Why must we show restraint to our enemies.

[verte76]

Why should we use torture or any other morally bankrupt strategy just because the insurgents are? We don't want to act like that.

 

[Justin24]

So I guess that means they win right? By instilling fear into the people, by threats of beheadings and suicide bombings.

 

[80sU2isBest]

the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Quite frankly, that makes no difference to me at all. The Supreme Court also said that the government can seize private property for non-essential private enterprise purposes. Do you agree with them on that?

Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."

but this is a slippery slope -- have you no problems with the president becoming the moral equivalent of a mafia boss? what if i threatened to crush his testicles? kill his wife and children? saw off his limbs? where does it end?
your "if" scenario doesn't hold any water. it's never a "24"-style situation where there's some information that's going to stop the bomb on the train, and in fact, most information gleaned from torture is *bad* information because a tortured man will say anything to get you to stop torturing him

Well, I don't advocate killing a terrorist's wife and children, that's for sure.

My "coercive measures" would be a lot simpler and less horrific than all that, but more effective.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, I don't advocate killing a terrorist's wife and children, that's for sure.

My "coercive measures" would be a lot simpler and less horrific than all that, but more effective.

so where does it end and where does it begin? this seems to me to be as perfect an example of a slippery slope as i can think of. either torture is wrong, or it's not. you can't torture just a little bit. there are guidelines, there are rules, and when we violate these rules, we lose moral authority over our enemies. sure, they might torture worse, but now we've stooped to their level and we are only "better" through a difference of degree and not a quantifiable difference.

further, if we torture, this makes our troops much more likely to be subjected to "coercive measures" whenever they are captured. we are making our troops -- and civilian contractors, and journalists -- less safe.

finally, think of the GDR and the USSR -- state-sponsored "coercive interrogation" techniques. and what happened? effective policing went out the window and the KGB and the Strazi were effectively overrun by thugs and sadists. neither organization could solve a crime worth a damn. why? because the good people left and The Sopranos took over.

 

[Rono]

Nice rhetoric BVS but you should know by now that I'm not a terrorist supporter. I'd like to say that I support freedom and the right to fight back against terrorism. What do you think Israel is doing now in the Gaza strip? handing out candy cane??...NO....we're pounding the hell out of them, that's what we're doing - we're talking their own language.

Yes, bombing bridges, schools and a energy plant is not terrorism,.....

 

[trevster2k]

The White House said Tuesday that all detainees held in U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions — in a reversal of the position long held by the Bush administration.


The announcement came less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government's argument that the set of rules governing the wartime conduct of nations do not apply to the hundreds of men accused of terrorist activity who have been detained for years at the U.S. naval prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A U.S. Defence Department memo circulating Tuesday said the military must follow the Geneva Conventions, which include treating detainees humanely and giving them trials with judicial guarantees.

President George W. Bush and his Republican administration have for several years weathered criticism from domestic civil-rights advocates, the country's international allies and recently the U.S. Supreme Court over how the military treats prisoners accused of terrorist links.

But until Tuesday, the Bush administration maintained that those detainees were not prisoners of war and thus not protected under the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/11/geneva-convention.html

 

[80sU2isBest]

so where does it end and where does it begin? this seems to me to be as perfect an example of a slippery slope as i can think of. either torture is wrong, or it's not. you can't torture just a little bit. there are guidelines, there are rules, and when we violate these rules, we lose moral authority over our enemies. sure, they might torture worse, but now we've stooped to their level and we are only "better" through a difference of degree and not a quantifiable difference.

Personally, I think that coercing terrorists vs. beheading innocents is a quantifiable difference.

However, I do understand your points about the Nazis and the SS.

 

[Diemen]

I can't believe some of the things that have been said in this thread.

Justin24: Just because they torture and we don't doesn't mean they win. Unless you're looking for a Best Torturers In The World prize. Do you honestly think that, given the savagery we know they are capable of, that if we were to start beheading terrorists, it would have any effect on them other than whipping them into a more anti-American frenzy? They're already willing to die awful deaths for their cause. Adding one more option to the death table does nothing except erase the line between us and them. When we abandon our morals just so we can have wanton, bloodthirsty revenge on the same level as they have done to us, THAT is when they've won.

If we want to live up to these morals you say we have, then, quite simply, terrorism and torture are off the table. We can retaliate in a swift and aggressive fashion without resorting to terrorism.

