DOD survey finds ethical struggle in war

[red states rule]

How about Torture as defined by the usa binding Geneva Convention before the war and before alberto Gonzalez and others decided to rewrite history and redefine it?

Terrorists are NOT covered by the GC

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The criteria you provide is useless. Unless a definition is provided and can be sourced when questioned on why you responded in the manner you did the poll becomes meaningless.

No, the poll is subjective. Since the definition of torture is dependent upon you, it's asking you if you would knowingly do something to another person even if you knew it was torture. If you don't feel that water boarding is torture and you'd draw the line there, then you should answer that torture should never be used. Then state that you don't think that it's torture and other people can chime in and tell you whether they think it is or isn't.

 

[Care4all]

Terrorists are NOT covered by the GC

THEY most certainly are covered....all participants in the war are covered...and mentioned in the Geneva Convention, including illegal combatants... they may get a different level of rights or protections but they are all covered in one degree or another....from what I got out of reading it...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will state that actual torture is illegal and immoral. It generally fails to gather real intelligence. But specific situations can alter what is deemed appropriate by military commanders on the ground in the situation at the time.

Lets say the enemy has some of your men, they will execute them shortly. You have captured several enemy combatants that have knowledge of where your troops are. What do you do?

 

[CSM]

I don't see Bush as a war criminal. But tell me, what is the current mission in Iraq? Does torture and abuse undermine the mission?

At what level are you asking? Pvt Schmukatelly down in the 'foxhole' is trying very hard to stay alive, do his time, and get home in one piece. Capt. Schmukatelly is trying to do the same, monitoring logistics and other such things while motivating his troops to execute the next mission as efficiently as they can. Col. Schmukatelly is doing the same as the good captain, plus allocating resources for curretn missions and deciding what units under his command get the next anticipated mission from higher. Gen Schmukatelly is doing all the above plus trying to manage the more political aspects as well as the civil and military aspects of his command. Above that, it's all politics and "diplomacy", propaganda and media, and stuff like that.

Strategically, the mission is to stablize Iraq, provide civil support, and train an Iraqi military. I have not read the most recent OPORD or FRAGOS but I believe I have the basics.

All of the above is strictly from a military perspective and is certainly not complete. I leave the political stuff to those who have the luxury of dealing with such things.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

And there-in lies the problem with such polls. It automatically assumes everyone has the same baseline definition of the word torture.

It's not a poll on torture. It's a poll based on whether you think something is torture and whether you'd do it despite believing that the actions constitute torture.

 

[Care4all]

Terrorists are NOT covered by the GC

According to GWB EVERYONE in Iraq will be covered by the Geneva convention.... there was no one excluded when gwb announced this to the world...

 

[CSM]

How about Torture as defined by the usa, constitutionally binding Geneva Convention before the war and before alberto Gonzalez and others decided to rewrite history and redefine it?

Got a link to the formal definition as published by the USA and the Geneva Convewntion? Have you read and understood said definitions? I think you might be surprised by how vague such definitions are (even if you choose definitions prior to your alleged revisions).

 

[CSM]

It's not a poll on torture. It's a poll based on whether you think something is torture and whether you'd do it despite believing that the actions constitute torture.

Point conceded.

Given that, and based on the poll, do you believe that we should withdraw and retrain (morality classes perhaps?) our fighting forces, stop all military operations (globally) until such training is succesfully completed, and screen all applicants to our military forces for such tendencies and deny them entry based on a less than desirable response?

 

[Care4all]

Got a link to the formal definition as published by the USA and the Geneva Convewntion? Have you read and understood said definitions? I think you might be surprised by how vague such definitions are (even if you choose definitions prior to your alleged revisions).

I have read it and I do think that I understand the gist of it....the "spirit of the law"... of course I am just a civillian and an everyday jopsephine and I may not understand all of the intricacies...but for the most part, yes, I do believe I understand it.

Care

 

[Care4all]

Got a link to the formal definition as published by the USA and the Geneva Convewntion? Have you read and understood said definitions? I think you might be surprised by how vague such definitions are (even if you choose definitions prior to your alleged revisions).

oh, and here's a link:


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Point conceded.

