldn't have entered in the first place. Some dwell on the fact that we shouldn't even be there, others dwell on the fact we have to win at all costs. I think we'd all be better off trying to find the place in the middle. We have to win, but we aren't going to stoop to the enemies level and we need to just 'move the fuck on' from the debate over the politics of the war. It's over and done. Win and do it right. It's the only way we can hope to alleviate this mistake.

Maybe if we had some accountability up top we could all follow suit, put an end to the political bickering and just hope for a victory that both secures Iraq and alleviates this huge mistake, if just for the forseeable future. This won't happen because our leadership is at one of the extremes and the opposition leadership is at the other. Endless bullshit.


At which point you have to trust those in charge to make the right decisions.

This seems to be the biggest problem of all.
 
U2DMfan said:


I agree

We have to win a war we probably shouldn't have entered in the first place. Some dwell on the fact that we shouldn't even be there, others dwell on the fact we have to win at all costs. I think we'd all be better off trying to find the place in the middle. We have to win, but we aren't going to stoop to the enemies level and we need to just 'move the fuck on' from the debate over the politics of the war. It's over and done. Win and do it right. It's the only way we can hope to alleviate this mistake.

Maybe if we had some accountability up top we could all follow suit, put an end to the political bickering and just hope for a victory that both secures Iraq and alleviates this huge mistake, if just for the forseeable future. This won't happen because our leadership is at one of the extremes and the opposition leadership is at the other. Endless bullshit.




This seems to be the biggest problem of all.

Seems like you summed it up pretty well.
 
U2DMfan said:


I agree

We have to win a war we probably shouldn't have entered in the first place. Some dwell on the fact that we shouldn't even be there, others dwell on the fact we have to win at all costs. I think we'd all be better off trying to find the place in the middle. We have to win, but we aren't going to stoop to the enemies level and we need to just 'move the fuck on' from the debate over the politics of the war. It's over and done. Win and do it right. It's the only way we can hope to alleviate this mistake.

Maybe if we had some accountability up top we could all follow suit, put an end to the political bickering and just hope for a victory that both secures Iraq and alleviates this huge mistake, if just for the forseeable future. This won't happen because our leadership is at one of the extremes and the opposition leadership is at the other. Endless bullshit.






This seems to be the biggest problem of all.


Well said.
 
Christina Menchaca, 18, center, and other family members visit the flag draped casket of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca during a public viewing in Brownsville, Texas, Tuesday, June 27, 2006

capt.a408dd6b76864a1895f0eb76318c5823.soldier_missing_body_txeg101.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom