Had Al-Zarqawi been captured alive, would you advocate torturing him for information?

Status
Not open for further replies.
After reading this thread, and many others similar to it, there is something that always sits at the back of my mind.

Most if not all of the tactics of the terrorists are subhuman, and for this reason we should be above such things.

However at the end of the day this sort of conflict that we are in will produce a winner and a loser. Every day that such people are allowed to run free is in a sense a win for the bad guys. The only way for us to win is to make it so undesirable for people to commit such acts.

As a result, there exists a choice between the desire to win and the desire to play by the rules.

This isn't a statement advocating torture, however, looking at the military history of our country every major success that we have had is because we put the screws to the enemy both on the battlefield and in dark rooms in the middle of nowhere.

As it stands right now, our military is forced to fight only a restrained war. Unless we decide to get creative on other fronts, there will be no way to win this.

As far as hearts and minds go, I really don't care if you like me as long as you respect me. Fear is a far better motivator than charm and candy bars.
 
Because many of the guerillas do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance", they are traditionally not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention [1]
Click to expand...

Let's see. Those who conventionally make conventional war, had a convention and created rules known as the Geneva Convention. In this convention, or some amendment of it, they made the above statement.

So then there was a class of warriors who were unprotected by the rules of the Geneva Convention.

All of a sudden, three jet airplanes loaded with fuel crash into three very visible targets in the US, probably in violation of the rules of the Geneva Convention, and you wonder why.

Why is it we're not supposed to overtly assassinate foreign leaders? Same reason we're not supposed to torture.

Either you got rules or you don't.
 
As it stands right now, our military is forced to fight only a restrained war. Unless we decide to get creative on other fronts, there will be no way to win this.
Click to expand...
Well, we have a few minor items that tend to balance the scales, Stage.

- Better training
- More troops
- Armored vehicles and bodies
- Tanks
- Better communications
- Better intelligence
- Better eavesdropping
- Better funded
- Better weapons
- Night Vision Capability
- Attack Aircraft
- Attack Helicopters
- Aerial Bombs
- Realtime Satellite imagery
- Ability to work in the open

Stuff like that. So it's not like our hands are completely tied without resorting to torture.
Rich
 
No. Assuming we are defining "torture" as intense physical or damaging mental abuse.

First, we're better than that. We have a moral compass that opposes that. It's just not US...

Second, If we do it to one of theirs then we have what grounds for righteous indignation when they(or anyone else) do it to ours?

Lastly, he'll already be something of a martyr. No need to cement that position for all time.

OTOH, disposing of his corpse wrapped in pigskin, bathed in pig fat and buried in a pigpen isn't torture, is it? At least not of him... :cool:
 
Well, we have a few minor items that tend to balance the scales, Stage.
Click to expand...

First, Rich, I'm not advocating torture.

Second, all of those things that you listed are useless since certain sections of the public refuse to let the military function at its full capacity. In vietnam we had superiority in every concievable sense, but we still lost. Today is not very different.

I firmly believe that if we had the same military that fought during WWII placed in Iraq with the same tactics and equipment we would have made much more progress than we have done with today's military and todays tactics.

The difference isn't in the fancy aimpoint hanging off the rifle or the humvee, its the willingness to get the job done, and the clarity to understand there is only one way to fight a war.
 
I'm not advocating torture.
Click to expand...
I know you weren't. I just didn't want it to appear as dismal as it might seem.

Vietnam had few parallels to what's happening in the Sandbox just now. As to our guys' willingness to "fight a war", I think their as willing as the were in 1914, 1941 and 1968.

The exact same argument as is being made by others on this issue might be easily applied to crimes "in the Homeland". Baby Rapers, Gang Bangers...hell, even ShopLifters. If we'd just relax the Rules of Engagement a little. ;)
Rich
 
As to our guys' willingness to "fight a war", I think their as willing as the were in 1914, 1941 and 1968.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Its not the military, but the media, certian sections of the public, and many members of the international community that are tying hands and feet behind our backs.


The exact same argument as is being made by others on this issue might be easily applied to crimes "in the Homeland". Baby Rapers, Gang Bangers...hell, even ShopLifters. If we'd just relax the Rules of Engagement a little.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure that most here would love to see certian characters get their just desserts at the end of the day, these people still have constitutional protections that enemies abroad do not.
 
Torture him for information? No. I'd torture him to get revenge for all the pain and suffering he's caused untold thousands.
 
OTOH, disposing of his corpse wrapped in pigskin, bathed in pig fat and buried in a pigpen isn't torture, is it? At least not of him...
Click to expand...
Nor does it actually keep him out of his heaven. It is a myth, though I have no idea if any Muslims believe it is of any significance. Just be sure that the people who think of it and those who actually do it eat the resulting bombs. Nobody else should be accountable.
 
First off, I'm not really disagreeing with you. We do have advantages. But I think some, if not most, of those advantages can, and are being countered to a detrimental effect.

