Various Non-Bald Discussions > Military/Serviceman

Inputs requested for Arnie's Argumentative Essay

<< < (2/4) > >>

buddha:
I voted no.

Part of the reason is an agreement we entered into that is commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention which prohibits torture as well as "outrages upon personal dignity". Any number of arguments can be made in favor of waterboarding or other forms of torture as a means to an end but isn't America supposed to be better than that?

When we abandon our principles do we become any better than the people who beheaded Mr. Pearl? I don't think so.
If we don't live up to our end of the agreement I don't think that we have any claim to the moral high ground when an American gets tortured or terrorized. And as a sidebar I would also like to think that if our enemy knows that we treat our prisoners humanely that they might just make the same allowances for our people.

tomgallagher:
When I was in the Army ('62 to '68) and the danger was imminent is was considered expedient to do whatever had to be done to get results quickly. If the scenario did not qualify as a clear and present danger then the subject could be turned over to S2 (Intelligence) and they could invest two or three weeks or months with the individual.

Ming the Merciless:
If torture didn't work, why not escalate?  First, you threaten to kill the subject's wife (I'm not being sexist, but it's usually not the husband) and the children in front of his eyes.  After all, you may have to escalate, of course, to achieve your objective (Why does "escalate" sound so familiar?  Must have worked back then [ca. 1968]).  And, then, again of course, this having failed, you round up the villagers who are neighbors or relatives of the subject and kill them one by one in front of him until you get the information you want.  I seem to recall this was used by the Germans in WWII in occupied Poland.  Worked then, why not now?   No need to fuss over the morality of it all.  Results are what count, surely.  Right?

TheSlyBear:
The whole morality aspect of it is a huge subject, but that's all rather moot because it's been proven, as saint has already pointed out, that it's ineffective. What good is getting results if the results are sh*t?

kalbo:
My vote is for "yes". If information is needed to gain the upper hand, and the prisoner will not cooperate, torture is an option.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page