[JohnE]

Please dont associate me with Ianjenn...shudder...
The sh*tty thing here is that the world opinion was pretty much with the US after 9/11. No one really had a problem with going into A-ghan and rooting out terrorists. Then came Iraq, and GW just had to finish what Daddy left undone. There goes all the goodwill left after 9/11. Then comes the rest of the controversies, and pretty soon we are right back where we started, even a bit behind, because of all the cowboy diplomacy and "Youre either with us or against us" mentality.
I still cant figure out why we had to enforce UN decrees...I have spent too much time in this life in a sh*tty desert when I could have been riding or skiing or playing hockey or whatever, but instead, its the desert. Thanks.
Appeasement doesnt work, just ask Neville Chamberlain. We can ride the moral high horse, but it would be a lie. War is a dirty, ugly business, and the people we are dealing with here are willing to do anything to further their cause. We must be willing to do anything to defeat their cause.
Unfortunatley, we cant go back and fix whatever led to 9/11, we can only work to make tommorow better. I just dont know how. Call the guys with the 9 lb. brains and the common sense.

 

[JohnE]

I think until GW started playing silly buggers, we did actually enjoy a fair amount of respect.

100% right on the money...had he actually listened to folks like Colin Powell, we would still be okay.

 

[JohnE]

So why not just shoot prisoners out of hand, use gas/biological weapons in the caves, nuclear weapons if needed? If the end justifies the means then there should be no constraints.
The scrupulous adherence to the highest standards of behaviour are the only way to command legitimacy.

But VB, I would argue that adherence to the highest standards, while noble, is unfortunately, to the radicals, a sign of weakness.
I gotta stay out of this forum...

 

[Silver]

I would argue that adherence to the highest standards, while noble, is unfortunately, to the radicals, a sign of weakness

I'm not worried about what radical Muslims think about my commitment to not torturing people. I'm much more concerned about being able to look in the mirror and not see a Khmer Rouge staring back at me.

 

[Changleen]

The only real sign of weakness is losing. Who cares what a bunch of crazy fvcks think of you compared to the opinions of your trading partners and the rational population of the world?

 

[JohnE]

Honestly, if torturing one terrorist stops another 9/11, or Barcelona attack, or bus bombing, or subway attack, or Pan Am flight 101, saving untold lives, maybe including the life of a loved one, does the end justify the means?
This time, I am really out of this mess. Discussing stuff like this over the Internet is not the same as over a pint or seven...

 

[Munster]

No-one has mentioned the debate about the effectiveness of torture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

 

[BurlyShirley]

Honestly, if torturing one terrorist stops another 9/11, or Barcelona attack, or bus bombing, or subway attack, or Pan Am flight 101, saving untold lives, maybe including the life of a loved one, does the end justify the means?
This time, I am really out of this mess. Discussing stuff like this over the Internet is not the same as over a pint or seven...

...the guy who gets tortured but has nothing to say will probably have a pretty bad attitude toward the US on down the line, I would imagine. I wouldnt doubt it could actually incite MORE 911's or subway bombings.

 

[ianjenn]

Again I can't find anything about the actaul peace accord we signed with Iraq back after desert Storm? So I am guessind nobody else can either but in it from what I understand we are the only group that will enforce any breaking down of this agreement correct?? At this point none of us are going to change our minds..........
So whatever you think cool and whatever I think cool and hopefully there will not be any other reasons for us or othere Western Nations to take actions against Muslims anytime soon? My point in that last post was politicians, lawyers etc., are all lame and weak I don't give a rat about em none of stand for anything these days, but my friends over there will hopefully come home and continue the life they put on hold soon.

 

[ianjenn]

Martin Luther King wasn't a soldier. Carlos Hathcock got stiffed by the Marines when he was turfed with Multiple Sclerosis. Audie Murphy was a basketcase actor.

50 years ago you would have been an SS member gassing Jews because der Fuhrer told you it was a good idea.

Right MLK was a preacher of peace. Audie Murphy on the other hand well he had a few decorations placed on his chest http://www.audiemurphy.com/welcome.htm

 

[Echo]

Hey ianjenn, I was in the military over in the middle east probably before you were born. Nice to see how effective the military's brainwashing techniques have gotten since then.

I'm about as white and American looking as they come, and strangely I was able to walk around quite safely in 4 Arab countries 20 years ago. I wonder what happened since then that they are so pissed off at us? Oh yeah, people like you are over there now.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No-one has mentioned the debate about the effectiveness of torture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Exactly.

