Waterboarding...

[SA Friday]

Even in this war, there will eventually be a peace. Atrosities, tortures, violations of the geneva convention and the helsinki accords lengthens that time. Justifying our violations because they did one thing or another is irrelevent. It's an arguement rife with faulty logic. We can't control their actions, but we are capible of controlling our own. The difference is rolling into a village in Iraq and Afghanistan and having maybe one or two hostiles not willing to do anything vs rolling into the same village and everyone is willing to die to kill you.

There is a time and place for everything. The time and place for these tactics are very very very rare, and I have yet to have seen it appropriate in any aspect of either war. Considering I've been involved in the targeting, capturing, killing (through Ke strike), and interrogation of a few of these guys, I might have a clue.

[Hoosier]

I must be the "bleeding heart liberal", which makes me laugh; who wants to "cry for the extremists" even though I said no such thing. I have a different opinion on whether it's in our best interests torture people and I'm OK with that; so call me whatever you want.

Whatever, if you don't want us to follow our own rule of law when we deal with another actor, then don't gripe when they do the same, I suppose.

I think the only thing else I'll say is that if the situation was reversed, and another country controlled our land, the members of this forum would be the irregulars not in uniform with guns making them pay.

Most of the people in Iraqi and Afghanistan never met an Al Queda agent, they just don't like having another country rolling through their streets. How many relatives would you have to lose before you decided to make some IED's? How many kids were 10 years old when we came, saw their fathers bagged and taken away, are 17 now and want revenge?

A lot of problem stems from treating all these people as if they're just Haji's who flew planes into WTC, and it just isn't the case.

o7 Peace out

[Elhuero]

I think the only thing else I'll say is that if the situation was reversed, and another country controlled our land, the members of this forum would be the irregulars not in uniform with guns making them pay.

not by blowing myself up at the mall.

those that legitimize terrorism are fools

[ChunkyMonkey]

nvm

[tmckay2]

Even in this war, there will eventually be a peace. Atrosities, tortures, violations of the geneva convention and the helsinki accords lengthens that time. Justifying our violations because they did one thing or another is irrelevent. It's an arguement rife with faulty logic. We can't control their actions, but we are capible of controlling our own. The difference is rolling into a village in Iraq and Afghanistan and having maybe one or two hostiles not willing to do anything vs rolling into the same village and everyone is willing to die to kill you.

There is a time and place for everything. The time and place for these tactics are very very very rare, and I have yet to have seen it appropriate in any aspect of either war. Considering I've been involved in the targeting, capturing, killing (through Ke strike), and interrogation of a few of these guys, I might have a clue.

the big issue here for me is the reasoning behind the tactics. its not like we are doing waterboarding to every person we capture. its not like we are putting a hot iron on their face, cutting off fingers, etc. its not like its happening all the time. while i agree you need to be careful in this matter because of the problems it can cause in peace time, i think we have to try to remember we want to get to peace first before we worry about that. we aren't waterboarding for sport (not knowingly by the brass anyway) we are trying to get vital info to save american lives and bring the real criminals to justice sooner rather than later. you can't assume we can ever rid the world of terrorists. its not possible. too many people are fed junk at a young age, are victims of unfortunate circumstances and will inevitably take it out on us. certainly you don't want to fuel the fire, but i don't think we are risking that here. these terrorists aren't like fighting the french, or british or something. waterboarding probably makes them laugh. they do far worse things. waterboarding won't cause them to "up the ante" because it comes nowhere close to what they do. i am 100% against waterboarding every tom, dick and harry we come across, but in situations where we think they have very important information? absolutely. all it is is a fear tactic. we aren't permanently harming them. we aren't killing them. its the fear that drives the give up of information. if these were uniformed, organized afghani soldiers then i 100% agree it should not be allowed. but with terrorists? i think its a gray area we should exploit when absolutely needed

[SA Friday]

all it is is a fear tactic. we aren't permanently harming them. we aren't killing them. its the fear that drives the give up of information.

Fear of death, right? I think that's a fear that might be exploitable in the right circumstances with this tactic. The problem is the ones we really want information from are the the ones that are the biggest zealots. They are willing to die and willing to watch every one in their family die and bask in the perceived glory of those deaths. The results from tactics like this are worthless with a zealot. There are other interrogation tactics more effective with this type of detainee/prisoner.

[GunTroll]

Its been posted here before but I think its needed again.



Bring it!


ETA: I doubt this happened for real but it does have a ring to it

[Troublco]

Even in this war, there will eventually be a peace. Atrosities, tortures, violations of the geneva convention and the helsinki accords lengthens that time. Justifying our violations because they did one thing or another is irrelevent. It's an arguement rife with faulty logic. We can't control their actions, but we are capible of controlling our own. The difference is rolling into a village in Iraq and Afghanistan and having maybe one or two hostiles not willing to do anything vs rolling into the same village and everyone is willing to die to kill you.

There is a time and place for everything. The time and place for these tactics are very very very rare, and I have yet to have seen it appropriate in any aspect of either war. Considering I've been involved in the targeting, capturing, killing (through Ke strike), and interrogation of a few of these guys, I might have a clue.

SA Friday, I think you have a very valid point and I'd tend to defer to you on these things. I'm not advocating that we shoot every Iraqi, Afghani, or whomever. I do think that when the need arises, we should do what needs done. But then every armchair quarterback in this country comes swarming out and second guesses the action out of context, and the operator is the one that seems to wind up in the crosshairs.

I must be the "bleeding heart liberal", which makes me laugh; who wants to "cry for the extremists" even though I said no such thing. I have a different opinion on whether it's in our best interests torture people and I'm OK with that; so call me whatever you want.

Whatever, if you don't want us to follow our own rule of law when we deal with another actor, then don't gripe when they do the same, I suppose.

I think the only thing else I'll say is that if the situation was reversed, and another country controlled our land, the members of this forum would be the irregulars not in uniform with guns making them pay.

Most of the people in Iraqi and Afghanistan never met an Al Queda agent, they just don't like having another country rolling through their streets. How many relatives would you have to lose before you decided to make some IED's? How many kids were 10 years old when we came, saw their fathers bagged and taken away, are 17 now and want revenge?

A lot of problem stems from treating all these people as if they're just Haji's who flew planes into WTC, and it just isn't the case.

o7 Peace out

I didn't say liberal, and I wasn't referring specifically to you. (I don't happen to like the term liberal.) If you choose to take it that way, that's up to you. You're entitled to your opinion, just like I am. I was referring, basically, to the legion of armchair quarterbacks who seem to want to give more rights to the extremist militants than to our people, servicemembers or otherwise. If you want to take what I said personally, go ahead.

So if I don't think we should treat them with velvet gloves, I shouldn't be able to voice my opinion when they ACTUALLY torture and murder people, whether it's ours or their own countrymen? Hm. And "they" generally aren't Iraqis. Most of them are Foreign Fighters. So much for fighting for their homeland.

I actually do know some Iraqis, Jordanians, and Saudis. They're a lot like us, want to live their lives, raise their children, and so on. And I don't recall referring to them. I specifically said, muslim extremists. Al Qaeda, Taliban, that sort.

You don't have to like my opinion, or your interpretation of my opinion. I don't have to like yours. That's the beautiful thing about this country. You couldn't say that about Iraq or Afghanistan, prior to 9/11. I wonder how many Iraqis (the normal, rank and file folks; not Baath party members and other beneficiaries of the former regime) would really want Saddam back, instead of us giving them the opportunity to choose their own path. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan.