Torture

I would be happy if the U.S. government would publicly state that we (the U.S. military) will always treat legal combatants (members of a legitimate opposing military force) in accordance with the applicable Geneva and Hague Conventions....just as we have in the past (and as none of our enemies ever have). Captured military personnel, after all, should be treated with respect regardless of which side of a conflict they are on.

With regard to illegal combatants (terrorists, pirates, brigands, etc.), they will be treated however we damned well please....even "tortured" if necessary. They are not protected by the above mentioned conventions, by the way, even though we normally afford them such niceties.

Keep in mind that we do not use torture to extract confessions (as the communists always seem to want to do). Read some of the many accounts of former POW's of North Korea or North Vietnam.

We do not torture to entertain ourselves. The mistreatment of prisoners by Americans at Abu Ghraib was not torture. Humiliating prisoners just for kicks is inappropriate, juvenile, and unbecoming of U.S. military personnel. It is not torture, however.

Torture as punishment may satisfy a need for revenge, but serves no legitimate purpose, and should be prohibited on moral grounds, if nothing else, but certainly not because we care one bit what "the world" thinks of us. Besides, when our so-called allies get themselves in trouble, who is it that always has to save their butts?

Attempting to legally define torture would be as futile as trying to define bad taste in music, anyway. Forcing someone to listen to a Barry Manilow album would be considered torture by some (most). I'm okay with leaving the interrogation of terrorists to the discretion of the experts. You say you don't trust the experts to make those decisions?......well, you damned well better trust them. Those experts are the ones who protect you from getting blown up or having your throat slit by people who would rather kill you than spend a relaxing day with their own families. I'm talking about bad people here.

Arguing that torture never works is simply denying an oft proven truth - torture always works when applied properly for an appropriate purpose. Don't believe me? Well, I'll bet that, given the opportunity, I could make you give me your social security number and all your computer passwords without even leaving a mark on your body.....and I'm not even very good at interrogation. I could probably even make you admit to being a witch, too.....even if you aren't one.

The strategy of gentle persuasion and developing a personal rapport with prisoners may work when the prisoners are reasonable people (such as ordinary soldiers whose philosophies of life are similar to our own). This approach is said to have worked with some German POW's in WWII. It will not, however, work with Islamic terrorists. They do not share our values and cannot be reasoned with.

Whatever methods our intelligence agencies deem appropriate in dealing with terrorists is okay by me. That's right....I'm not too concerned about how terrorists are treated.

Speaking of torture, try sitting through any of the absurd discussions on torture presented by CNN. Your head will explode.

Abu Ghraib - What! ...Again?

Never one to pass up an opportunity to make the U.S. military look bad, CBS 60 Minutes has dredged up the controversy of the Abu Ghraib incident. Remember, it was CBS that "broke" the story in the first place - months after the Army had already begun its investigation. I have commented previously on this story here.

In tonight's 60 Minutes episode, Joe Darby, the Army sergeant who first reported the misconduct of his fellow MP's is presented as an altruistic upholder of what is right. Perhaps he is, I don't know. But if I were his company commander, he would have received a letter of reprimand for his actions at the very least.

Was Darby correct in reporting the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib? Absolutely! Should he have reported it to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) instead of his First Sergeant? Absolutely not!

Granted, I don't have all the details of the situation, but from what has been released to the public, I can say for sure that Darby should have reported the abuse through his chain of command. His company commander should then have questioned every soldier involved and conducted a 100% "Health and Welfare Inspection" in order to confiscate all evidence (pictures) of misconduct. It would then be up to the company commander to decide if a criminal investigation was necessary after consulting with the Judge Advocate General's office (JAG).

Violations of Army regulations, not including criminal conduct, could have been handled through Article 15's and letters of reprimand, of which at least a few would be warranted.

What no one seems to care about - and this is what bothers me the most about the whole story - is who it was that leaked the pictures to CBS! That individual deserves the harshest punishment of all. A firing squad comes to mind.

SGT Darby can be excused for not being able to foresee the damage that disclosure of this incident could cause to U.S. efforts in Iraq, but whoever leaked the pictures to CBS certainly could and, therefore, is no less than a traitor to his country. And CBS? They should be required to divulge their source for the pictures and shamed for publicizing the incident. News organizations are not immune to the laws that apply to everyone else, nor are they to be congratulated for undermining our country's military in the middle of a war.

One thing most of us learned in Vietnam: Don't talk to the press. They will sensationalize anything, even if it's only a rumor, if they think they can turn it into a "news" story.

Coercive Interrogation

What is torture?

Placing a prisoner's head (or other body parts) in a vice and applying pressure until he talks?

Stripping him naked and making fun of his shriveled up wee-wee?

There are sadistic methods of torture to satisfy the sick minds of some captors, and there are more effective, and generally humane, methods of getting someone to talk.

The effective (and humane) methods usually involve physical and psychological discomfort if the prisoner is the belligerent sort.

When dealing with terrorists, I've got no problem with interrogation techniques that others may consider cruel - including water-boarding. I'm content to leave the choice of techniques to the professionals.

If we were dealing with captured soldiers, for whom the Geneva and Hague Conventions apply, I would be against using even unnecessary discomfort. Military prisoners deserve the respect of their captors (who are legally required to care for their safety and personal needs). Captured soldiers are not criminals.
Terrorists, on the other hand, are pirates and brigands and are, therefore, not deserving of respect or consideration.

I do not doubt that some captured terrorists have valuable information that, when extracted, may save lives. However, to avoid having to deal with whining liberals, depletion of our combat resources, and to discourage further terrorist activities, I am in favor of a take-no-prisoners policy. Just kill 'em and move on.

These are bad people, and they need to be eliminated - totally. Don't forget what they would be more than happy to do to you if you happened to fall into their clutches.