Originally Posted by Kronus

Would you accept sleep deprivation and humiliation being used on our troops?

Again, it would depend on the situation. If, hypothetically speaking, our troops were part and parcel to systematic genocide of a group of people such as the Nazis were in pre-war and WWII Germany, then yes, I very well might if it could save lives.

Originally Posted by Kronus

Would you use branding irons and electro shock on that Nazi?

No. Like I said earlier, I think inflicting physical pain on someone is just going too far. That's my opinion of course, and others will have varying ideas of how far something like that should go.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Again, it would depend on the situation. If, hypothetically speaking, our troops were part and parcel to systematic genocide of a group of people such as the Nazis were in pre-war and WWII Germany, then yes, I very well might if it could save lives.

So if the percieved need is great enough, you're ok with pushing the boundries? As long as pain isn't involved, that is. Is that a fair summary?

Originally Posted by jyoshu

No. Like I said earlier, I think inflicting physical pain on someone is just going too far.

That's right, you did say that. Sorry.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

i would certainly endorse torture if it meant extracting sensitive information from our enemy prisoners that would help advance our efforts. torture should be used as a tool when necessary. the main problem with torture is the risk of a lack of discretion. torturing people isnt something the torture should do for enjoyment of personal reasons. but if it gets the job done, then by all means i agree

If torturing people to advance our efforts is ok, then how about using fighters in civilian clothing? Or kidnapping innocent people related to the enemy? Or using suicide bombers to XXXX up buses, just to keep the enemy afraid? If you're willing to put aside morallity whenever it's incovienient than how are you any better than the terrorists? That's not meant as an insult, it's a serious question. To my mind we're better than them because we adhere to a moral code, we behace in a "civilized" manner. If we cast that aside then where does that leave us?

Originally Posted by Kronus

So if the percieved need is great enough, you're ok with pushing the boundries? As long as pain isn't involved, that is. Is that a fair summary?

I think so. Though I would also argue that things like sleep deprivation aren't really what I would consider "torture" in the first place. Maybe an interrogation technique.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

I think so. Though I would also argue that things like sleep deprivation aren't really what I would consider "torture" in the first place. Maybe an interrogation technique.

Well, it does cause disorientation, hallucinations, paranoia, and psychosis. People subjected to sleep deprivation have said that they would do or sign anything just to be allowed uninteruppted sleep. That sounds less like a technique and more like torture, mental torture, to me. Better than thumb screws, but it still doesn't seem right. I'd like to see some real studies on what it does to a person, but googling "sleep deprivation" mostly gives college seniors griping about work load.

Originally Posted by Kronus

I would suggest that how we behave should not depend on the recipient of our behavior.

Disagreed. Those who come to my door as friends will be treated as friends, those who come to my door as enemies will be treated as enemies. And in both cases there are gradations for which the response will be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Liminus

But this is a very subjective interpretation. In a war, especially the one we are engaged in, who can claim to be an authority on what is 'honourable' or not?

We have treaties like the Geneva Conventions to define the terms.

Originally Posted by Liminus

The only obvious difference between the tactics employed by the US and those employed by the terrorists or the resistance in Iraq is that the US has vastly more money and material.

Disagreed. The US does not deliberately target civilian populations.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

In some cases, using such tactics might in fact be the only way to KEEP the golden rule toward those who will be saved by getting the information. That's why each situation has to be judged on it's own merits, not by a blanket dogmatic approach simply because of the negative connotations of the word "torture." (And again, the term needs to always be qualified.)

Well said. Torture as punishment is unacceptable, but I'm more flexible about the idea if there is a chance to save innocent lives. Civil laws are all about punishment for a crime already committed; warfare is all about preventing the crime before it occurs.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

Disagreed. Those who come to my door as friends will be treated as friends, those who come to my door as enemies will be treated as enemies. And in both cases there are gradations for which the response will be appropriate.

If I wouldn't want something to happen to a friend, no matter what he had done, than I wouldn't want it to happen to an enemy, no matter what they had done. If a friend commits murder than lock him up; that's just. But I would never condone the torture of a friend, and so I would never condone the torutre of anyone. Any other approach lowers you to the level of the terrorists.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

Disagreed. The US does not deliberately target civilian populations.

