Legality of torture

[OneToughHerring]

The South Park - thread led me to think about the definitions behind torture and the legality of it. Allegations have been made that torture is allowed in a war situation. There often is no governing body to oversee that no torture takes place in war situations making these torture bans pretty useless.

The Geneva Convention has been mentioned and that it allows certain torture methods while not allowing others. Individual countries may have even stricter laws prohibiting torture and I think Finland's laws are pretty strict when it comes to torture and general mistreatment of prisoners. The idea of looking for loop holes in a law that bans the use of torture makes me wonder if a country that actively does that and uses torture really would qualify as a western civilized nation.

Questions: What is torture, is prison (the taking away of freedom of movement) torture in itself? Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture? The US has allowed the use of water torture until it was banned recently, is the ban working? How does the public know if torture is being used or not? How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US and other nations?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Torture: I would define it as cruel and unusual punishment. How you define that is something else again. In Iraq I used to see the intel guys incarcerating suspects in big metal cargo containers, which get very hot with it being the desert and all. Then some poor schmuck had to walk around the thing for hours on end dragging a metal tube along the corrugated edges of the container to make noise. The idea was to deprive the prisoner of sleep. They'd haul him out at random intervals to question him or just leave him sitting on a stool until he started to fall asleep again, then bust in and put him back in the box. The Soviets employed that same technique (sleep deprivation) at the Lubyanka, albeit in a different manner and setting.

Is that torture? To some degree, yes. Sleep deprivation sucks, I'd know. I spent 3 days and nights without sleep when I went through the Crucible in boot camp, and walked about a hundred miles in full kit and did O-courses and all kinds of other assorted BS while I was at it. But they didn't call it torture, they called it training. I figure if it's good enough for US military recruits it's good enough for terror suspects who are not US citizens and who are non-uniformed combatants.

Black's Law Dictionary defines torture as " the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Now we just need to define "severe" "pain" and "suffering". Surprise surprise, there is no concrete definition for any of those terms in the legal sense. Even within the normal US legal system, the standards for each vary widely. Sometimes people get shot or stabbed and it doesn't constitute "torture". Other times people are annoyed by the sound of children playing and it does. It all depends on the case made for each term and the interpretation of the judge and/or jury.

To me, torture would be the intentional infliction of permanent, demonstrable, physical harm in a controlled environment against a defenseless party for whatever purpose. That's a pretty narrow definition, but it is a lot more functional than any definition that includes mental harm, which is extremely difficult to quantify. There are certainly forms of torture that can inflict permanent mental harm, but they are so varied and indefineable as to be rendered meaningless.

Is prison torture?
In my definition; no. Spending time in prison probably does cause mental harm, and it is certainly an infliction of harm in a controlled environment for a purpose, but considering it as torture is impractical. The Geneva convention does not ban POW camps, and every nation on the planet has some kind of prison.

Prison is supposed to serve both as a punishment and as a way to nullify any potential harm criminals can do. IMO, if you've violated another person's rights, whether it be through theft or murder or rape or what have you, you forfeit your own rights. When it comes to prison, the degree of forfeiture of rights that is appropriate is the real question, and it is just as nebulous as the definition of mental harm. Again, the power resides in the courts, and again, non-unifromed combatants have no protection under either the US justice system or the Geneva convention, though there are exceptions made for militias.

Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture?

I'd be hesitant to classify it as "torture". To be sure, waterboarding is very uncomfortable and it can be deadly if performed incorrectly or if an accident occurs, but so is swim qual. Which is more cruel, to simulate drowning without the intent to drown or to throw a recruit off a 20-ft diving board in full gear whether he knows how to swim or not, and then rely on resuce divers to save him if he sinks?

I put waterboarding in the same class as sleep-deprivation, but I would never advocate it. It seems a rather crude means of extracting information. You'd think intel would come up with something more clever than that.

Is the ban working?
I wouldn't know. The last guy I knew who was in intel left the service earlier this year, and I never really asked him much about it after OIF III.
My guess is that it is working, as brass tend to be very sensitive about these things. If Washington says no, they won't do it, no matter what the ramifications if ROE-related deaths and injuries are any indication.

How does the public know if torture is being used or not?

In my experience? The media. They're almost as thick as the flies in Al-Anbar (or at least they were when I was there) and I had to drive correspondents to the Fallujah detention center on several occasions. I don't know if they ever got in there. They didn't let me in, and I was absolutley forbidden to talk to any journalists.

The military generally tries to keep a tight rein on what info it gives the press, same as any firm. They prefer to handle journalists through officers and PR guys. Given the military's success performing even peacetime tasks, my guess is that they have been, and will continue to be, less than successful.

How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US?
I have no up-to-date information on that subject, but I'm sure that any torture used is fairly mild. The stuff they did at Guantanamo was child's play, and nobody was concerned about torture when they did that. Stacked naked in a pyramid? Please. Try being crammed into a single toilet stall with 40 other naked recruits. Believe it or not, they will fit.

I can only draw conclusions from how I have seen other PR matters handled. When the media started reporting on US troops using excessive force on Iraqi civilians way back in '05, we recieved a corresponding increase in ridiculous ROEs; i.e. "you can't shoot at anyone who isn't firing at you", "no HMGs", "no AP rounds", "no grenades, even flash-bangs", "every target must have confirmed Positive Identification".... and all that BS. Field-Grade Officers' careers depend upon good public image and shiny records. They take every pain to make sure that they do not do anything to sabatoge their careers. Well, some aren't like that, but I've never met one.


and other nations?