To the others in support of torturing terrorists and fighting terrorism with terrorism, you don't end terrorism by simply killing terrorists. That's fighting the symptom and not the cause. One of you said we have to hit at the root. And you're absolutely right. Unfortunately for you, the root of terrorism is something that no bomb, missile, gun or torture tactic can reach.

 

[verte76]

So I guess that means they win right? By instilling fear into the people, by threats of beheadings and suicide bombings.

I don't think the insurgents are winning anything. They're just screwing their own people.

 

[Justin24]

That's fighting the symptom and not the cause.

What's the cause Osama, Imams who spread hatered of the west and Israel? If the cause are the bad imams, why not get rid of them also.

 

[maycocksean]

Let me reiterate what a few other posters have already stated, fighting terrorism by using methods of terror (brutality, torture, hunting down family of the terorists) is unlikely to do much to discourage terrorism. The truly fanatical will sacrifice all. . .and I mean ALL for the cause. They will sacrifice their lives, their families, everything. I know some Palestinian sucide bombers were supported by their families in their decision to kill themselves and the families were taken care of financially by terrorist backers after the bombers did their job. Such fanatics are likely not going to be fazed by threats of harm to their loved ones.

But let's talk about the less fanatical ones, the ones that we theorize might be the most discouraged by brutal retaliation. JMScoopy, Justin24 let me ask you this, let's say our country was invaded by another country. A foreign army lands on our soil, overthrows our president and set's up a government more friendly to their interests. How would you respond? You'd fight back wouldn't you. And let's say that this country's soldiers took on the policy you've suggested we use--fear and intimidation. Mess with us and we will take you out in the most painful way possible. But first we'll take your family out first as you watch.

How would YOU respond to such tatics? Would it make you more or less inclined to fight back? I don't know about you, but it would make me more inclined to fight. It would infuriate me that such an evil nation was in my country, and it would make me more determined than ever to do whatever it takes, at whatever the cost to get them out. I might have been inclined to go along with this invading country if they showed mercy and restraint. . .but a merciless invader like that. No way, better for me (and my family) than live in subjection to such a nation.

So, no. . .I don't think that brutal retaliation such as been described here will do anything to further the cause.

I think your frustration is actually underlining something else that I do agree with. We are doing this thing half-assed. We have been from the beginning. Dreadsox painted the picture crystal clear and it was sickening to read. It was a stupid war stupidly done and breaks my heart that our brave men and women are giving their lives over there because we've done it half-assed.

My feeling is that we need to send more troops over, not less. This is a very unpopular idea, one that nobody on either the left or the right really wants to commit to, but it's the only way I can see to get at least a modicum of control over there. We shouldn't have gone over to begin with, but it's too late to do anything about that now. We're in it and we've got to finish it right. The first priority needs to shut down the violence and I believe that can only happen with more troops on the ground. The next priority is to start fixing up the infrastructure of the country as quickly as we can.

Even then, this is far from a full solution. It doesn't even take into account the sectarian violence that is ripping Iraq apart. This is a complicated situation, one that will take complicated solutions. If the problems in Iraq could be solved in 20 min. time by an internet poster, we'd have been out of this long ago.

 

[fly so high!]

#1 What the fuck does bombing the crap out of Iraq have to do with 9/11?

#2 This administration ignored any and all intelligence that indicated that Iraq was not in posession of said WMD.

#3 This administration repeatedly allowed parts of reports to leak to lead the American public into thinking Iraq was a threat. IE Yellow Cake.

#4 This administration did not listen to the generals, who said that our force stregnth was not large enough to secure the borders and keep down an insurgency. This in turn added to the stress of the situation for the soldiers who are still there doing their best.

#5 This administration failed to create a fucking coalition that could actually help, one that included Islamic nations, so that this phase would not feel like an occupation by the USA.

#6 This administration is responsible for not doing the job RIGHT. By right, I mean listening to the advice of your fucking generals for starters. By right I mean having the correct numbers of soldiers to accoplish the job, so that our soldiers are not under the immense pressure they are under. Doing the job right does not mean bombing the fuck out of a country, ignoring the Geneva conventions, and continuing to make MORE enemies than we started with.

#7 I just finished reading the One Percent Doctrine. Second summer in a row I am sick to my stomach. The CIA concuded that Osama released his tape just before the last election to help Bush win. I wonder why!!!!