Given that, and based on the poll, do you believe that we should withdraw and retrain (morality classes perhaps?) our fighting forces, stop all military operations (globally) until such training is succesfully completed, and screen all applicants to our military forces for such tendencies and deny them entry based on a less than desirable response?

No I don't think we should withdraw or retrain. The poll suggests that Soldiers already know they're not supposed to kick and abuse detainees. They also know they're not supposed to torture detainees. The fact that they answered yes on a poll suggests that it might be a problem with morale, policies, and the chain of command.

 

[CSM]

I have read it and I do think that I understand the gist of it....the "spirit of the law"... of course I am just a civillian and an everyday jopsephine and I may not understand all of the intricacies...but for the most part, yes, I do believe I understand it.

Care

"spirit of the law" stuff works great in the courtroom....

So then what is YOUR definition of torture (if I may be so bold to ask)?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

oh, and here's a link:


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

then there is this part...

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

......

Mutual relations being between parties that recognize the conventions. Those that fail to recognize the conventions are not protected by it.

 

[CSM]

No I don't think we should withdraw or retrain. The poll suggests that Soldiers already know they're not supposed to kick and abuse detainees. They also know they're not supposed to torture detainees. The fact that they answered yes on a poll suggests that it might be a problem with morale, policies, and the chain of command.

Since the poll is speculative in nature (they did not ask "have you engaged in torture") I think I am safe in saying that many of the respondents really don't KNOW how they personally would react if they were the one facing that ethical dilemma.

The fact they answered yes to the poll doesn't indicate crap. We do not know the state of mind of the individual when he answered nor do we know the individual's circumstances. In other words, the respondent could be a soldier who has recently seen a comrade in arms maimed and mutilated by the enemy and the respondent could just as easily be a REMF who never leaves the compound. The article only indicates that the poll was taken from soldiers "involved" in military combat operations in Iraq.

Also, as pointed out in the article you posted initially, What is important, Pollock said, is that “they’re not acting on these thoughts.” and The more frequently servicemembers are deployed, and the longer they stay on the battlefield, the more likely they are to report losing not only their moral compass, but their mental well-being, researchers found.

The poll made for great headlines though, didn't it?

 

[maineman]

then there is this part...

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

......

Mutual relations being between parties that recognize the conventions. Those that fail to recognize the conventions are not protected by it.

Iraq is a signatory to the geneva conventions, I am fairly certain..... and pacta sunt servanda would apply.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Iraq is a signatory to the geneva conventions, I am fairly certain..... and pacta sunt servanda would apply.

We are not fighting Iraq. I will grant that if one is identified as an "insurgent" then the Conventions apply. But terrorists are not "insurgents". And the majority of fighting is against terrorists. Foreign terrorists to boot. Criminals also don't get protection under the Conventions, and a part of the so called insurgency are nothing more than common criminals out to make a buck.

 

[CSM]

Iraq is a signatory to the geneva conventions, I am fairly certain..... and pacta sunt servanda would apply.

My understanding is that the US forces must abide by the Geneva Conventions even if the enemy does not or is not a signatory...but then I was just a grunt so have to keep things pretty basic. Subtle legal nuances take up too much brain power in the heat of battle.

 

[CSM]

We are not fighting Iraq. I will grant that if one is identified as an "insurgent" then the Conventions apply. But terrorists are not "insurgents". And the majority of fighting is against terrorists. Foreign terrorists to boot. Criminals also don't get protection under the Conventions, and a part of the so called insurgency are nothing more than common criminals out to make a buck.

I have no doubt that there is a percentage of those engaged for which the statement holds true. It is awful difficult to determine which is the case until after an investigation however.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The poll made for great headlines though, didn't it?

That poll is on the Army Times site and the issue is being discussed at Stars and Stripes. If you're suggesting it's liberally biased or only getting headlines because it fuels an anti-war agenda, I disagree with you. The poll was conducted by the DoD not CBS news.