Hell if I know. Units from other nations are usually under a totally different command structure in a totally seperate base and we were never allowed to even communicate with their higher-ups. They may have had a different way of doing things, but I don't know what it was.


All of this is just my perspective from the ground, but I hope at least some of it can help, OTH. :salute:

[OneToughHerring]

Thank's for the insights UnderseaLcpl, good to hear first hand accounts.

Can't say I really enjoy hearing about sleep deprivation and keeping detainees in hot metal containers. Reminds me of the 'convoy of death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_of_death)' in Afghanistan which may or may not have been as bad as the legend has it.

Yes I don't know, it's difficult for one person in a military to improve things, usually a foot soldier is just a pawn and has very little influence on operating procedures. I guess a group of individual soldiers might be responsible for the mistreatment of a prisoner or two but usually the orders come from the higher ups. Meaning that the individual soldiers can be guilty like Lynndie England but that the real culprits are the higher ups.

There were mistreatment of POW's in WW2 Finland, many prisoners died of starvation and/or diseases so we don't have a high horse in this issue. Lately we've kept out of wars meaning we haven't been put into a position where we would have to either torture or not torture.

And about water torture, I'd call it torture, real torture with no reservations. It's very dangerous if we start to talk about water torture as 'torture lite'. Also the risk of death/trauma both physical and mental is very big in water torture so I see no reason to belittle it. And yes, during basic training and military service there is all kinds of stuff that would qualify as mistreatment or torture. Militaries of the world get away with a lot.

[tater]

Note that under US law, any mind altering substance is under the torture laws on the books.

This is a mistake, IMO, since if there is, or might be at some point in the future a really good drug that removes trained inhibitions to answering questions, it would be a remarkable tool—also a tool that would help those detained.

Think about it, you have an excellent drug available, and you use it on a detainee, and it becomes clear that you grabbed the wrong guy. He's got nothing to tell you, and in fact it's becoming clear he's not stonewalling, just INNOCENT. You can let him go.

Note this would require a drug that is safe to administer (under medical attention), and has no lasting effects.

[TBoone]

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

[OneToughHerring]

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

[Snestorm]

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

Be very careful here because, if someone in your government decides that you MAY have ties to terrorists, you qualify for torture, under your own rules. And so does every one of your fellow countrymen.

[Snestorm]

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

Very good point. Especialy considering the CIA's involvement with LSD experimentation on their own soldiers and civilians, in addition to foreign nationals.

[TLAM Strike]

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!
There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

These "Terrorists" were lead by men with the names of Washington, Gates and Jones.

I'm very careful about who I paint with the wide brush of "Terrorist". The people we torture today maybe become the heroes of a future nation, and how will that nation look at us?

[TBoone]

I'm just saying that the Geneva Convention should only aply to actual Soldiers not these Murderers we call Terorists.

[TLAM Strike]

I'm just saying that the Geneva Convention should only aply to actual Soldiers not these Murderers we call Terorists.
The North Vietnamese used the same logic to torture US POWs.

[tater]

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

There is no "truth serum," though many drugs used for anesthesia produce effects that can absolutely reduce barriers. Talk to anyone who works in an OR, and they'll tell you all kinds of funny stories about patients talking about inappropriate stuff.

[Platapus]

Questions: What is torture, is prison (the taking away of freedom of movement) torture in itself? Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture? The US has allowed the use of water torture until it was banned recently, is the ban working? How does the public know if torture is being used or not? How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US and other nations?

This is a very good question.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions are only one, albeit, minor source for rules on torture.

Let's start with an international agreement

The United Nation's Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or degrading treatment or Punishment.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The United States signed this convention on 18 Apr 1988 and the Senate ratified it on 21 Oct 1994, thereby under the Veninna convention addressing treaty of laws, it is legally binding on the United States. It is also legally binding on the United States because of Article VI of our Constitution.

You asked what constitutes Torture. Well one definition is contained in the Convention


For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
A moments review of this should show that there are plenty of loopholes in the interpretation of this definition (welcome to the wonderful world of treaties)

A second question asked by the original poster was whether torture could be authorized in war time. The quick answer is no, the official answer is in Article II of the convention

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.I will add another question and answer it. Can a State send a person to another country where they can be tortured? No

Article 3 No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. As you can read, plenty of weasel words. Again welcome to the wonderful world of treaty analysis.

The convention requires all signatory states to enact legislation criminalizing torture.

For the United States, this is addressed under Title 18, Part I Chapter 113c sections 2340, 2340A, and 2340B

2340
torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.2340A

Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy 2340B

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding. I hoped this answered your first question. Your other questions about how can the public have faith at their government is following its own laws are much more difficult to answer, I am afraid.

[tater]

The North Vietnamese used the same logic to torture US POWs.

Read the GC, the language clearly implies reciprocity among signers and their allies/client states.

Otherwise there would not be so much language to determine if the person in question falls into the category of someone protected.

That said, I'm fine with staying on the "good" side of things—but as close to the edge as is legally possible assuming it is effective. That means a gnat's hair to one side of "severe" as defined in the GC, etc. Note that even the expanded definitions posted above merely add "prolonged" to the list of mental pain. There is nothing at all definitive there.

Remember that during the Bush administration they were bashed for having THIS discussion we're having right now. Just talking about where the limits might be was reported as dangerous and wrong. Given the intentionally vague language, not having this discussion would have been irresponsible, IMHO.

[antikristuseke]

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

It must be nice to live in a black and white world.:doh:
Life just is not that simple, by my experiences.

[TBoone]

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

[Happy Times]

One of the things we train a lot in the army recon is taking prisoners when ordered to.

When the capture goes right the ones that we leave alive get a sack in their head and roughed up, we are the bad guys and they should feel scared.

Usually they get moved to the analysts/ interrogators that we have in the command platoon. They will first speak to them in their native language and they are the good guys.

Im not sure how far they will go but we are shown the basics of stress positions, sleep deprivation and ways of inflicting pain if we need to interrogate the prisoner ourselfs.

None of this is something the defence forces would confirm officially so you will have to take my word for it.:salute:

[CCIP]

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

That still doesn't make the world black and white. Actually that explains nothing. Soldiers have all my genuine respect for seeing the hell that is war and for being put into positions noone would normally want to be in. But that doesn't make the world black and white. Soldiers are in fact "colourblind" on the job by training, because they have to be - this doesn't make them right, even if it makes their sacrifices something to be honourably respected.
But they are not someone to learn ethics from. They're not the ones who make decisions. In a democracy, it's civil people that have to make them, and civil people need to abide by civil norms of life and ideally make decisions in light of its complexity and ambiguity, and that's the way it must be - if normal, civil people in daily walks of life see the world in the same black and white that soldiers have to, then I fear this world will never see real freedom and democracy. Instead it will always choose to side with dictatorship, which is the army's natural way of working.

How do you "diagnose" a terrorist? Most of them don't walk around with "shoot me I'm a terrorist" sign on them. They don't wear their hatreds on their sleeve. And they mostly belong to "groups" that could hardly be called organized or ideologically unified, or with obvious signs of membership. So how do you know? What use is what you learned from history or your grandfather? Did your grandfather happen to have psychic powers that he taught you? Did Patton? I don't think so. It's possible to make informed, hard, necessary decisions about these things, but only by being critical and accepting the complexity and non-black-and-whiteness of the matter. Along with responsibility for grave mistakes, some of which are necessary.

Things are complicated. Soldiers have to have jobs done. YOUR job in civil life is not to blindly adapt their voluntary state of moral stupidity (i.e. unquestioning following of orders without a military would never, ever work), but to be a critical, thinking, deliberating person who sees things clearly and guide your government to make the right decisions for your troops, to not waste their lives, to make sure they don't needlessly waste lives of other people, and respect what they do and not use them for causes that are vain. To deliberate and act like a civilian when fighting a war is criminal, and to obey and follow like a soldier in civilian life is just as criminal for someone in a democratic state. So in that sense, your "qualifications" are moot - yes, soldiers have plenty to teach us about personal qualities and morals, but only if we are able to take their experience critically, not stupidly worshipping them. Soldiers obey and kill, period. Is that what you want to do all day?

And like others have said, it's always tricky. Personally, I don't believe torture or even some of these "high pressure" methods are justified or necessary. I think most people don't realize how easy it is to break an average person with something like torture - but the problem is that once you do break them, what are you really getting? Real information or confessions of a sniveling wreck who wants the pain to stop? The truth is that it's both. And making executive decisions without knowing which is which is almost as bad as making them based on no information at all. Being a prisoner under interrogation should never be a pleasant experience, but the cruelty beyond a certain point is senseless and goes against the values on which this democracy you fight for is built on.

As for US and "enemy combatants", I think it just needs to cut the charade and treat them like POWs. They're people too, and they're not any more dangerous than the average indoctrinated enemy soldier. This whole thing is not doing anyone any good, and makes everyone look bad - so cut the crap and give them due process. Show them what actual democracy and freedom is made of - if you believe in them, of course. Reading posts like this makes me wonder about it sometimes...

"Us vs. them" thinking is not freedom vs. evil. It IS the ultimate evil. It is a necessary evil in a firefight, or any situation of urgent danger. It's a blind, stupid, senseless evil pretty well everywhere else. Learn the difference. Think critically. Stop living in siege mentality while you have a choice. And boy there are plenty of humane, rational, non-violent choices to be made here before everything goes to hell. I respect your relatives - but you are not your relatives. You're not in Cambodia and you're not fighting with Patton in Normandy. Stop trying to pretend you are, before we all live in Cambodia with Patton every minute of our daily lives.

[TBoone]

Those were some pretty words that were actauly just some democratic propaganda but realy the U.S. was formed as a republic somthing good were people had rights and now its called a democracy but if you look at the history of democratic governments allot of them have turned into that thing you hate so much a dictatorship. Did you know that Nazi Germany was a democracy at one point in time before Hitler came in and had people replaced in politics that thought the same way as he did and that he was able to get the constitution of his country voted out and then it became a dictatorship. A Republic is a government were everybody gets a say in things a democracy is a government were only politicians get a say in things. And through democracy The Great Republic of The Uninted States is becoming a country were it has to compare itself to weaker world players like Canada to win. But thank God that this democratic government in the U.S. is becomeing weak because the people are fighting it. Maybe I was a little harsh on the terorists in my first post but the thing I was not harsh on was democracy and if the U.S. democrats keep it up this country will be a 3rd world bankrupt dictatorship were nobody has rights in oh I'd say 10 to 30 years!!!

[OneToughHerring]

Thanks Platapus for that point by point - examination of the laws. And yes I suppose there are ways for countries to claim they have a right to use torture in a war or some other similar conflict.

Maybe we're in the situation we were before WW 2 when the League of nations was too weak to stop the big war. Maybe the UN and it's conventions has just become too weak to actually matter globally.

[Skybird]

It is a misperception to assume that torture must always have a causal intention, obtaining information for example. Most often, when considering global numbers, this is not the case.

Torture also can take place in contextxs of genocide, where genocide means not only physical annihilation of humans, but also the deleting of a group's chances to survive as a cultural entity and to pass on it's cultural tradition. The systematic mass-rapings that took place during the Balkan war is an example. The shattering of the dignity of women and trying to make them untouchable for their own ethnic group'S males as well as "infesting" their next generation with babies created by their enemies had the intention to disrupt the social cohesion of the target population and to make the mechanisms of their social-cultural survivability dysfunctional.

Another example are Dictatorships of the kind there have been in south and middle America, here torture of randomly picked civilians was not necessarily linked to the attempt to gain information from them, but to just shatter their souls and let them walk as living zombies in society again, as a moving warning to others in order to intimidate and to enforce fear and obedience.

Sadists and sick psychopaths may torture just because of their own enjoyment when seeing others suffering.

Torture can, but must not be a penalty. In modern days, it is not, at least in the west. In other cultures, stoning to death for example obviously includes rules to ensure that the victim not only gets killed, but is suffering as long as possible before (this penalty is regulated in that way that the size of the stones used shall not be too small as to not cause harm and injuries, but also not to be too big as that they would kill too early). The family-"honour" related crimes against family members, almost always women, also can include torture, whether it be in the way the victim gets mutilated with acid or with a knife, or gets intentionally raped in exchange for the sin it has committed. Such family crimes involve the desire to clean the cosmos of the victim'S existence (thus symbolically destroying her identity by burning her face), as well as pain as a disciplinary consequence for disobedience against claimed authority, and death as a precautionary measure that should prevent future violations of claimed "honour". And the perverted fanatics in Iran repeatedly were recorded for incidents that included the raping of jailed virgin girls before killing them, because as virgins they would not have been allowed to be executed.

Much discussion over the past years saw two extreme tendencies. On behalf of the US, there were attempts to talk down methods like waterboarding so that one would not be accused of using torture in the name of the US, which is nonsense (it is torture by method and intention, no doubt), on behalf of PC brigades and European activists there are intentions to widen the meaning of torture so that even acts of racism and discrimination get occasionally called "torture" and boosting the status of victimhood in order to overcome opposition to own political demands.

Torture for gaining information is a sword with two edges, it can work under some conditions, but must not under others. Somebody just wanting to escape the pain tells you everything, it is most often said in order to nullify any pro-argument. But I point at two things: in such a stressful situation, you cannot rule out (and shouldn'T) that the discipline of the victim in agony is already gone to hell and it indeed tells you the truth - you have to verify it, of course. Also, it makes a difference if the victim knows it bought itself lasting relief by giving an info, or just a delay before the procedure continues. In other words, torture can be effective, but the interrogator most ofteh depends on the opoortunity that what the victims says can be confimred to be false or correct, with the interrogation in case of the latter going on - and the victim knowing it.

Finally, there is the scenario of needing to get vital information under time pressure. A kidnapper has put his victim in a box, and oxygen running out. The box needs to be found in order to save his victim'S life. What weighs heavier - the life of the kidnapper or that of his victim? If you decide for the first , you demonstrate your lack of humanistic attitude for the victim'S interest and right to live. If you decide for the latter, you have to give up some self-views of our oh so civilised society we got so fond of. Even civilisational posture can be exaggerated - beyond existential survivability. Because at the end we remain to be creatures of a material, physical world. No philosophic idea can ever relieve us from this burden.

I had to deal with Balkan torture victims myself long time ago, civilians that became victim of genocide. some of what I was confronted with in personal fates always sits in one hidden back of mind, waiting to draw me down. But still, I cannot rule mout the use of toprture under very well-defined, explicit conditions. the problem I have with it is not that I value the interest of a criminal as so precious that I rule out doing harm to him, no matter what, but the problem is that I do not want to see torture being used by routine, as a tool of regular law enforcement, in every-day policework, by that lowering the acceptance levels and the inherent natural scruples to use it. The use of tazers is an example of the risk here. Since these devices get used, the reports on situations where they are used by routine as a just precautionary measure, or in order to discipline people who just were loud, not vio,ent, have coinstantly climnbed. This is not what tazers have been put into service, they were not meant to discipline people, but as a non-lethal weapon of self-defence in case of being attacked. We should not want to see something similiar happening again with torture. If your argument is "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and "the law must be enforced no matter how", then you sooner or later end up with a totalitarian state again where the GeStaPo is runnig around.

[HunterICX]

Problem is, as soon there's a war going on where things hang in the balance, rules are thrown overboard and the worst is brought out in us.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

Problem is, as soon there's a war going on where things hang in the balance, rules are thrown overboard and the worst is brought out in us.

HunterICX

Yes, and further problem also is that some of these rules are carried over into war, from peacetime conditions. But both are two different worlds. What makes sense in one world, must not necessarily make sense in the other.

[Castout]

I'm more concerned about torture in non war environment.

In China when a person is thought of committing crime against the state his family would also suffer for it.

In Singapore critics, dissidents and opposition figures are kicked out from their job and unable to find decent job. Nobody would give them any job for fear of the ruling government. The government would use libel suits to bankrupt genuine opposition leaders (since there are less than genuine opposition figures too). Funny thing they never file libel suit outside Singapore for obvious reason. And Harry Lee(Lee Kuan Yew) himself wrongfully slandered Dr Chee Soon Juan as liars and near psychopath and getting away with it! He wasn't sued because the court would win him anyway. Some critical bloggers are threatened with imprisonment in the mental institution. The police which represents law enforcement even made death threat to these kind of people. I myself had been starved for 3 days forcefully in their hospital and defamed schizophrenic which I AM MOST DEFINITELY NOT. My grades suffer unjustly too even here. They tried to put my spirit and confidence down repeatedly with insults, mocking, social isolation, cheating, false rumors to discredit me, and hostility to intimidate me.

These are tortures too!
These people would kill an innocent person and used their kangaroo court to deny justice from being served. The case of NTU student David Widjaja is an obvious example. I tried my best to give some sort of warning about this regime but it has taken another life which of David Widjaja's. I don't know who is the lucky one. Perhaps Mr David Widjaja is the luckier one because his torment ended when he died while I have to endure years of psychological abuse and torture that has taken toll on my physical health.

I'm convinced that these people enjoy abusing and tormenting other people. They are psychopaths and tyrants.
And some people would still not able to even accept the possibility that what I'm writing is true . . .and instead add to my injury. . .

I've begun thinking to seek asylum. But a nobody like me?! It would take a miracle.

I'm not whining or ranting I'm just trying to make people more aware that the condition of civil society in Asia especially ASEAN is concerning at best.
Human rights are not that respected in most Asian countries as it is considered to be western values and Asian tend to view their leaders as some sort of infallible deity to be feared and obeyed all the time. Democracy well most ASEAN countries are only trying to look like a democracy. Past the 1998 reform things have improved in my country only to deteriorate again nowadays. Things seem set for another authoritarian regime. It is disheartening.

[tater]

I agree with treating them like POWs.

We catch them, then lock them up until their Islamist group unconditionally surrenders to us or ceases to exist. Since they don't wear uniforms, we assign them to a force (what choice do we have?).

We held German POWs until the war was over, for example. Had the war been mostly over, but a fraction of german forces holed up in the Alps—they'd have stayed POWs until that last bastion fell.

So asking for POW treatment is asking for lifetime jail for all of them. I'm fine with that.

Oh, and since we're treating them like "good" enemy forces, if they broke rules of war before they were caught (intentionally mixing with civilians, operating out of uniform, etc), before they are released they virtually all get tried with war crimes. Any that survive that gauntlet of firing squads gets released.

[August]

There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

That isn't really true. Colonial militia made a point of wearing some identifying mark on the battlefield to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Can you also list which civilians they were killing? I suppose you can find isolated incidents for anything but afaik there was no officially ordered massacre of civilians by the Continental army.

[OneToughHerring]

I agree with treating them like POWs.

We catch them, then lock them up until their Islamist group unconditionally surrenders to us or ceases to exist. Since they don't wear uniforms, we assign them to a force (what choice do we have?).

We held German POWs until the war was over, for example. Had the war been mostly over, but a fraction of german forces holed up in the Alps—they'd have stayed POWs until that last bastion fell.

So asking for POW treatment is asking for lifetime jail for all of them. I'm fine with that.

Oh, and since we're treating them like "good" enemy forces, if they broke rules of war before they were caught (intentionally mixing with civilians, operating out of uniform, etc), before they are released they virtually all get tried with war crimes. Any that survive that gauntlet of firing squads gets released.

Well then Americans aren't safe outside the US either, and given what a hostile nation the US is toward it's own citizens they might not be safe in US either.

[tater]

Well then Americans aren't safe outside the US either, and given what a hostile nation the US is toward it's own citizens they might not be safe in US either.

We're hardly hostile to our own citizens. Regardless, people come here in droves—even illegally—clearly they know something you don't.

Anyway, if you think they should be treated as POWs, you must agree with what I posted above. An al Qaida POW would obviously have to be held until we were no longer fighting al Qaida. Since the only solution to AQ is unconditional surrender or kill every last one of them, that means POWs for life. Note that letting them go would then result in AQ being back in existence. I suppose we could release them with a 60 second head start to make a run for it, then start shooting?

BTW, Alan Deshowitz (a liberal lawyer here in the US) has suggested judicial warrants for certain levels of interrogation. basically the worst we'd ever do to people, but it would require judicial permission, and only then under very limited conditions. This was his take on the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

For example:

The cops luck into catching a guy. Say they pull him over for speeding (as they did Muhammad Atta), and catch his name on a watch list, and detain him. His car had an odd electronic part he had purchased in it, and it sets off red flags. Then it turns out his car sets off a geiger counter. Other agencies have chatter about a big attack, and now it's starting to look like this guy they grabbed by accident is involved in an a-bomb attack.

This is a ticking time bomb. He's one member of a cell, and now they know he's arrested, they are likely to try and blow the device up ASAP.

The guy doesn't say a word when asked nicely.

Now what? This could literally be the difference between hundreds of thousands hurt and killed or not.

Realistically, if the feds think this, they're going to do whatever they think will work, and worry about legality later. Why not have a legal system that has some oversight and control, instead?

It's worth considering, anyway.

[tater]

Another great analysis by Andy McCarthy (prosecutor of the 1993 Trade Center bombers):

http://article.nationalreview.com/331968/waterboarding-and-torture/andrew-c-mccarthy

Salient points are that the US Constitutional challenges to torture with which everyone (in the US) agrees are to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. They apply only to people within the US judicial system, basically. Cruel and unusual punishment applies to what is meted out after a trial.

TORTURE AND “CID” UNDER OTHER AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Still, torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are prohibited under international law — in particular, under several human-rights treaties ratified by the United States. Under the supremacy clause, treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land.” With that understanding, it might be said that the Constitution speaks to torture. Nevertheless, had the unadorned Constitution prohibited torture, these treaties, as well as various anti-torture statutes enacted since 1994, would have been superfluous.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture but not in all circumstances. Recognizing that, human-rights activists pushed for the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatments (UNCAT), which were ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and 1994, respectively. Both forbid torture, and the UNCAT called for the passage of anti-torture legislation, which Congress promptly enacted.

Further, both the ICCPR and the UNCAT prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID). Here, however, there is an important qualification. In consenting to both treaties, the Senate added a caveat: CID was to be understood in the U.S. as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under the aforementioned Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That is, CID would be controlled by governing American constitutional law — not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like “degrading treatment” might mean.

Since waterboarding (what we are really discussing here, nothing else the US has done is even close to torture) does no real physical harm, we are limited to mental pain and suffering.

As McCarthy says:
With respect to mental pain or suffering, Section 2340 does tell us that severe “means prolonged mental harm” (emphasis added). It also provides examples of the type of prolonged behavior that is prohibited: inflicting or threatening to inflict severe pain or suffering; using or threatening to use mind-altering drugs; threatening imminent death; or threatening that a third person (say, a family member) of the victim will be subjected to equivalent cruelties.

Still unclear.

He goes on to point out that while WE, the public at large do not know the actual details of the exact techniques used (there are many slight variations of the technique), members of the US Congress do know, and while they've passed laws regarding treatment of detainees, they could have—and did not—mention this particular technique specifically. Knowing this was the worst we've done, had Congress meant to, they could easily have done so. Note that this are Democrat controlled Congresses, or Rep controlled, but Dems have filibuster, and therefore any bill must be acceptable to them (Bush didn't have a supermajority like the dems had until a couple months ago).

It's a complex issue.

Personally, I'd reserve the harshest techniques (with the caveat that they are demonstrably effective, and not merely punitive) for critical cases where it might reasonably result in actionable intelligence that could prevent a major attack—this is not to be taken lightly. Note that all the while, the technique in and of itself should still be legal according the vague laws already in place. If two reasonable people can disagree about where the line is, then it's still OK, in other words.

[OneToughHerring]

We're hardly hostile to our own citizens. Regardless, people come here in droves—even illegally—clearly they know something you don't.

Anyway, if you think they should be treated as POWs, you must agree with what I posted above. An al Qaida POW would obviously have to be held until we were no longer fighting al Qaida. Since the only solution to AQ is unconditional surrender or kill every last one of them, that means POWs for life. Note that letting them go would then result in AQ being back in existence. I suppose we could release them with a 60 second head start to make a run for it, then start shooting?

BTW, Alan Deshowitz (a liberal lawyer here in the US) has suggested judicial warrants for certain levels of interrogation. basically the worst we'd ever do to people, but it would require judicial permission, and only then under very limited conditions. This was his take on the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

For example:

The cops luck into catching a guy. Say they pull him over for speeding (as they did Muhammad Atta), and catch his name on a watch list, and detain him. His car had an odd electronic part he had purchased in it, and it sets off red flags. Then it turns out his car sets off a geiger counter. Other agencies have chatter about a big attack, and now it's starting to look like this guy they grabbed by accident is involved in an a-bomb attack.

This is a ticking time bomb. He's one member of a cell, and now they know he's arrested, they are likely to try and blow the device up ASAP.

The guy doesn't say a word when asked nicely.

Now what? This could literally be the difference between hundreds of thousands hurt and killed or not.

Realistically, if the feds think this, they're going to do whatever they think will work, and worry about legality later. Why not have a legal system that has some oversight and control, instead?

It's worth considering, anyway.

Well I know that even if they were treated as POW's the US would find some loopholes for torture etc. It's seems to be their modus operandi.

Majority of the people in, say, Guantanamo have been non-combatants, people like truck drivers from Kirgistan etc. who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Are you saying that I should sanction the US's treatment of folks like that as POW's held indefinitely and possibly even tortured?

Oh this is funny, Alan Dershowitz. I wrote a piece about Dershowitz's views a while back, he's a rabid zionist and, not surprisingly, as anti-muslim/pro-torture as they come. If you're in favour of separating religion from governing then Dershowitz might not be the right guy to turn to.

Another great analysis by Andy McCarthy (prosecutor of the 1993 Trade Center bombers):

http://article.nationalreview.com/331968/waterboarding-and-torture/andrew-c-mccarthy

Salient points are that the US Constitutional challenges to torture with which everyone (in the US) agrees are to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. They apply only to people within the US judicial system, basically. Cruel and unusual punishment applies to what is meted out after a trial.

Oh yea, why have a trial because it will only tie your hands about torture. Might as well torture them without a trial, completely by the book.

Since waterboarding (what we are really discussing here, nothing else the US has done is even close to torture) does no real physical harm, we are limited to mental pain and suffering.

How do you know nothing else is used? We're only now beginning to find out about what happened in the Vietnam war, and a lot of nasty stuff did happen there. Torture of every type was used in South America by the US and School of America's graduates right up until the present day. The US has exported it's knowledge of torture to many governments in the Middle-East, including such differing nations as Israel and Egypt. So...what am I supposed to think about all this?

[Skybird]

Waterboarding IS torture. It is a procedure that not only mentally raises an involuntary fear of death by drowning, but also provokes physical reaction by the body being set into a condition of agony, and additonal painful, convulsive spasms throughout the body that during the procedure is tied down.

If agony and the ultimate physical experience of drowning, which is beyond conscious control by the subject'S mind, is not torture, then NOTHING is torture.

Whether or not noticable marks of physical damage are left on or in the body, is not the criterion of torture. You can electroshock people without leaving visible marks. You can torture without breaking bones, cutting flesh and blood flowing.

This discussion about laws and paragraphs going on here is alienating, and in a way: frightening. Because it demonstrates exactly the same bureaucratic mindset you have seen in Nazi bureaucrats who with perfidious pedantism kept note and written record of the medical experiments, the orders flowing down the command lines, the crimes and decisions and processes in the killing industry - and often thought that because everything was in order with the written records and evertyhing was taking place in accordance with some written rules and orders of duty, the horrifying results therefor were "okay", too. Many of them defended themselves with saying they were ordered to do this, and that the law was like that.

They were unable or unwilling or both to look beyond the law, and question the law itself.

Sometimes some people say they are wondering how the Third Reich, and the fanatism of Nazi vasalls, could happen. You must not necessarily look into history to examine that. Looking at events after that, or even the present people today, can provide answers, too.

Also, the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment are not reserved for German people with Nazi mindsets, too.

Hold the discussion for a while. Take a breath. Get back in contact with reality - and realise what it actually is that you talk about and that you think you do justice to when describing it with bureaucratic formalities only.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good points, Sky. I only sought to provide a legal definition of torture and a benchmark. I tend to agree with you, and I said as much:

I put waterboarding in the same class as sleep-deprivation, but I would never advocate it. It seems a rather crude means of extracting information. You'd think intel would come up with something more clever than that.


Even in the face of a clear and present danger, I would not advocate torture. There are more effective and efficient ways to obtain truthful information.

Some of you may remember the SUBSIM werewolf hunt and were-fish hunt games we played a while back. I'm sure that most of those who particiapted will remember my role in those games. I died in both those games, and even failed to recognize a werewolf under my own nose in time (Oberon), but in both games I successfully identified an enemy before anyone else did. I did that through a combination of threats, deception, politics, and the old carrot-and-stick treatment.

Those games were, of course, not reality, and in reality the subject can't kill you, but the theory behind all of my reasoning is quite sound. I learned the theory from Sgt. Purdee, a brilliant but ironically ugly intel Marine. The key in humane interrogation is to divide and conquer, and to control the flow of information. It is a difficult concept to explain, and I can't really elaborate on it within the constraints of text limits, but what you essentially want to do is to pit everyone against everyone else and keep track of who should be thinking what and when, and then find inconsistencies during cross-examination and , for lack of a word "misinformed counter-cross-examination". Anyone remember the "feeler" messages I had them send? That's an example. And there were "false-feeler" messages as well.

This is why prisoners are segregated from officers and their fellows during interrogation. Even if they have a preconceived story, they will eventually fail under instense and properly structured questioning, and the truth will lie within the inconsistencies. There really isn't any need for torture if your threats and questioning are effective enough. One just has to be creative.

Physical torture is the resort of the stupid and the brutal. A good interrogator can extract any information from anyone without inflicting any physical or lasting mental duress whatsoever. The trick is in getting the right people to do the job.

[tater]

Legalism is all that matters in this case, skybird, otherwise a "comfy chair" is torture, or being forced to listen to, I dunno, "metal" music (blech!) ;)

No matter where the bar is set, and I agree, waterboarding is as close to the edge possible. Note that it's still a matter of how much, and how far apart. Anything that people will have done to themselves voluntarily is not "clear" one way or another to me—but they volunteer to have it done just a few times, not many. So is twice OK, and 3 times torture? <shrug>

The US only did it to 3 people, FWIW, and hasn't for several years now.

[tater]

Got it, "zionist."

nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

They are striped, and have horns, right?

[OneToughHerring]

tater,

1) give proof that supports that number of individuals waterboarded

2) proof that only waterboarding has been used

Hell, while you're at it, give us the insights into the US's torture 'regimen', I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.

Got it, "zionist."

nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

They are striped, and have horns, right?

No. They believe, among other things, that a mystical being gave them the divine right to steal a land that according to them belongs to them and only them. I guess you're ok with that while at the same time condemning other religions.

[GoldenRivet]

I have stayed out of this one fir as long as I could. But here is my take on the subject of torture.

If in uncivilized enemy, unbound by the Geneva convention captured one of our boys over there... There ain't any lawyers, there are no rights, there are no bleeding hearts liberals, no ACLU... our trooper is going to experience the unimaginable at the hands od sadistic men who wouldn't think twice about taking a hammer to your bound testicles.

So I don't want to hear a damned thing about what "is or isn't" torture.

Waterboard them until they die of cardiac arrest for all I care.

Line them up abrest. Ask them a question. You get no answer you slaughter a live pig, splash them with it's blood and blow their brains out and move to the next guy.

By guy #3... you have your information

they don't place any value on your lives... Why place value on theirs?

[Tchocky]

I have stayed out of this one fir as long as I could. But here is my take on the subject of torture.

If in uncivilized enemy, unbound by the Geneva convention captured one of our boys over there... There ain't any lawyers, there are no rights, there are no bleeding hearts liberals, no ACLU... our trooper is going to experience the unimaginable at the hands od sadistic men who wouldn't think twice about taking a hammer to your bound testicles.

So I don't want to hear a damned thing about what "is or isn't" torture.

Waterboard them until they die of cardiac arrest for all I care.

Line them up abrest. Ask them a question. You get no answer you slaughter a live pig, splash them with it's blood and blow their brains out and move to the next guy.

By guy #3... you have your information

they don't place any value on your lives... Why place value on theirs?

This couldn't possibly backfire.

[GoldenRivet]

This couldn't possibly backfire.

Let it backfire.

It's how I feel, and in my opinion should be our official position.

To hell with them all.

[TLAM Strike]

That isn't really true. Colonial militia made a point of wearing some identifying mark on the battlefield to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Can you also list which civilians they were killing? I suppose you can find isolated incidents for anything but afaik there was no officially ordered massacre of civilians by the Continental army. If you look in to the southern campaign you'll see that there were small groups of militia on both sides (Rebels and Loyalists) went around settling old scores.

The executions after The Battle of Kings Mountain are one example. it could be said those men were killed for an act of treason which was that they were not committing treason.

[antikristuseke]

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

I am a former soldier myself. What your grandfather believes or did is irrelevant to the discussion on hand.

Look, I an think of several situations where I would resort to methods which can be described as torture, and rightly so as they are just that, if that meant to save the lives of my men or civilians. BUT at the very same time I would expect to be tried and convicted for my crimes by the very same society that I have sworn an oath to protect and whose laws I follow, since doing so would put me at odds with them.
I can not condone torture as a practice by any government entity because that goes against the very foundation of the society I am to protect. I fully realize this position may seem strange to a lot of you, but that is my take on the mater, when ever I break any law, I already have accepted the potential punishment.
There are times when soldiers do things that are morally questionable or downright wrong, they pay the price to keep this somewhat free society alive. Do not cheapen our sacrifices by condoning disgressions against the very base rights we have fought to keep there.

[August]

If you look in to the southern campaign you'll see that there were small groups of militia on both sides (Rebels and Loyalists) went around settling old scores.

The executions after The Battle of Kings Mountain are one example. it could be said those men were killed for an act of treason which was that they were not committing treason.

Ok so it was like I said then, nothing organized or approved by Washington or the Continental Congress.

[Dowly]

I wished I'd see a video of US soldier being waterboarded or beaten. I'd quess that'd change the replies in this thread. :roll:

IMHO, westernt world has gone to far to call themselves the good guys anymore. We have sunk to their level. Not good. :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

I wished I'd see a video of US soldier being waterboarded or beaten. I'd quess that'd change the replies in this thread. :roll:

IMHO, westernt world has gone to far to call themselves the good guys anymore. We have sunk to their level. Not good. :nope:

Saw everything i needed to see when they were cutting the heads off of innocent civilians.

No... we havent sunk to their level... not until we start capturing random citizens and start beheading them for shock value.

I have nothing good to say about any of these _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [I value my membership too much to type it so use your imagination]

[Happy Times]

I want to add that there are no methods shown in Finland that would lead to permanent physical harm.

Im sure amost anything is considered torture nowdays by some but i dont think essentially scaring people qualifys.

I also remember when we were briefed about Russian methods, used in Chechnya for exsample.
Everyone agreed that they would rather finish themselves or ask others to help if wounded.

If you see your friends skinned alive you might start talking, better not to put yourself in that position, so no surrender for me.

[mookiemookie]

No... we havent sunk to their level... not until we start capturing random citizens and start beheading them for shock value.


If you start measuring the methods of your torture by using what terrorists do and don't do as a yardstick, you've lost sight of the basic fact that 1) using terrorists as your moral compass is ridiculous and 2) torture is wrong and we as a country are better than that.

[GoldenRivet]

torture is wrong and we as a country are better than that.

Speak for yourself... I say grab a sledge hammer, a setaline torch and go to work. ;)

I have neatly coiled piles of dog sh*t on my lawn worth more than these Islamic extremists entire families.

[OneToughHerring]

Speak for yourself... I say grab a sledge hammer, a setaline torch and go to work. ;)

I have neatly coiled piles of dog sh*t on my lawn worth more than these Islamic extremists entire families.

Are you going to do that yourself or just command someone else do that for you?

[GoldenRivet]

Are you going to do that yourself or just command someone else do that for you?

I can think of a couple of those guys specifically i would love to beat the crap out of.

Some of us are closer to this situation than others OTH.

its easy i guess to keep a distance from the situation for some folks... im very glad for such people.

[OneToughHerring]

I can think of a couple of those guys specifically i would love to beat the crap out of.

Some of us are closer to this situation than others OTH.

its easy i guess to keep a distance from the situation for some folks... im very glad for such people.

Yes and some are more guilty of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continuing and continuing. Doesn't stop non-guilty countries having their arms twisted into sending guys there to get wounded and killed.

[Happy Times]

Yes and some are more guilty of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continuing and continuing. Doesn't stop non-guilty countries having their arms twisted into sending guys there to get wounded and killed.

They are low intensity conflicts against terrorists, not actual wars.
In a war, thousands die in weeks not years and declarations of war are exchanged between countries.

Still, those that have fought and even died to protect us are all heroes that i respect and hope will be remembered by history.

If we leave those countries the terrorists are going to get more bases to operate freely from, Iraqi goverment might be up for the job but the Afgan goverment will fall without support.
Thats the logic behind this policy.

I dont really care are about making Middle East democratic, i will settle for them to keep their loonies from attacking the West.

But i agree that even this limited policy will probably not work because Islam as an ideology is like a cancer.
Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Somalia, Yemen...the list goes on.

Untill we will go in to a real war they will only grow in power.
Either we will move from surgery to chemotherapy or let the cancer take us.