Thread: Does it violate the ethics of war to waterboard captured American Soldiers? (title Edit)

Since we are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to be practical. We have our own people over there getting killed on a daily basis. Torture doesn't go over any better than pissing on the enemy's dead. If you want to be purely practical about it, the inhumane treatment of muslims has been something that has been a PR nightmare for us. It is contratictory to us building the trust of the people to get them to stop trusting the Talaban instead of trusting us. We have to show them we are better than Al Queda and the Talaban and using medieval tactics are definitely a step in the wrong direction. The sooner we resolve the situtaion, the sooner our service people will be out of the line of fire.

Waterbording is just another way Liberal use to make soldiers seem the bad guy....It is the same mind set of the radicals that called them baby killers in the 70's.

Originally Posted by bluesman

I see that you are replying to two separate posts but your post doesn't really address what I said. It really comes down to the fact that individual civil liberties are a founding principle. It isn't a question of you losing sleep, it is a question of what we stand for as a country.

It's also a matter of making damned sure that you still have a country to stand for.

The terrorists have chosen the set of rules they want to play by so it's our job to take the game right to them.

Originally Posted by bluesman

Since we are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to be practical. We have our own people over there getting killed on a daily basis. Torture doesn't go over any better than pissing on the enemy's dead. If you want to be purely practical about it, the inhumane treatment of muslims has been something that has been a PR nightmare for us. It is contratictory to us building the trust of the people to get them to stop trusting the Talaban instead of trusting us. We have to show them we are better than Al Queda and the Talaban and using medieval tactics are definitely a step in the wrong direction. The sooner we resolve the situtaion, the sooner our service people will be out of the line of fire.

Calling something torture when it doesn't meet the definition of torture is a weak argument.

Originally Posted by lutherf

So....if I'm on a patrol and capture a guy who has a flash drive in his pocket and the intel guys find out its got assembly instructions for chem weapons on it I'm not going to feel the least bit of remorse if they dunk this MOFO in an attempt to find out where the parts are and who he's working with. Wouldn't lost one second of sleep over that knowledge. I would, however, lose a lot of sleep if I turned this asshole over and they spent a week trying to get information out of him by feeding him banana cream pie and singing Helen Reddy songs to him and then my fire base or another one got gassed.

What happened to at least one of these guys was basically that. The problem is, he was completely innocent, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time which made him appear guilty to the Troops who apprehended him. Now he's dead. Dead from being in US custody when torture was apparently the admirable way to go about extracting information.

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths - New York Times
"In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths"


How do you know the guy with the flash drive wasn't just a cab-driver working as a courier who was simply doing a job for a group that would kill his family if he didn't participate?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

What happened to at least one of these guys was basically that. The problem is, he was completely innocent, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time which made him appear guilty to the Troops who apprehended him. Now he's dead. Dead from being in US custody when torture was apparently the admirable way to go about extracting information.

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths - New York Times
"In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths"


How do you know the guy with the flash drive wasn't just a cab-driver working as a courier who was simply doing a job for a group that would kill his family if he didn't participate?

Waterboarding or anything else is certainly not a first choice. If I ask the guy what the flash drive is and he says "It belongs to so and so. I'm just supposed to deliver it to someone else so that they'll release my family" I'll check out the information and if it looks legit then the guy is off the hook.....not necessarily released but probably not a candidate for "enhanced interrogation".

There is a time and a place for everything, Dis.

"He's lying though, waterboard the fuck out of him!"

You KNOW that's going to happen when official (or even unofficial) policy is that torture is ok.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

What happened to at least one of these guys was basically that. The problem is, he was completely innocent, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time which made him appear guilty to the Troops who apprehended him. Now he's dead. Dead from being in US custody when torture was apparently the admirable way to go about extracting information.

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths - New York Times
"In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths"


How do you know the guy with the flash drive wasn't just a cab-driver working as a courier who was simply doing a job for a group that would kill his family if he didn't participate?

Apples to oranges. Their captures basically beat them to death for the sake of torture there; which is both reprehensible and tremendously different from water boarding to extract information. I recognize posting on a political forum necessitates purposefully mis-characterizing the "opponents" argument to the point of absurdity but I don't think anyone here is even remotely condoning snatching random people off the street, hanging them by the waist from the ceiling, and beating them to death.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

"He's lying though, waterboard the fuck out of him!"

You KNOW that's going to happen when official (or even unofficial) policy is that torture is ok.

Dis, there are idiots all over as well as certain cretins who seem to thrive on fucking up other people's days. As with any other set of rules, you establish various standards and then hold people to those standards. Rules don't keep stuff from happening. If waterboarding is taken off the table then somewhere along the line suspects are just going to get "disappeared" and the shit is going to happen any way.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

"He's lying though, waterboard the fuck out of him!"

You KNOW that's going to happen when official (or even unofficial) policy is that torture is ok.

I think water boarding is an effective tool to extract information when used properly but you keep coming up with examples that are clearly improper, should be illegal, and that no one is supporting. John Drake also obviously thought he was clever by asking if killing Girl Scouts is ok in response to the killing armed intruders topic in the Gun Control section but, like your examples, no one is actually advocating that.

Honestly, what is the point of these silly strawman arguments?

In any argument, I always try to start (like many did at the beginning of this thread) by turning the situation around.
Is it okay for another country to torture an American soldier?

Okay, but the obvious response here is that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used were often used in order to safe lives--maybe hundreds of lives. I think I agree. I'm not comfortable with it, and I hate it, but I think that sometimes terrible things are necessary.

Now say an American soldier is captured by a group of who we call terrorists (which I agree that they are, but I can also assure you that they do not agree or agree only to the point that they are doing every damned thing they can to protect what they consider their way of life. Remember: almost never does someone fight and kill for what they believe is wrong). Now there's a good chance that this group thinks that this American has information that could safe dozens, if not hundreds of their people's lives.
Is it wrong for them to torture him?

Originally Posted by Maskless

Is it okay for another country to torture...[to gain intelligence]?

Not according to international agreements such as the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by Maskless

Okay, but the obvious response here is that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used were often used in order to safe lives--maybe hundreds of lives. I think I agree. I'm not comfortable with it, and I hate it, but I think that sometimes terrible things are necessary.

How does one measure this? Where is the evidence that "hundreds of lives" were saved as a result of such techniques?

In every liberal democracy, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Confessions obtained by torture are not allowed in US courts. The reason for this is obvious: there is no way to know whether those who "confess" are telling the truth or merely saying what their captors want to hear to stop the torture.

The idea that a sophistocated nation such as the US has to resort to such techniques to obtain actionable information is an admission of failure. Nations with highly effective intelligence agencie (e.g. Israel and England) have their ears on the ground, infiltrating enemy organizations, establishing contacts, gathering intelligence from the source.

Let's face it. What we have at Guantanamo is little more than a policy of "round up the usual suspects".

Originally Posted by lutherf

It's also a matter of making damned sure that you still have a country to stand for.

The terrorists have chosen the set of rules they want to play by so it's our job to take the game right to them.

You are kind of leaping over the argument and giving a pep talk. We were discussing the rationale behind condoning torture as a policy.