- Better training - True, but terrorist camps have them run around on little obstacle courses and learn how to push a button. Not exactly sophisticated but effective.
- More troops - I heard a story, (mind you just a story, not proven), that most of the suicide bombers were disillusioned African youths. These youths are supposedly streaming into Iraq every day.
- Armored vehicles and bodies - Kevlar only protects what it covers, and does nothing, along with many of the vehicles hit, against IED's.
- Tanks - True, but again they have IED's and RPG's. Both are horrifyingly effective.
- Better communications - Hard to counter.
- Better intelligence - As far as..? If you mean tactics, roadside bombs again are very effective, and can only be countered if you know they are there. I think the main form of military tactics in Iraq right now are put as much fire on the enemy position and hope you overwhelm them eventually. Assuming you can find them.
- Better eavesdropping - Hard to counter.
- Better funded - As was pointed out to me in a seperate thread, drug money allows for alot of homemade bombs and ak-47's.
- Better weapons - The only thing that makes a better weapon is it's effectiveness. Right now the insugents weapon of choice is a radio detonator.
- Night Vision Capability - Some insurgents have been known to get ahold of nvg's to.
- Attack Aircraft - Only effective against building sized targets, if your lucky to get enough of them in one place. Like we were with Zarqawi.
- Attack Helicopters - See above.
- Aerial Bombs - See above.
- Realtime Satellite imagery - Hard to counter.
- Ability to work in the open - This just makes our troops better targets. Especially if the enemy is using hide, snipe, and run methods.

I think we have seen all the benefits the war in Iraq is going to produce. Democracy is on it's way, though it is fledgling. If the Iraqi people want it bad enough, they'll learn to get along without us if we pulled out now. The longer we stay there, the more I think we are just going to have our butts handed to us in the form of IED attacks and small numbers of casualties per day. The seven terrorists with al-qaida links that were killed recently, were the newest reports of enemy casualties I've seen in a while. But it seems we have a small number of U.S. casualties and a large number of Iraqi civilian losses on almost a weekly basis. While this war and Vietnam were different situations, we could face the generally same outcome, which is eventually pulling out without making any kind of major decisive victory over the enemy. We may have a new government there to deal with now, but once were gone, what's to stop a jail break of hussein and have everything go back to the way it was before his capture? I know that's the worst case scenario, but it's worth considering.:cool:
 
if he were caught alive, I think instead of the usual interrogations, it might be fun to just let some ol ladies with fly swatters get him for awhile.:D


I dont think torture is the best way in any case,even if people like him are caught and wont talk.it merely makes a nobel cause bad.it makes him or those like him a hero to his group and furthers their future acts if he expires during the process.

injecting mind altering drugs into him to get him to spill the beans, wouldnt be torture.ripping off his fingernails one by one would be even though people like him deserve it.torture would exact little to no reliable data and undermine the whole thing.
 
Drugs aren't reliable either. Ask anybody who has tried to talk & get some sense out of somebody really stoned, tripping, or extremely drunk.
 
Agreed. Its not the military, but the media, certian sections of the public, and many members of the international community that are tying hands and feet behind our backs.
Click to expand...

The media, public nor the international community give the orders and direction that our military follow. The President is the Commander in Chief. Mr Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. Then we have the Secretaries of each branch and the military chain of command coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our military is under civilian control of an elected official. The funds to operate the military are given by elected officials. If you feel that the hands and feet are being tied perhaps you should consult the elected official who is in charge of the military and Congress who votes on funds and authorization for miltary force.
 
Leif
No, because we shouldn't stoop to the level of those whom we oppose. Simply because they choose to act in such a fashion does not give us license to do the same.
Click to expand...
There is a very thin veneer between civilization and chaos...

In order be civilized... we should make every effort to avoid "Cruel and Unusual"...

The problem is that the liberal mind has fallen for the belief that society has "0" right to occasionally return to the chaos of self-preservation...

Realistically...
EVERYONE will revert to the uncivilized side when confronted with the un-manageable condition that threatens their survival... I would not hesitate to do ANYTHING to save a city from an atomic bomb, including the most horrendous tortures imaginable...

Who would not kill, rob, or even torture their "enemies" in order to guarantee their own existence... or that of their children... or for freedom, or for the nation which provides that freedom...????

Expedience may not, necessarily, be "civilized", but it satisfies the prime reason for the existence of all societies...

individual survival.
 
If we torture, then we cannot complain when it happens to our guys.

Is that acceptable?

Let those who advocate expediency speak to this. Are you willing to say that if our captured troops are tortured that should not be commented on?

Shall we abandon all prisoner treatment standards agreed on previously?

This is from today's story about our two captured and killed soldiers:

"Maj. Gen. Abdul Azziz Mohammed Jassim, the chief of operations of the Ministry of Defense, said that he had seen an official report and that he could confirm the two Americans had been "killed in a very brutal way and tortured."

"There were traces of torture on their bodies, very clear traces," General Jassim said. "It was a brutal torture. The torture was something unnatural."

Who wants to justify the Iraqi insurgents doing this?
 
I am against physically abusive torture, but not against annoying the hell out of those who would withold vital information. Sleep deprivation, loud noises, bright lights and drugs that suppress the higher cortical functions of the brain, like sodium pentothal, are not torture in my book.
Click to expand...

+1 to that
 
Pointer, this issue has nothing to do with the "liberal mind" and everything to do with maintaining an ethical high ground.

As Glenn E. Meyer already indicated and I now state in my own words, if we can't take it, we probably shouldn't dish it out. Within the very specific context of the Iraq conflict, which is how this thread started, one only has to look at the hue and cry raised (and absolutely deservedly so) by Americans with regard to the soldiers recently killed and mutilated. Giving license to ourselves to perpetrate those actions recognized as torture, even with an honorable or exigent purpose in mind, means that the aforementioned hue and cry becomes meaningless. Our enemies easily and rightfully could point to the hypocrisy of our own actions, thus using our own actions against us in the ideological conflict, which in this day and age is just as important as the actual armed conflict. Remember Abu Ghraib?

Killing as a means to defense is not unjustified. Torture as a means to defense is not justified and has no place within the modern world, veneer of civilization or not. It is precisely because we as a nation ostensibly hold ourselves above the sort of cultural 'chaos' that permits torture to occur that torture should have no role within our defensive policies and practices. There is more to survival than merely surviving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top