Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (6485)	5/20/2007 11:36:29 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

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. I understand your feelings. I'm merely presenting the esoteric example of a situation where one side of a conflict violates an already agreed upon prohibition against a particular form of warfare. The essential logic is that without some form of deterrence in place, and the will to use it in the face of a blatant violation, then the initial violator will face no consequences for their intransigence. They will continue violating the agreement until such a time that they recognize they stand to face equal, or greater retaliation. Few people would feel remorse about massive retaliation were any aggressor to use WMDs against the US. Even if it were only one of our population centers that was targeted and victimized, popular outcry would demand turning all of the aggressor's cities into a obsidian parking lot. Of course, this would result in the instant murder of millions of innocent civilians, with millions more dying slow deaths from radiation poisoning. I think I'm correct in my assessment of the reaction of the American people under such a scenario. Thus, when it comes to torture, mutilation, and/or execution of our soldiers, merely for having been captured, our enemies face no consequences. We generally treat their people with a measure of respect, and certainly we don't immediately behead them in a public manner, if at all. In fact, none of the Al Qai'da detainees have yet to be executed. So where is the deterrent factor that might persuade Al Qai'da fighters to treat our POWs with respect? Every Al Qai'da member knows that the worse treatment they will receive is some rudimentary physical discomfort and interrogation, and then they will be sent to the over-crowded prisons such as Abu G or Bucca, where they eventually will be released and back out to commit more terrorist acts. They consider their "ordeal" to be a badge of honor, and vital ammunition in their propaganda campaign. In WWII, when we caught a sabouteur or spy, they were tried (usually by military tribunal) and executed. During the Battle of the Bulge, 18 German commandoes wearing US uniforms (Operation: Grief commanded by SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny) were executed as spies. Yet, when we catch insurgents in Iraq, or Afghanistan, wearing no uniform and representing a illegal combatant force which does not recognize the Geneva Convention, we put them in prison and eventually release them with no charges. So where is the deterrence that would motivate them to abide by the GC? There is none. The use of torture ends up being more about the torturer than the torturee. And it's no different with committing acts of warfare. During WWII we bombed civilian population centers with impunity and very little remorse about the unarmed victims. They were citizens of a hostile power employed in the war manufacturing industry of Nazi Germany and Japan. Thus, we deemed at the time, they were legitimate targets for strategic and fire bombing campaigns. The British, fire bombing at night, focused on population centers, while the US endeavored to focus on pin-point strikes against industrial and transportation centers. So where was our "remorse" about victimizing civilians during these raids? There was very little. It was war, fought with total brutality in order to subjugate our enemies in the shortest period of time possible. We did not bomb for the sheer sadistic pleasure of the experience, we did it in order to force the enemy to capitulate, and millions of civilians died as a result. That's why I drew the analogy to torture. We are all horrified by the idea of American soldiers torturing enemy detainees, believing that it somehow dehumanizes our soldiers and turns them into animals. But how dehumanizing was it to our bomber crews knowing that women and children were being blasted and fried by the bombs they were dropping from 5 miles up? And what is the stress that results when our soldiers when they hear, or see, the result of a terrorist attack against civilians they are tasked with protecting, when they know that one of the guys they have in detention could have provided them the information they needed to prevent it. These are all VERY TOUGH questions. I hope that I'm never placed in such a situation. But I know that were an innocent person to die as a result of my failing to use all necessary means to safeguard them, it would cause me far more stress than using "aggressive interrogation" techniques in an attempt to keep those innocent people from being victimized. But we all have to make our own decisions as to what we can morally accept, and what crosses the line. I've drawn mine at sadistic and punitive excuses for physically abusing detainees. But I'm willing to cut some serious slack to those who do so in order to save innocent lives. Hawk