Should we be able to torture prisoners?

Question

Being that we are at war with an enemy that does not observe the Geneava Convention, should It's laws protect them? Should American soldiers be given leave to treat enemy prisoners in any way they see fit to retrieve information?
I am taking an objective stance on this so far. Willing to hear whatever arguments people want to give. I only ask that the answerer's not berate each other, or assume that I am taking a stance on either side. My feelings on the subject will be reflected in the answer I pick as the winner.

Ok...I shouldn't have had to point this out already. But-And I'm being objective here, you need to recall that fact that Iraqi insurgents behead non-combatants, i.e.; reporters, journalists. And when they did capture American soldiers, those soldier’s charred bodies ended up being drug through the street. So, shouldn’t this “treat others as you wish to be treated attitude” be extended to the other side?

Answer 1

simply put YES.

I feel that it should be a case by case basis.. but when it comes to terrorism then You bet..
However

It should be regulated in the sense that not any soldoer can do this..only interrogators or the soldier in the group who has been assigned that duty.

If we allowed any and all soldiers to wildy use any means on the enemy most of the enemy would never be seen alive again once they were captured... Keep in mind the mentality of a soldier who captures a combatant after just seeing his best buddy killed nest to him...
You think he is in the right frame of mind to be objective ???

SO I think there wold need to be some rules.. but YES
I am for it 100%.

These ae not our friends they are our enemies.. they mean to do harm to Americans all Americans they do not care if you are anti war or Muslim or a child or old.. If you are an American they would kill you soon as look at you.. its stupid and rediculous but its the way they terrorist grgoups think and how they are trained... SO yes...

Sorry if this sounds harsh.. buts how I feel.

Good Luck

Wismom

Answer 2

I have several friends that did a portion of their EXTENDED Vietnam tour of duty at the Hanoi Hilton. So I suppose my opinions of prisoner treatment have been modified by their experiences.
Perhaps the most interesting (and pertinent) point is that to the man, those that have been mistreated as a prisoner are the most adamant in the opinion that we should not do it to others.

Additional Details

15 minutes ago
(Ok...I shouldn't have had to point this out already. But-And I'm being objective here, you need to recall that fact that Iraqi insurgents behead non-combatants, i.e.; reporters, journalists. And when they did capture American soldiers, those soldier’s charred bodies ended up being drug through the street. So, shouldn’t this “treat others as you wish to be treated attitude” be extended to the other side?)

You make the point perfectlly of what the end will be once the behavior of torture is started, and this is why at any level torture is wrong.

Answer 3

I've sat here a while contemplating this question, wrote stuff,and erased it . And decided that I'm unqualified to have an opinion . The reason is because I have never been trained for war. And I have to stand objective if I'm to be supportive . I could never personally torture someone . And I HOPE torture isn't done to others . But I don't judge it, because the military when at war, walks in a completely different pair of shoes, than we civilians could ever understand . And no, I don't think laws,or anything else should protect the enemy .

Answer 4

One could argue that reciprical treatment should be allowed.

So, if the enemy beats, beheads, burns and drags the bodies of our captured troops, then we should be allowed to conduct interrogation in any manner we see fit to garner info.

However, we have seen that we can get a lot of info without torture (where torture is defined, as per the Geneva conventions, as an action which causes physical or mental harm). Water-boarding does no physical or mental harm, it just scares the bejabbers out of people. Similarly, the stress postures, sleep deprivation, environmental exposures, etc are all effective aggressive techniques without being 'torture'.

However, the US has always treated legal combatants well, following Geneva Conventions.

Answer 5

I believe that the moment we abrigate our standards of decency and morality in the way we treat any human being, we have devalued what our country was founded upon.

Our Declaration of Independence proudly declares that all of us are created equal. To deny another human being the rights that are afforded to all implies that the principles we were founded upon are no longer universal.

I find it strange that the military are not afforded rights according to the constitution, but rather, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but even this code has rules preventing unfair or unduly harsh treatment.

The fact that our enemy doesn't follow the Geneva Convention in no way lessens our moral obligation to follow a document that we signed because we found it just. Whatever the case, we, as a country stand for certain things that we see just. To toss all that aside because torture is a more efficient means of gaining information is wrong. Why not rewrite the Malleus Maleficarum, wasn't that a great means of extracting information?

The world is sick, and abandoning principles of what is just and fair demeans our country and makes the world even sicker.

Answer 6

Sadly, I support the torture of prisoners... we have to tailor our brand of war to what our opponents are doing. And when we're fighting an enemy that isn't going to meet us in pitched battle, getting quick, accurate information out of prisoners is essential.

When we talk about insurgents and prisoner torture, we probably feel a lot like the British felt during various colonial wars in the 1800's. They got pretty offended when they fought opponents who would hide behind rocks and take long range shots at them, instead of coming out into the open and being mowed down by rifle and artillery fire in a more sporting fashion.

But that's war... it's not meant to be nice. And until the British adapted somewhat, they got humiliated by those opponents, who were much weaker numerically and technologically. We have to learn from history.

Our enemies are going to do whatever they have to do to win, and to save the lives of people on their side. Unless we wise up and do what we need to do, we'll eventually be beaten.

Answer 7

The Geneva Convention, as I recall studying it in school a long time ago, was meant to protect any person under the control of another, regardless of origin, faith, politics, etc.

Yes, it should protect those who do not observe it. Why? Because if those of us (and by us I mean U.S.) hold ourselves to be higher and better than the rest of the world, shouldn't we be the ones to set the example? If we ignore the G.C., than so might the rest of the world. Then, God forbid, someday you could have a son or daughter in a war anywhere on this planet and not have the assurance that the GC would at least protect them from that.

Besides, why stoop to the level of people who have no value of life? If we do, we might as well put the gun to our own heads now and pull that trigger.

Answer 8

I think we should. Like you said, the enemy doesn't play by the rules, why should we? But, I think in doing so, we should make 100% sure that all cameras and videos are no where around. Makes us look bad. War makes everyone look like animals and I believe that these people are evil and they will not stop until something is done to convince them that they are wrong. I remember when I was little, my mother used to say all's fair in love and war. I guess we are too fair.

Answer 9

The problem with ignoring the Geneva convention and doing whatever you like is that there is no obligation for your enemy to follow those same laws.

Now the US is behaving like a rogue state, flouting international laws, ignoring human rights, torturing people who *HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME BY A COURT OF LAW* (therefore by definition INNOCENT) then I feel sorry for any US soldiers captured by a foreign army.

Answer 10

Let me break this down , so even John Kerry can understand .
Some turds just killed your father and brother and kidnapped your mother and 2 sisters .
You've caught one of them .
You want to know where your family has been taken , so you can save them .
How far would you go ?
Would you cry and say "Pretty Please " ?
Or would you slap him around , yank down his pants , dump lighter fluid on his crotch and pull out some matches ?

Do you prevent the rape and murder of your mother and sisters By theatening a "weenie roast " ?
Or do you do the politically correct thing .