Held without charges, the new american way.

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What "fundamental rights of captives" did I suggest that we even come close to violating? Which "rules" are you referring to? Those found in the Laws of War and the GC's?

The right to a fair trial, to face his accuser, and to know the evidence against him. There are probably others, but I'll stop there.

We are only "given sway over" those we capture on the fields of battle; which, in an asymetrical war, happen to be everywhere! So we must therefore adapt our warfighting methods to fit the new forms of warfare. One of those methods is the interrogation of captured enemy prisoners (non-US persons!)

You repeatedly miss the entire point. The point is that you believe determining who the 'enemy' is is completely cut-and-dry. You believe that, as Americans, we have some sort of moral superiority, yet your conclusion based on this premise is that we may act with a moral deficit. Criminals in the US are interrogated, yet they are still accorded all the rights I mentioned above.

It's not our fault that our enemies are too cowardly to put on uniforms and fight us in the open. It's not our fault that they hide amongst the women and children like dogs. However, in response, we must adapt our fighting techniques and also our weapons of war. One of those "weapons" is the gathering of intelligence through actual interrogations.

It's not Joe Blow's fault, either. He was just standing on a street corner in Iraq when you guys picked him up because the bad guys happened to be walking by him. Now you're interrogating the hell out of him, though he has no information. He's held indefinitely without trial for nothing because we failed to enforce our own principle that defines Americans, that all men are created equal. Not just Americans.

To further restrict our already very humane systems of interrogation would be seriously detrimental to our efforts in the war. One of my biggest fears is that the tool of interrogation will be completely removed (made impotent) from our arsenal and we'll be forced to fight our inhumane enemies in total darkness. We will be effectively blinded.

I would beg to differ. If people saw that we treated people fairly, didn't hold people indefinitely without trial, allowed them to see the evidence against them, and told them why we were holding them, our 'enemies' might all of a sudden become much more friendly. Instead of having to interrogate them to get the information you desire, they might freely give it to us on the streetcorner. They'd realize that we really were their friends, not their enemies as you keep painting us. Then and only then might we get the information we need in a timely fashion and avoid compromising every principle that we are supposedly in Iraq to uphold.

Good post, but you won't get through to him.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I would beg to differ. If people saw that we treated people fairly, didn't hold people indefinitely without trial, allowed them to see the evidence against them, and told them why we were holding them, our 'enemies' might all of a sudden become much more friendly. Instead of having to interrogate them to get the information you desire, they might freely give it to us on the streetcorner. They'd realize that we really were their friends, not their enemies as you keep painting us. Then and only then might we get the information we need in a timely fashion and avoid compromising every principle that we are supposedly in Iraq to uphold.

Every single sentence in that paragraph is flawed. You really have no idea about the mindset of our enemies, their supporters, or the actual situations on the ground.

None of what you said is true, but it sure sounded sweet. Look, your intentions are just and everyone can see the care that you intend to portray; however, the enemies we face in Iraq and elsewhere have an irrational mindset that makes everything you just wrote null and void.

We ARE morally superior, and our existing systems of interrogation already allow us to maintain a very true moral high ground. They may make YOU sad to think about, but our enemies find most of our methods childish and funny. They literally LAUGH as we place more and more restrictions on the ways we can conduct interrogations.

While it is always SAD to think that an innocent or two may be caught up in the system, that is just too bad in the greater scheme of fighting the war, and *gasp* actually trying to win. I assure you that the utmost care is taken to prevent such occurances, but just as with our own justice system, there are times when innocent people may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cold answer is "Too bad for them!" while the right response is "Just try as hard as you can not to let it happen!"

Like I said, my biggest fear is that those who do not understand modern interrogation will make us impotent in that regard and therefore remove one of our strongest weapons on the ground. Our HUMINT capabilities are already limited drastically in Iraq due to obvious ethinic differences and the other factors which prevent our folks from moving around freely in the region.

Tying our hands further in one of the only HUMINT tools left in our arsenal may be a deadly blow to our efforts. Our efforts and system may need tiny refinements, but the core of that system MUST not be changed, or it will be our soldiers who will pay with more of their lives.

Please do not try to change a system that you know next to nothing about based simply on what you read or see on CNN or in the NY Times. Please and thakyou.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Every single sentence in that paragraph is flawed. You really have no idea about the mindset of our enemies, their supporters, or the actual situations on the ground.

None of what you said is true, but it sure sounded sweet. Look, your intentions are just and everyone can see the care that you intend to portray; however, the enemies we face in Iraq and elsewhere have an irrational mindset that makes everything you just wrote null and void.

We ARE morally superior, and our existing systems of interrogation already allow us to maintain a very true moral high ground. They may make YOU sad to think about, but our enemies find most of our methods childish and funny. They literally LAUGH as we place more and more restrictions on the ways we can conduct interrogations.

While it is always SAD to think that an innocent or two may be caught up in the system, that is just too bad in the greater scheme of fighting the war, and *gasp* actually trying to win. I assure you that the utmost care is taken to prevent such occurances, but just as with our own justice system, there are times when innocent people may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cold answer is "Too bad for them!" while the right response is "Just try as hard as you can not to let it happen!"

Like I said, my biggest fear is that those who do not understand modern interrogation will make us impotent in that regard and therefore remove one of our strongest weapons on the ground. Our HUMINT capabilities are already limited drastically in Iraq due to obvious ethinic differences and the other factors which prevent our folks from moving around freely in the region.

Tying our hands further in one of the only HUMINT tools left in our arsenal may be a deadly blow to our efforts. Our efforts and system may need tiny refinements, but the core of that system MUST not be changed, or it will be our soldiers who will pay with more of their lives.

Please do not try to change a system that you know next to nothing about based simply on what you read or see on CNN or in the NY Times. Please and thakyou.

I don't have cable, so no CNN. Nor do I get the NY Times. I simply know right from wrong. I thought that's what we were fighting for - to demonstrate the superiority of our way of life (i.e. 'democracy'), not to win a 'war' against a completely amorphous opponent. If I am correct and it is the demonstration of our way of life that we are struggling for, then the insanity of what you propose is self evident. We cannot very well demonstrate our moral superiority by reneging on our moral principles. If, instead, you define the current struggle as a 'war' to be won, then you must also define its objectives or, at the very least, our opponent in a concrete way. Simply saying 'enemies' is not a concrete definition of our opponents.