Torture isn't effective. If you coerce someone hard enough, they'll tell you exactly what you they think you want to hear.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Honestly, if torturing one terrorist stops another 9/11, or Barcelona attack, or bus bombing, or subway attack, or Pan Am flight 101, saving untold lives, maybe including the life of a loved one, does the end justify the means?
This time, I am really out of this mess. Discussing stuff like this over the Internet is not the same as over a pint or seven...

If you do come back, I would say that due to the fact that torture isn't very effective that it wouldn't help avert another 9/11.

Also, let's think about this. What's to stop the gov. from torturing US citizens if it thinks it can avert another Oklahoma City bombing?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

thats a bit of an slippery slope.

if you come to think about it, we are talking about a "line" already established in an arbitrary fashion.
the fact that we regard "war", "missiles" and "f117a" on the acceptable side of the line in the first place it pretty much arbitrary.

There's certainly a non-arbitrary line between shooting at someone on the battlefield and shooting at someone who is chained up in jail. Don't conflate actions on the battlefields to the inhumane treatment and torture of those who have already been defeated.

 

[syadasti]

Exactly.

Torture isn't effective. If you coerce someone hard enough, they'll tell you exactly what you they think you want to hear.

The US Government still relies on the polygraph too which has been proven ineffective and inaccurate.

8
Conclusions and Recommendations

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures. We separately present our conclusions about scientific knowledge on the validity of polygraph and other techniques of detecting deception, about policy for employee security screening in the context of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and about the future of detection and deterrence of deception, including a recommendation for research.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Basic Science

Polygraph Accuracy Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test

 

[Old Man G Funk]

don't get me wrong: torture would be good sport, but it's kinda hard to make good propaganda when we capture them & give them 3 halal squares/day & accomodate their every silly religious 'need' while in custody.

I wonder if they have a religious "need" to not be waterboarded.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No in reality we invaded IRAQ due to the 17 UN MANDATES that clown boy broke!

How many UN mandates are there against Israel? Should we invade them too?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The US Government still relies on the polygraph too which has been proven ineffective and inaccurate.

True that, and they shouldn't. Relying on methods that are proven to be faulty is in no one's best interest.

 

[BurlyShirley]

True that, and they shouldn't. Relying on methods that are proven to be faulty is in no one's best interest.

Tell that to Maury Povich. Think of the lives he's ruined.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Tell that to Maury Povich. Think of the lives he's ruined.

I wouldn't know.

 

[DRB]

Audie Murphy was a basketcase actor.

Classy of you...

The Official Citation for his Medal of Honor (which he received for actions when he was 20 years old what were you doing at 20)

Rank and organization:' Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 15th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division.
Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January, 1945.
Entered service at: Dallas, Texas. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Texas, G.O. No. 65, 9 August 1944.
Citation: Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

 

[N8 v2.0]

how about of those 450 detained, maybe 20 (and I'm being generous here) are actual terrorists? The rest as just muslims who were int he wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm sure they were just guilty of FWM* huh?

















*Fighting while muslim

 

[N8 v2.0]

Classy of you...

The Official Citation for his Medal of Honor (which he received for actions when he was 20 years old what were you doing at 20)

Rank and organization:' Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 15th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division.
Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January, 1945.
Entered service at: Dallas, Texas. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Texas, G.O. No. 65, 9 August 1944.
Citation: Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

They don't hardly make men like that anymore....


However, most of today's liberals think WWII fictional event anyway.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

However, most of today's liberals think WWII fictional event anyway.

I know, it seems like a fairy tale that we fought against someone who actually attacked us first...

 

[N8 v2.0]

I know, it seems like a fairy tale that we fought against someone who actually attacked us first...

Ah.. what dastardly surprise attack on the USA did the Germans carry out again..???

 

[Westy]

Ah.. what dastardly surprise attack on the USA did the Germans carry out again..???

Pearl Harbor dumbass.
:biggrin:

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Ah.. what dastardly surprise attack on the USA did the Germans carry out again..???

Actually, the Germans were a clear threat to us and had attacked some US shipping boats.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Actually, the Germans were a clear threat to us and had attacked some US shipping boats.

losses were minimal... a lot less than 3000 civilians on US soil...


..and what sneak attack did Italy carry out on the US again..??

 

[Old Man G Funk]

losses were minimal... a lot less than 3000 civilians on US soil...


..and what sneak attack did Italy carry out on the US again..??

Considering that Italy was embroiled in the war with Germany and the rest of Europe, we could not attack German without also attacking Italy.

Of course, even if Germany killed only one person, it would still be more than Iraq killed on 9/11. Nice try though. You keep making references to 9/11 everytime someone points out that we are in the midst of an elective war in Iraq and maybe someone will buy it.

 

[MMike]

But 9/11 was orchestrated by the US gov't

 

[DRB]

Considering that Italy was embroiled in the war with Germany and the rest of Europe, we could not attack German without also attacking Italy.

Of course, even if Germany killed only one person, it would still be more than Iraq killed on 9/11. Nice try though. You keep making references to 9/11 everytime someone points out that we are in the midst of an elective war in Iraq and maybe someone will buy it.

So you have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So you have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan?

I've said before that the invasion of Afghanistan was probably justified. The Taliban were aiding and abetting a group that had physically attacked us.

 

[Echo]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we would be much better off if we had stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job, instead of doing a half-assed job there and then doing a half-assed job in Iraq. The US invading Iraq was a dream come true for Al Queda.

 

[jimmydean]

Afghanistan was justified. The group we put in power years ago no longer served a valuable purpose, so it was time for a change.

I agree that we should have finished there long before we ever considered Iraq. It was a mistake to go in at all, but if we would have waited until the majority of troops were done there, we wouldn't be spread so thin either.

But the topic at hand is still a mess. Even if we are the only country that follows the guidelines, at least we lead by example. That way, the countries or groups that do not can be taken care of without question.

If we do the same crap as they do, then it's additional reason for hate, and we don't need more of that right now.

 

[Transcend]

losses were minimal... a lot less than 3000 civilians on US soil...


..and what sneak attack did Italy carry out on the US again..??

Nice troll, even the most dimwitted here know of the Tripartite agreement between Japan, Germany and Italy. You aren't even funny anymore, nor do you make any sense.

 

[ianjenn]

OK FOUND A LITTLE HERE
about Geneva Conventions
combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
So from what I read there and posted here are Terrorists due Geneva Conentions??? Thats a good ?

 

[Transcend]

How about being human shoud be reason enough to grant them geneva convention rights?

Also, an insurgency movement is categorized as an organized resistance movement. So clearly, yes, they are as per convention 1. The 1977 protocols also clearly extend here to combatants bearing arms during an attack.

 

[ianjenn]

Ya you didn't read it they don't distingiush themselves from civilians and don't carry their weapons openly so no they actually don't fall into that. Don't read me wrong I am not advocating the use of blowtorches or anything here. I think in certain instances there should be the use of the same interigation methods that our police use ie no sleep, cold rooms, etc when deemed needed ya know? Anyway Transcend I am not trying to be in a flame War with ya OK. I just wanted to read the actual document myself, that BTW I still can't find weird don't ya think?

 

[Transcend]

Ya you didn't read it they don't distingiush themselves from civilians and don't carry their weapons openly so no they actually don't fall into that. Don't read me wrong I am not advocating the use of blowtorches or anything here. I think in certain instances there should be the use of the same interigation methods that our police use ie no sleep, cold rooms, etc when deemed needed ya know? Anyway Transcen I am not trying to be in a flame War with ya OK. I just wanted to read the actual document myself, that BTW I still can't find weird don't ya think?

They don't need to fit into ALL of the categories. Only one. Thus, "organized resistance" is more than enough. The US Gov't is calling them an insurgency, which by definition, is an organized resistance (rebel group, resistance movement etc).

They carry their weapons openly DURING an attack itself. 1977 protocol addition.

 

[ohio]

How about being human shoud be reason enough to grant them geneva convention rights?

Actually I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think that's a good reason at all.

The good reason is that it's counterproductive to our ultimate goals (safety for the US and allies, democracy in the middle east, reduction in terrorist power and numbers) to diverge from the geneva conventions in our treatment of prisoners.
1. We get unreliable info - see Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who offered reliable info up until the CIA started water-boarding him until he gave false info (but what they wanted to hear) that led us to conduct an extremely expensive and totally worthless offensive.
2. We aid terrorist recruitment - looking ruthless and hyprocritical on the world's stage gives the terrorist leaders more fodder than they could ever need for recruitment
3. We alienate ourselves from allies - gets expensive (in money and lives) to fight this fight ourselves... but that's where we now are because our former allies are afriad that our stink might rub off on them.

I couldn't care less about the well-being of terrorists... it's the three points above that worry me.