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

Cnacel that...because we are losing.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]#5 This administration failed to create a fucking coalition that could actually help, one that included Islamic nations, so that this phase would not feel like an occupation by the USA.[/q]


but what about Poland? YOU FORGOT POLAND!

(sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Axver]

What's the cause Osama, Imams who spread hatered of the west and Israel? If the cause are the bad imams, why not get rid of them also.

Wow, you're still focusing on the symptoms and not the cause.

Why do those Imams and Osama hate the West? What's the cause of their hate? Identify that and work to eliminate it, rather than just shooting imams or brutally torturing terrorists. If there is no ideological foundation left, then you might see an end to terrorism. If you just keep torturing and killing those who create a desire in you for bloodthirsty revenge, you're only going to make things worse and inspire more hatred.

 

[Justin24]

Let me reiterate what a few other posters have already stated, fighting terrorism by using methods of terror (brutality, torture, hunting down family of the terorists) is unlikely to do much to discourage terrorism. The truly fanatical will sacrifice all. . .and I mean ALL for the cause. They will sacrifice their lives, their families, everything. I know some Palestinian sucide bombers were supported by their families in their decision to kill themselves and the families were taken care of financially by terrorist backers after the bombers did their job. Such fanatics are likely not going to be fazed by threats of harm to their loved ones.

But let's talk about the less fanatical ones, the ones that we theorize might be the most discouraged by brutal retaliation. JMScoopy, Justin24 let me ask you this, let's say our country was invaded by another country. A foreign army lands on our soil, overthrows our president and set's up a government more friendly to their interests. How would you respond? You'd fight back wouldn't you. And let's say that this country's soldiers took on the policy you've suggested we use--fear and intimidation. Mess with us and we will take you out in the most painful way possible. But first we'll take your family out first as you watch.

How would YOU respond to such tatics? Would it make you more or less inclined to fight back? I don't know about you, but it would make me more inclined to fight. It would infuriate me that such an evil nation was in my country, and it would make me more determined than ever to do whatever it takes, at whatever the cost to get them out. I might have been inclined to go along with this invading country if they showed mercy and restraint. . .but a merciless invader like that. No way, better for me (and my family) than live in subjection to such a nation.

So, no. . .I don't think that brutal retaliation such as been described here will do anything to further the cause.

I think your frustration is actually underlining something else that I do agree with. We are doing this thing half-assed. We have been from the beginning. Dreadsox painted the picture crystal clear and it was sickening to read. It was a stupid war stupidly done and breaks my heart that our brave men and women are giving their lives over there because we've done it half-assed.

My feeling is that we need to send more troops over, not less. This is a very unpopular idea, one that nobody on either the left or the right really wants to commit to, but it's the only way I can see to get at least a modicum of control over there. We shouldn't have gone over to begin with, but it's too late to do anything about that now. We're in it and we've got to finish it right. The first priority needs to shut down the violence and I believe that can only happen with more troops on the ground. The next priority is to start fixing up the infrastructure of the country as quickly as we can.

Even then, this is far from a full solution. It doesn't even take into account the sectarian violence that is ripping Iraq apart. This is a complicated situation, one that will take complicated solutions. If the problems in Iraq could be solved in 20 min. time by an internet poster, we'd have been out of this long ago.

You see there is a problem with your question. Our country did not go in there to rape and kill families. A select few did that which is wrong. In the end 2 soldiers were killed for no reason and had no part in what there Commrades did. If a foreign country did invade I would fight them. I would not torture them or behead them, but I would shoot at them. I will leave the torturing of my enemy to others.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]In Mid-November 2004, a few weeks after the President's reelection, one of Miscik's deputies returned from a briefing with the Vice President. He had a request for her. Cheney wanted a portion of a particular CIA report declassified and made public. Miscik knew the report-it was about the complex, of catalytic connections between the war in Iraq and the wider war against terrorism. The item that the Vice President wanted declassified was a small part that might lead one to believe that the war was helping the broader campaign against violent jihadists. The report she knew, concluded nothing of the sort. Many of its conclusions flowed in the opposite direction. To release that small segment would be willfully misleading. She told the briefer to tell Cheney she didn't think it was a good idea.

