If you, as a civilian, doesn't know the effect of torture on national security, why are you certain that it does have a tangible effect? And how do YOU know that these tortures aren't widespread.
I don't assume anything other than that they will use whatever means necessary to protect our national security. I don't know that they are or aren't widespread, but then I'm not the one comparing us to the Japanese. There are not that many reports of torture, are there?
Not arguing conclusively either way, I'm merely pointing out another potential explaination. However, as they say, the past is the best predictor of future behaviour. And based on past history, the odds are unfortunately against the military (and even more unfortunately, not merely to further national security purposes). But isn't that my point? That we don't know either way?
I prefer not to make a career of second-guessing those who are invested with the responsibiliity of doing a monumental job. This is not some quaint situation where we can cling to ideals without a high cost. This is life and death and a challenge to our way of life. IF the past is the best predictor of the future, what happened to the British in the 18th century when they marched in their tight, gentlemanly formations? That's a nice little homily but I think it refers to individual behavior.
I think moral high ground is probably the most important thing especially when compared to the safety and well being of the nation. First of all the nation has no sense of well being once it has tossed it's morals out the window. Secondly once a nation adopts a policy of torture(I don't think it is quite to that point in the U.S. yet, but for the sake of argument...) it is endangering both the safety and well being of the nation. The nation isn't made safer by using torture. There may be short term issues where it is benificial for using torture, but in the long run, you put the nation and its soldiers at more risk. It is a losing proposition. And while it may work in the short term, it is never guaranteed to produce results. I've listed many of the reasons why that is so. You are right that it isn't as widespread as the situation with the French in Algiers. But do you feel proud to say our nation tortures but not as much as the other guy? 'We are bad, but not as bad as some other people.'
The U.S. marched in those same formations. But the formations weren't gentlemanly, they were in every European military handbook of the time. So was 'Don't fire 'till you see the whites of their eyes.' Tales of America winning because they hid behind trees and fought unconventionally are greatly exaggerated. That did happen to an extent, but those that are familiar with what takes to fire and reload muskets and artillery at the time know that it would be impossible to hold prolonged positions like that and still be effective. But more to the point, what formation an army marched in has nothing to do with whether they used or didn't use torture. Torture fails. It isn't successful over the long term.
Yes, I can. That was my point. Tactics are an external thing that are learned, taught, commanded and mastered through discipline. Individual behavior is an internal thing much less subject to all of the controlling factors listed above.
Then herein lies the question: Who is responsible for the environment that would allow such "individual behavior" to happen in the first place?
when exactly were those days? you know stuff like prisoner abuse scandal has always happened right? and you know it used to be worse, right? you do know that we used to execute our own soldiers for cowardice, right? so when were the good old days?
I'm not famililar enough with the labyrinth chain-of-command to say exactly who is responsible. Are you? Responsible for what? Underwear hijinkx hardly seem like a high crime. What are the other offenses? FB makes reference to someone freezing to death-- that's one I'm not familiar with. You can play the blame-game if you want, I just want to win the game.
I am pretty sure that the head of the DoD, thus the person ultimately charged with ensuring that unacceptable behavior does not happen, is Donald Rumsfeld. However, a White House attorney wrote briefs jutifying torture, so that may push at least some of the blame to the WH. Doesn't seem like that difficult a logic train to follow. There were reports of several people being killed in Abu Ghirab, not just the one freezing to death. The abuses were described at length in this forum, but I guess hindsight is 20/500 for you. There are things that are more important than this "game." Included in this category would be things like maintaining the integrity of this country, following the Geneva Conventions, and holding people accountable for their actions as well as the actions of the people they are responsible for.
I don't agree with executing our own soldiers for cowardice, but that isn't torturing prisoners. I do know that there has always been examples of torture that went on. But there has never been an official in the justice department writing memos that try and act like it is ok for us to do that. Then on top of that having that official receive a promotion to Attorney General, is certainly going farther than we've ever done before. When I was talking about practicing for what we preach, I allowed that some horrible incidents did occur, but it isn't like anyone was wrting memos in our government to allow for such incidents. In the last 20 years there have been plenty of examples of the U.S. not practicing what it preaches, but not so much in regards to torture, until recently. Even when practicing what we preach I allow that anomolies will occur. We should punish anyone involved when that happens. There was a time when the U.S. was respected in the world. That is eroding/has eroded. And we can't blame others for that.
<b>Originally posted by andymoon I am pretty sure that the head of the DoD, thus the person ultimately charged with ensuring that unacceptable behavior does not happen, is Donald Rumsfeld. However, a White House attorney wrote briefs jutifying torture, so that may push at least some of the blame to the WH. Doesn't seem like that difficult a logic train to follow.</b> If briefs are written justifying torture, maybe torture is justified. Get real, okay? We can put The Creator at the head of this list and blame Him/Her but while that is logical it is a worthless exercise. <b>There were reports of several people being killed in Abu Ghirab, not just the one freezing to death. The abuses were described at length in this forum, but I guess hindsight is 20/500 for you.</b> Where is the evidence? Where is the outrage? You want to undermine a war effort on the basis of a few reports? We have videos of an underwear parade and a naked pyramid. They have videos of beheadings... <b>There are things that are more important than this "game." Included in this category would be things like maintaining the integrity of this country, following the Geneva Conventions, and holding people accountable for their actions as well as the actions of the people they are responsible for.</b> There is nothing more important than this "game." Our way of existence is targeted. andy, if somehow you found yourself in a fist fight and suddenly your opponent brought out a hunting knife, are you telling me that you wouldn't go begging for a knife? You'd just keep pummeling him with your fists?
You are sick and so are the people who wrote such briefs, ordered their creation, or participated in making their contents policy. Torture is never justified, this is one of the reasons that we signed the Geneva Conventions in the first place. Only if you believe that God takes an actual active hand in these events, which I do not. In addition, I would argue that torture is the absolute antithesis of what God stands for, but I guess that GWB and his cabal must be more in touch with God than I if they actually believe that He condones torture. There was evidence, the reports were confirmed, and people like you went "ho-hum" and called those of us that WERE outraged "Bush-bashers." These things happened, people were killed while in our custody, and people like you ignored it or willfully closed your eyes to it and voted for GWB anyway. No, at this point, I want to correct the course of the war effort. So, just because our soldiers successfully avoided making a snuff film, you are going to compare our minor offenses to the insurgents' worst offenses? We DID kill people while they were in custody, we HAVE killed many, many innocents in this action. NEITHER side is blameless, but that is not really my concern. My concern is that the US should NEVER take part in actions that the insurgents would. We are better than they are and we should act like it. Iraq never did diddly-squat to threaten "our way of existence." I might agree with you if you were talking about Al Qaeda, but you are talking about a country that could not conceivably have threatened the US in any way for more than a decade. First, I would have done everything possible to avoid said fight, given that I am extremely adroit at avoiding conflicts. And if I actually believed that I occupied the moral highground because I would not resort to using a knife, I would keep using my fists until my opponent was battered and bruised, but my knife would never leave its sheath.
People who compare to AG prison to frat pranks, or just underwear humiliation are forgetting, ignoring, or unaware that U.S. soldiers are known to have actually killed at least two prisoners. Other prisoners were killed while in U.S. custody. That is according to a report done by a U.S. army General. But wait there's more! Basso, Hayes, and Giddy might think it is ok to torture if it might happen to save some military lives(whether torture would save them is debatable). But at least the U.S. navy knows that torture is beneath the dignity of our brave soldiers serving in the forces.
Giddy, the evidence is in the report made by a US ARMY GENERAL. Do you think the US ARMY GENERAL wants to undermine a war? Once we resort to torture as an accepted practice our way of existence has already been lost. The terrorists didn't do that, other 'Americans' did. Our way of existence has been resisting and condeming torture. Abandoning that is the equivalent of surrendering. Nobody in this argument is saying we shouldn't fight the enemy using weapons. That is your analogy. An anology to torture would be that if in a fist fight your opponent dropped to his knees and put his hands behind his back to show he was at your mercy, would you tie him up, and slowly and painfully kill him, or have him sent somewhere else to be slowly and painfully killed?
