DOD survey finds ethical struggle in war

Should torture be acceptable when dealing with insurgents in the war zone?

  • Don't know/No opinion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10
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.

That was quite a leap!

Please point out where I said or even implied such a thing?

I am merely pointing out that the poll (as are all polls) is subjective. I have stated elsewhere in this thread in response to others that I view polls with great skepticism; even the ones that supposedly support my POV.
 
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.
I think so too.

"Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
 
That was quite a leap!

Please point out where I said or even implied such a thing?

I am merely pointing out that the poll (as are all polls) is subjective. I have stated elsewhere in this thread in response to others that I view polls with great skepticism; even the ones that supposedly support my POV.

You're right, it was a leap. I thought there might have been some hidden undertones, my sincerest apologies.
 
Last paragraph second line is not needed if the first line already includes them. I wonder why it was put in?

And yes the grunt has to honor the convention, but once under our control terrorists do not have to be provided the protection of the conventions. that would be why terrorists are sent to Gitmo and "insurgents" are left in Iraq.
 
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.

odd.... all that killing and the "majority" of it being done by a handful of deadenders in their final throes.

Question: what do you call the Mahdi Army? terrorists or insurgents?
 
You do realize that most of Iraq is peaceful right?

I might question the literal interpretation of the word "most", but I understand you point. You, apparently, have no inclination to even try to understand mine.


So...what DO you call the members of Sadr's Mahdi Army? Insurgents or terrorists? and what do you call the forces loyal to sunni warlords in Anbar province fighting against not only the US forces but AQ? Insurgents or terrorists?
 
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.

i don't read that in to it?

plus it says ''they shall furthermore be bound by....."

they used furthermore as ''in addition to'' imo...

btw, just caught you asking my definition of torture, and before i speak i need to do some more reading, which i am in the process of doing....along with hanging a gutter on the back end of the house with my hubby! :)

care
 
My humble opinion, I think torturing terrorists to get vital information that will save american lives and lives of many all over the world, is important enough that torture is acceptable and needed.

Morals have no place in war. War is not a philosophical idea, it is a real thing, it cant be won by politicians or intellectuals only by hardened men, soldiers and generals who will do whatever it takes to win. Thats how war is won, if you dont want to pay the cost of the ticket, dont go to the show.
 
I might question the literal interpretation of the word "most", but I understand you point. You, apparently, have no inclination to even try to understand mine.


So...what DO you call the members of Sadr's Mahdi Army? Insurgents or terrorists? and what do you call the forces loyal to sunni warlords in Anbar province fighting against not only the US forces but AQ? Insurgents or terrorists?

Mahdi army is not currently battling the US, I would call that an internal affair for the Iraq Government to work out, if they attack US forces I would call them terrorists.

The others are not currently fighting us either, or haven't you been paying attention, they have banded together and are working with the Iraq Government and the US Military to get rid of the terrorists.
 
Mahdi army is not currently battling the US, I would call that an internal affair for the Iraq Government to work out, if they attack US forces I would call them terrorists.

The others are not currently fighting us either, or haven't you been paying attention, they have banded together and are working with the Iraq Government and the US Military to get rid of the terrorists.

I actually keep in pretty close touch with the situation in Iraq and I dispute your claim that terrorists are doing most of the killing...or most of the killing of Americans.
 
I actually keep in pretty close touch with the situation in Iraq and I dispute your claim that terrorists are doing most of the killing...or most of the killing of Americans.

One of my sons is/was and intel analyst there. He indicated to me that there are so many factions engaged at so many levels it is almost impossible to determine who is who. There is even still such things as inter-tribal feuds and some families will use the US/Iraqi police/military to seek revenge for past transgressions (real or imagined). Nearly all those factions utilize terrorist tactics to further their agenda. He did say that the most effective organizations are indeed "terrorists" as the term is used in this context because they have the most assets and foreign support (funding, arms, etc.)
 
One of my sons is/was and intel analyst there. He indicated to me that there are so many factions engaged at so many levels it is almost impossible to determine who is who. There is even still such things as inter-tribal feuds and some families will use the US/Iraqi police/military to seek revenge for past transgressions (real or imagined). Nearly all those factions utilize terrorist tactics to further their agenda. He did say that the most effective organizations are indeed "terrorists" as the term is used in this context because they have the most assets and foreign support (funding, arms, etc.)

Sounds frightening to me...and perhaps one or two of these things can be controlled at a time with our forces there, but perhaps one or two of these things would dicipate without us there... doesn't seem like either choice will be a perfect scenario and we all better get used to it.... :(

care
 
Does anyone believe that the torture of insurgents for vital information or torturing insurgents to save US Soldiers in immediate harm, put more Soldiers at risk in the long run?
 
Does anyone believe that the torture of insurgents for vital information or torturing insurgents to save US Soldiers in immediate harm, put more Soldiers at risk in the long run?

Soldiers will be at risk no matter what. What puts soldiers at risk, in my opinion, is publicizing such acts in the manner in which it is done currently. Public dissent is vital to democracy but it is a double edged sword and our enemies have learned to use such dissent to sap the will of our people and gain their goals. It saddens me greatly when we play into that ploy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top