Unintelligent veto

[Administrator]

TO PRESIDENT BUSH, for vetoing legislation that would have made it illegal for U.S. intelligence officials to use waterboarding in interrogations. Waterboarding and other torture contradict the Army’s “Soldier’s Rules” of ethical and lawful conduct: Do not harm enemies who surrender; do not kill or torture enemy prisoners of war. And, as Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller correctly said, permitting the CIA to torture prisoners damages our national security by weakening America’s legal and moral authority. The Army’s new Operations Field Manual is clearer still: “Nothing emboldens enemy resistance like the belief that U.S. forces will kill or torture prisoners.” The Army is right; its commander in chief is wrong.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/04/3464194

[campbellt1]

"War is Hell, and there is no point trying to civilize it." This oft used quote from W.T. Sherman needs to be taken to heart. When a terrorist (note, not a lawful combatant) is captured he has no protections under the laws of civilized warfare. To afford him such protections may seem noble and the height of ethics but is, at best, merely naivete and, at worst, immoral because it places more innocent people at risk.
Civilized nations wage war to minimize civilian casualties, terrorists target the innocent precisely because they have no military value and are therefore "easy kills." Terrorists neither know, understand, abide by, nor care about the rules of war by design. Their ignorance stems from the issue being irrelevant to them. They depend on weak-kneed nations to afford them protections which they would not even consider were roles reversed. They hold us in contempt precisely because we are so timid in our treatment of them.
To follow the line of argument espoused in support of this legislation, that it is better to sacrifice innocent lives than to toture terrorists to prevent such disasters as 9/11, is absurd. One wonders, in retrospect, if a more aggressive interrogation might have prevented 9/11 altogether. Who, in his right mind would argue that saving 3,000 lives was less important than preserving the rights and dignity of the vermin who plotted and executed the attacks?
Who would be willing to face the berieved thousands who lost their loved ones and tell them that they might have saved those lives but for their committment to a bizarre interpretation of ethics?
Is torturing a terrorist more ethical than allowing hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of innocent people to die at the hands of terrorist? Is it more ethical to torture a suspect who has information which might save those lives? Torture for the sake of perverse pleasure is far different than intense interrogation whose goal is saving lives and preventing suffering. We must be willing to undertake any action necessary to save lives and destroy our enemies, that is the lesson of history and the bitter but undeniable reality of irregular war.
Is shooting a combatant in warfare, which inflicts severe pain and injury, therefore a form of torture? What difference is there in killing or maiming the crew of a HMG to save the lives of my unit or killing or maiming a terrorist who a terrorist who has information that can be used to save one of more lives?
We are not targeting the debate in conformance with reality and that is the tragedy. We have allowed ethisists, most of whom have never smelled gunpowder, to make moral judgements from an armchair, in a plush office, instead of in the midst of the chaos and real-life blood and carnage of this modern battlefield. Could potential terrorist be dissuaded from undertaking acts of barbarity if they knew that the consequences might be torture and disfigurement? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is a question that needs to considered and not discounted merely because it is unsavory.
The only people I pity are the men who should be tasked with extracting life-saving information using intense interrogation. They will suffer internal torment and pschological damage from deeds perfromed to save lives. But, just like soldiers who kill under the laws of war, they are sacrificing themselves for a greater good. In this light the torture of terrorists to save lives is far from ignoble but rather the height of virtuous behavior. I think William Tecumseh would agree without hesitation.

The debate must continue but we must not cower in the face of arguments from people who are not vetted. Those who are not responsible for the public safety, who are not accountable for their opinions, and who would be the first to advocate the most vile of torture to protect themselves or their family are not voices worthy of being heard.

T.J., MGySgt, USMC, Ret.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by campbellt1

"War is Hell, and there is no point trying to civilize it." This oft used quote from W.T. Sherman needs to be taken to heart. When a terrorist (note, not a lawful combatant) is captured he has no protections under the laws of civilized warfare. To afford him such protections may seem noble and the height of ethics but is, at best, merely naivete and, at worst, immoral because it places more innocent people at risk.

All good points.

Unfortunately they have to be set against the seemingly complete misunderstanding of what "the terrorists" are actually doing, why they are actually doing it, and what the real "intelligence benefits" are of adopting the same tactics and attitude as "the terrorists".

As in Vietnam, the government of the United States of America is sending the US military to fight one type of war - and the US military is doing a splendid job of fighting that type of war.

Also, as in Vietnam, the type of war that the US government is sending the US military out to fight is NOT the type of war that "the other side" is fighting (nor even one that it has any intention of fighting).

The main problem arising from the type of war that the US government is sending the US military out to fight is that, eventually, the US military is going to go home leaving "the battle ground" in the hands of "the other guys".

To win "The War on Terror" means that the US government must actually understand what the root causes of "terrorism" are, know how to remedy those root causes, remedy those root causes, and make sure that those root causes stay remedied. You [b]don't[b] do that by "waterboarding" or "bayoneting". You DO do that by showing the populace that they have more to gain - in the long-term - by doing something different than they are doing now. (NOTE:- Historically speaking, "torture", "hostages", "random executions in order to make examples" and the like are counter-productive.)