SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6484)5/20/2007 4:36:19 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 10087
 
"As an analogy, if we were discussing WMD treaties of "no first use", and one side decides to nuke the other, are we supposed to restrain ourselves from retaliating?

It's not a great analogy since most would agree that torture should not be used as retaliation or in a vengeful or sadistic manner. The use of torture ends up being more about the torturer than the torturee.

"Secondly, groups like Al Qai'da are not signators to the GC. In fact, they are not even recognized sovereign governments. And the very tactics they follow in waging their war/struggle is, at its heart, a violation of the GC because they deliberately target innocent non-combatants in order to undermine the authority of the government. They execute prisoners in brutal fashion merely for representing "collaboration" (actual or perceived) with the government they are fighting. They engage in hostage taking, mutilation, and regularly violate what would be the obligation of any occupying power (were they a signator of the GC) towards the proper and respective treatment of the people under occupation.

This seems like a fairness argument ... 'If they get to torture people, then we should get to torture people'. I can't argue with the fairness aspect only that if that is one of the things that defines their culture of heinousness, why would we want to 'get to be like they are'? Especially when we declare our purpose in engagement to defeat that very kind of enemy. Do we become the enemy to defeat it?

"So one has to ask themselves why we provide them the benefit of the protections of that treaty when the very nature of their tactics revolve around blatant violations of it?"

Because it brings honor to our cause, and dishonor to their's which is ultimately the test of any cause. Not to mention that it is known to be a failed strategy for getting sound intelligence. It is more likely that they will tell you what they think you want to hear than useful intelligence that is news to you, which can be counter productive.

"Now let's get specific with a few examples ... "

I hope you don't mind if I deal with the examples in another post...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext