During the Revolutionary War, George Washington forbade mistreatment of POW's, even thought the British and Hessians killed innocent American civilians had a tendency to abuse and execute captured American rebel troops.
The logic used to justify mistreatment of Iraqi Pow's and terror suspects is the same the British used during the Revolutionary War. American rebel troops did not follow the normal rules of engagement. They did not always wear uniforms and hid among civilians.
Washington said "We are fighting for a cause, and our cause requires that we behave with honor."
He also told his troops that by treating POW's humanely, they could be convinced to join the American cause.
Do terrorist deserve humane treatment? No.
Should they be treated humanely anyway? Yes.
Why? Because that is what separates us from them. That is what makes us the good guys and them the bad guys.
2007-08-01 14:14:07 · 16 answers · asked by ThatOneDude 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Dsatt57, this isn't a rhetorical question. It's a real one. I'm asking if the people who advocate torture today and look down on those who don't feel the same way about George Washington.
2007-08-01 14:30:16 · update #1
I agree completely. If we act like the enemy, we ARE the enemy
2007-08-01 14:17:11 · answer #1 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are correct, but your point is not served, I think.
While customs of the day required somewhat "chivalrous " treatment of captured soldiers, that did not apply to spies.
The Continental Army summarily executed enemy belligerents disguised as civilians or friendlies.
So by those standards, which existed until the Korean Conflict, terrorists would not have any rights, whatsoever.
Why do some people today not understand the distinction between a combatant disguised as a civilian and a combatant in uniform? ( Note: Even a distinctive patch or hat would qualify a person as a soldier according to the Geneva Convention.)
2007-08-01 14:26:15 · answer #2 · answered by Tommy B 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Back in his days, most of the prisoners didn't know very much. Whether conscripted or mercenary, they knew very little beyond what they were told to do in that particular battle on that particular day. Mistreating soldiers would decrease the probability of future surrenders.
Whether or not you feel that it justifies a change in treatment of prisoners, it's obvious that none of the above is true anymore.
2007-08-01 14:21:48 · answer #3 · answered by open4one 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Obamacare contains no government plan and the government can not say no or ration any medical care. The IRS has no authority to place any limits on any look after Obamacare. The IRS isn't counseled of any medical medical care, drug, medical care, medical doctors call or the different factor of affected person care under Obamacare. somebody informed you 1000's of lies and additionally you ate them top up. familiar gullible conservative. Is It approximately Obama? Is it undesirable? IT could be actual!!!!!
2016-10-09 00:40:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have a solid argument. Mostly, I agree with you, but, even though there are rules, sometimes, war is war and things get out of hand. Soldiers are trained to fight the enemy, and it must be hard to treat those who just got through trying to kill you with any degree of civility. It's one of those things that must be taken with a grain of salt and dealt with on a case by case basis.
2007-08-01 14:31:08 · answer #5 · answered by theskyis_blue 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is not a question of good guys or bad guys. This is an issue over money and who can get the most of it. You can put all the logic in it you want but follow the money and see who is gaining from it. George W. Bush's pockets are running over.
2007-08-01 14:23:08 · answer #6 · answered by Questionable 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
He was a liberal, and an advocate of the principles that later became enshrined in our constitution.
He was not whimpy or a bleeding heart.
2007-08-01 14:17:08 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I agree. The sad part is how eager so many of our fellow citizens are to stop being the good guys.
2007-08-01 14:18:37 · answer #8 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In one word, NO! Washington was a person of honesty and integrity, a trait that is not present in today's politicians!
2007-08-01 14:20:25 · answer #9 · answered by Old Guy 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
George Washington would be in saddened by today's liberal wanting to condemn property for commercial uses, forbid freedom of religion in schools, and promoting a socialist agenda. He'd be in awe of how we treat prisoners in Gitmo; the only one's with a problem on how we treat prisoners is lawyers who want legal fees to represent them and the liberals whom they buy off in office.
2007-08-01 14:18:40 · answer #10 · answered by netjr 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
No, but he did no what would happen if a creep like Bush got in office.
2007-08-01 14:36:42 · answer #11 · answered by oldhag 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