I don't see much difference between deliberately targeting civilians and dropping bombs in civilian areas knowing that you know will kill civilians, but might kill a terrorist or two as well.

-Wez

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

We have treaties like the Geneva Conventions to define the terms.

Which also bans the use of torture.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

The US does not deliberately target civilian populations.

How can you believe that US/UK military leaders and politicians were not 100% aware that there would be large numbers of civilian deaths in the initial bombardment of Baghdad? If the US did not, on principle, deliberately target civilians, we would not have bombed Baghdad at all.It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

warfare is all about preventing the crime before it occurs.

Whatever gave you this idea? Read your history books; every war ever fought has been about the strong imposing its will on the weak, you are just spouting ideological rhetoric which has no basis in historical or contemporary reality.

Originally Posted by Kronus

If torturing people to advance our efforts is ok, then how about using fighters in civilian clothing? Or kidnapping innocent people related to the enemy? Or using suicide bombers to XXXX up buses, just to keep the enemy afraid? If you're willing to put aside morallity whenever it's incovienient than how are you any better than the terrorists? That's not meant as an insult, it's a serious question. To my mind we're better than them because we adhere to a moral code, we behace in a "civilized" manner. If we cast that aside then where does that leave us?

in other words, unconventional warfare tactics? absolutey.

america has spend years and millions of dollars fortifying our conventional warfare tactics and machinery. we have the best jets, tanks, ships, submarines and mass-destruction missiles on the planet. yet none of that can help us against an enemy like al qaeda in the slightest. we are actually disadvantaged for having that type of equipment because its simply not effective in this new type of warfare. in other words, our enemies have evolved faster than we have

i dont know if you know this, but wars arent won by the team with the best behavior. we win wars by neutralizing or totally eliminating the enemy. if this means disguising our soldiers as muslim terrorists so get into the camps and destroy them from the inside, then definitely. as for suicide bombings, lots of times we put our soldiers in position where their death is nearly guarnteed, so its really not that much different from strapping bombs to themselves.

however, we are not targetting civilians. we are after the terrorist operatives. in this we are distinct from them. if we get our guys killed because we must adhere to some nebulous moral code, then we're obviously not better than they are; we're dead

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

in other words, unconventional warfare tactics? absolutey.

if we get our guys killed because we must adhere to some nebulous moral code, then we're obviously not better than they are; we're dead

I doubt this will fly with you, but I have to say it for the record none the less.

Survival is not enough. To simply live is not enough. There are things more important than mere existence. Honor, morals, human dignity. If you throw out these things just to live a few more years, than those years are worthless.

Originally Posted by Liminus

How can you believe that US/UK military leaders and politicians were not 100% aware that there would be large numbers of civilian deaths in the initial bombardment of Baghdad? If the US did not, on principle, deliberately target civilians, we would not have bombed Baghdad at all.It really is that simple.

Nonsense. The bombing was not targeting civilians, it was targeting military installations and it was generally very accurate. It is always hazardous for civilians to be in a war zone, but modern satellite guided bombs and precision targeting do a lot less collateral damage than the carpet bombing of WWII.

Originally Posted by Liminus

Read your history books; every war ever fought has been about the strong imposing its will on the weak, you are just spouting ideological rhetoric which has no basis in historical or contemporary reality.

What parallel universe are you living in? Your analysis applies to aggressor nations like the Axis in WWII, but every attacked nation has the right to defend itself from aggression and the best defense is a good offense. We didn't start the war, but we will finish it.

Originally Posted by Kronus

Survival is not enough. To simply live is not enough. There are things more important than mere existence. Honor, morals, human dignity. If you throw out these things just to live a few more years, than those years are worthless.

That's absurd. Without survival, nothing else matters.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

That's absurd. Without survival, nothing else matters.

I'm sure the wolf or the rat would agree with you. I like to think we're more advanced than that. But if you think the notion of an ideal being worth dying for is absurd, than I doubt I have the eloquence to convince you otherwise.

"Being civilised" is a kind of game that human beings play when their fundamental need for security has been taken care of - usually by the evolution of a state.