The Vice President expressed his outrage to Porter Goss. A few days later, a call came from Goss's office........The deputy expressed the DCI's displeasure. He urged Miscik to reconsider. He described Goss's position succinctly:"Saying no to the Vice President is the wrong answer."

......

She hung up and fired off a memo to Goss, saying-she later recalled-that "this was the sort of thing that had gotten us into trouble, time and again, over the past few years. Telling only half the story, the part that makes us look good, and keeping the rest classified. Eventually it comes out and looks bad, real bad, and we lose moral capital."

A few days later, Miscik got word....that the DCI would reluctantly support her decision. A few weeks after that, she was gone.....

Her memo-a summation of a long-standing school of thought of which she is one of countless adherants-is of course classified.[/Q]

pg. 340-341 One Percent Doctrine

 

[80sU2isBest]

Wow, you're still focusing on the symptoms and not the cause.

Why do those Imams and Osama hate the West? What's the cause of their hate? Identify that and work to eliminate it, rather than just shooting imams or brutally torturing terrorists.

"Work at it and eliminate it"... In other words, stop doing whatever it is that the blood-thirsty terrorists don't like. In other other words, give in to the blood-thirsty, head-chopping hellions.

 

[Justin24]

Wow, you're still focusing on the symptoms and not the cause.

Why do those Imams and Osama hate the West? What's the cause of their hate? Identify that and work to eliminate it, rather than just shooting imams or brutally torturing terrorists. If there is no ideological foundation left, then you might see an end to terrorism. If you just keep torturing and killing those who create a desire in you for bloodthirsty revenge, you're only going to make things worse and inspire more hatred.

You know before the invasion of Iraq. The Imams had done nothing to stop the spread of hate in there religion, which I always here is supposed to be a religion of "Peace." I never see Muslims doing anything to stop the spead of hate and violence in there religion which is being cause by fuck ups. I sure do see them waving jumping and yelling in front of news cameras while they burn flags, call for the death of israel and the west. Calling us satan. Blowing up cars in front of a mosque full of shiites or sunnies and treat there woman like shit.

 

[fly so high!]

So I guess that means they win right? By instilling fear into the people, by threats of beheadings and suicide bombings.

Justin24....from what i've seen on this thread...the "terrorists" have one over you....you are shit scared....which is exactly what they want...i cannot believe even after posters have made sensible justifible reasons why killing to get back at these people IS NOT A OPTION!......and yes Justin24...whether you like it or not, THEY ARE PEOPLE,that are shit-scared too!...The difference between you and them is you are not armed,you are not hungry or having to look over your shoulder evry waking second....these people are desperate human beings.....don't get me wrong....i don't wanna give these guys are hug ( that won't do a single thing either!) They for what ever reason(there would to many factors to name)....has let fear into their heads and where this place is....there is no Life or Death,there is no Right or Wrong...there is just fear....don't let that consume you too!

 

[Justin24]

Justin24....from what i've seen on this thread...the "terrorists" have one over you....you are shit scared....which is exactly what they want...i cannot believe even after posters have made sensible justifible reasons why killing to get back at these people IS NOT A OPTION!......and yes Justin24...whether you like it or not, THEY ARE PEOPLE,that are shit-scared too!...The difference between you and them is you are not armed,you are not hungry or having to look over your shoulder evry waking second....these people are desperate human beings.....don't get me wrong....i don't wanna give these guys are hug ( that won't do a single thing either!) They for what ever reason(there would to many factors to name)....has let fear into their heads and where this place is....there is no Life or Death,there is no Right or Wrong...there is just fear....don't let that consume you too!

I am not scared if I die or not. Who should the people of Iraq fear more our soldiers which are 99.9% good or there own people who will kill them for being a shiite or sunni, for helping rebuild there country, etc... They should be afraid of there own people. I mean Bin Laden told the Sunnis to kill the Shiites for God's Sake.

 

[fly so high!]

I am not scared if I die or not. Who should the people of Iraq fear more our soldiers which are 99.9% good or there own people who will kill them for being a shiite or sunni, for helping rebuild there country, etc... They should be afraid of there own people. I mean Bin Laden told the Sunnis to kill the Shiites for God's Sake.

This is intersting.......how come you are not scared to DIE!

 

[Justin24]

Should I be afraid to die? I figure it will be the greatest Vacation Trip ever. All the R&R I will get.

 

[BVS]

"Work at it and eliminate it"... In other words, stop doing whatever it is that the blood-thirsty terrorists don't like. In other other words, give in to the blood-thirsty, head-chopping hellions.

Um, no.

 

[nbcrusader]

This thread is interesting in how it has splintered into multiple side discussions, ranging from the conduct of a military campaign to the effectiveness of coercive interrogation techniques.

Returning to the original post, the conceptual argument that the US must continually turn the other cheek in an effort to win over its enemies with morally upright behavior may be the correct course of action, but is without evidence that this is the most effective course of action, or most appropriate course of action. The US is facing an enemy that has a laundry list of grievances, and will continually place forth an objection to our actions.

Regarding our continued discussion on the applicability of the Geneva Convention, I doubt many have read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court only addressed the war trial commissions as they apply to the Gitmo detainees. It does not address the general applicability of the Geneva Convention to terrorists (and specifically states that the Court need not address that issue). The discussion of the Geneva Convention was limited to the requirement that detainees face a “regularly constituted court” for trial. The case was remanded for further deliberation on these issues, as it had reached the Supreme Court on largely procedural issues.

There is absolutely no basis for the statement that “we created terrorists”. If anything, we have given them a location so they can practice their trade.

 

[maycocksean]

im sure if the military said from now on if you are a terrorist, insurgent, etc and we capture you, we are going to torture and murder you and then find all your family members and then torture and kill them. that would be a better deterrent from terrorism then say, "humane treatment."

You're free to say whatever you like here of course, but you might be more successful in bringing people over to your point of view if you slowed down a bit and really thought through what you're saying before you post.

 

[maycocksean]

This thread is interesting in how it has splintered into multiple side discussions, ranging from the conduct of a military campaign to the effectiveness of coercive interrogation techniques.

Returning to the original post, the conceptual argument that the US must continually turn the other cheek in an effort to win over its enemies with morally upright behavior may be the correct course of action, but is without evidence that this is the most effective course of action, or most appropriate course of action. The US is facing an enemy that has a laundry list of grievances, and will continually place forth an objection to our actions.

Regarding our continued discussion on the applicability of the Geneva Convention, I doubt many have read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The court only addressed the war trial commissions as they apply to the Gitmo detainees. It does not address the general applicability of the Geneva Convention to terrorists (and specifically states that the Court need not address that issue). The discussion of the Geneva Convention was limited to the requirement that detainees face a “regularly constituted court” for trial. The case was remanded for further deliberation on these issues, as it had reached the Supreme Court on largely procedural issues.

There is absolutely no basis for the statement that “we created terrorists”. If anything, we have given them a location so they can practice their trade.

I hear what you're saying, Nbc, but I don't think anyone is suggesting we "turn the other cheek." All I'm saying is that we do not need to engage in terrorist-like behavior (i.e. disrespecting bodies, torturing terrorists and murdering their families) in order to win.

With your last sentence I heartily agree.

 

[Dreadsox]

There is absolutely no basis for the statement that “we created terrorists”. If anything, we have given them a location so they can practice their trade.

Isn't that worth 2,000 dead American soldiers.....Still waiting for osama to show up....then maybe it was worth it.

Is it not correct, to want your country to act effectively so that soldiers are not needlessly dying? Is it not correct to want the proper staffing and procedures, so that the insurgency is not as effective? 85% of murders in Iraq occured in the capital in May. Does it sound like we are doing a better job than Saddam?

Terrorists, insurgents, call them what you will....we added fuel to the fire in this country.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Um, no.

Um, yes

Let me remind you of the exact quote:

"Why do those Imams and Osama hate the West? What's the cause of their hate? Identify that and work to eliminate it"

What else could that mean except "find out what it is about us that they hate and stop doing it"?

 

[BVS]

Returning to the original post, the conceptual argument that the US must continually turn the other cheek in an effort to win over its enemies with morally upright behavior may be the correct course of action, but is without evidence that this is the most effective course of action, or most appropriate course of action.

How is it we've had to turn the other cheek? Really?

 

[Dreadsox]

By the way...it is this administration that has been trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 Terrorism.....

I do not have time to type the pages that indicate this administration put so much pressure on the CIA to mislead in meeting after meeting after meeting. Sickening.

The policy was decided and they thew out all but the round pegs that fit the policy.

So excuse me if the issue is blurred. It has been blurred by the lying scumbags of this administration.