Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Regarding the questions under consideration here.  Suppose that a
politician believes that torture never works for extracting valid
information from prisoners, that torturing prisoners of any kind harms our
international reputation and moral authority, that torturing anyone
increases the probability that our agents and soldiers will be tortured in
other nations and that the net effect to our nation from torturing
prisoners will be devastatingly negative and long-standing.  

 

This is really an irrelevant point, and it kind of tees me off when I hear democrats use the argument that by our policy on torture is going to somehow effect how another country acts with out prisoners of war. There has not been a war in the history of the world that has not had some sort of torture of prisoners as part of it.

 

The Geneva convention was a result of World War 2, yet the Korean conflict and most certainly Vietnam, saw instances of the enemy torturing our prisoners despite the Geneva Convention. Having been an instructor in the military, we used to talk about what would happen to a soldier if they were captured and every soldier expects to be tortured, in fact we are prepared for the eventuality that we will all break under interrogation and tell what we know. The Uniform Code of Military Justice actually makes a provision for this eventuality.

 

If you think that a country is going to abide by the rules of engagement when winning a war is on the line, then you are truly very naive. Everyone expects it and only those that are truly disingenuous or naive bring up this argument.

Unfortunately there is a double standard, the United States, since we made such a big deal out of how our prisoners were treated in Vietnam is now held to the standard that torture is not acceptable, when all of us know that when the next war breaks out, torture will be a technique used by our enemies to gain intelligence.

Would such a
politician oppose torture if he knew that by doing so he would be voted
out of office for seeming to be "weak on terror" and that he would be
replaced by someone who would vote in favor of torture?  Some might, but
most would not.  Sadly, this is the cynical political world we're dealing
with right now.  Politicians are a bunch of lying manipulators, and no, I
don't mean Republicans, I mean all of the successful ones.

 

I don't have an argument with you here, but almost 200 representatives did exactly that.

 

I thing a more concerning problem is the public that thinks it is alright to torture the enemy. For someone to be labeled as weak on terror for not supporting torture and possibly losing an election, there must be a great many people alright with utilizing torture.

 

I think for many of those people, it is the stark reality that torture is expected in war time no matter what the Geneva Convention says that motivates them to support the bill when they normally would not.

 

Face, rules in war? What an utterly ridiculous notion. The rules only apply to democratic countries anyway, since a dictatorship does not have to worry about public opinion, and public opinion is what sways the democracy.

--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion