ADVERTISEMENT

Any Coolerites ready to change their opinions

Wrong . . .

did we mistreat Japanese prisoners of war?

Did we use mustard gas in the Pacific?

You know the correct answer to those questions.
 
" A largely extinct reality"....


Like I'm hearing here...

Did any of those cats that got waterboarded wear a uniform with insignia when captured?

Those conventions, which actually have existed since 1864, seem to place some significance in insignia.

Terrorists are never prisoners of war.

As a part of Law of Land Warfare,

there is a distinction drawn and qualified...

1. Command by a responsible authority. (freelancers need not apply.)
2. Wearing a definitive sign recognizable at a distance (uniform/insignia)
3. Carrying arms openly.
4. Otherwise observing the Law of War.


Lets recognize that the Geneva Conventions are part of a much larger work, and not mischaracterize their intent.
This post was edited on 12/11 4:18 PM by Mas-sa-suta
 
Different question . . .

is waterboarding of any kind prohibited by the Geneva Convention?

By US law?
 
Ummm...

Wounded and surrendering Japanese were routinely shot on Iwo Jima and other locales.

Fougas and napalm were regularly used in the Pacific..

Are those the correct answers you were looking for?
 
(1) I knew about the wounded and surrendering . . .

Japanese being shot in combat zones and understood that it was justified because of the history of wounded and surrendering Japanese soldiers attacking American soldiers.

(2) Both fougasse and napalm were used in combat operations; to my knowledge neither was banned by the Geneva Convention at the time they were used in the Pacific and in Viet Nam.

(3) Germany signed on to the Geneva Protocol before WWII, agreeing without reservation to the ban on mustard gas and other irritant gasses and nerve agents (while the US did not) . . . but what kept Germany from using mustard gas and nerve agents was the fear that the US would use nerve agents against their troops in significant attacks. The lack of mention regarding nerve agents in intercepted US communications spooked the Germans into thinking the US had a major initiative for their use.

PS - Are you suggesting that any of the above uses of nasty stuff in combat operations justifies waterboarding a confined and controlled prisoner? Or were you just reacting to my response to Wissler?

This post was edited on 12/11 4:49 PM by Sope Creek
 
Well, which is it?

Were the firebombings of Tokyo a good run by the US military?

Or is FDR the worst president ever and his firebombing of Tokyo during a declared war a war crime for which he should have been prosecuted?

You seem to be implying both . . . .
 
Toobin referred to WWII.


According to him, anything we did in the service of winning WWII is on the table today. Anything we didn't do in the service of winning WWII is not.

If you have a problem with that logic, you have a problem with him....not me.

My references to WWII are about the horror of war in general -- and can be just as easily applied to any war....including those we have fought after 1949. And, let's not forget, 1949 was an amendment to the Geneva Conventions. It was not the first time the civilized world decided that perhaps we should establish a rulebook. Yet despite the pre-existing Geneva Conventions, we still felt the need to revise them....because the world was a lot different than it was when the conventions were first established.

But, importantly, we didn't address them until afterwards.

So it goes today. The Geneva Conventions really weren't written with asymmetrical warfare and stateless combatants in mind.
 
But it wasn't official policy

People in the heat of the moment do things, we all know that. But we didn't order our men to shoot, starve, or beat the captives. I don't know about Mac, in the European Theater Ike's opinions seemed to range from an acceptance that bad things happen to demanding courts martial.

At the end of the war it became a tactic for the Germans to jump out and fire a panzerfaust at an American tank, then drop his weapon and raise his hands. I get that the Americans nearby weren't likely to let bygones be bygones. But if that guy made it back behind lines, there wasn't this systemic abuse.

I recall the scene from Band of Brothers after their assault on the dike where Winters was worried that his soldier may kill the German POW's he is ordered to escort back. So he grabs the man's rifle and removes all but one bullet. He tells the man that if he drops one the others will now know they can jump him. Since that is Hollwood, here is the story from the book


Then he remembered that Liebgott, a good combat soldier, had a reputation of "being very rough on prisoners." He also heard Liebgott respond to his order with the words, "Oh, Boy! I'll take care of them."
"There are eleven prisoners," Winters said, "and I want eleven prisoners turned over to battalion." Liebgott began to throw a tantrum. Winters dropped his M-1 to his hip, threw off the safety, pointed it at Liebgott, and said, "Leibgott, drop all your ammunition and empty your rifle." Liebgott swore and grumbled but did as he was ordered.
"Now," said Winters, "you can put one round in your rifle. If you drop a prisoner, the rest will jump you." Winters noticed a German officer who had been pacing back and forth, obviously nervous and concerned over Liebgott's exuberance when he first got the assignment. Evidently the officer understood English; when he heard Winters' further orders, he relaxed.

Then he remembered that Liebgott, a good combat soldier, had a reputation of "being very rough on prisoners." He also heard Liebgott respond to his order with the words, "Oh, Boy! I'll take care of them."

"There are eleven prisoners," Winters said, "and I want eleven prisoners turned over to battalion." Liebgott began to throw a tantrum. Winters dropped his M-1 to his hip, threw off the safety, pointed it at Liebgott, and said, "Leibgott, drop all your ammunition and empty your rifle." Liebgott swore and grumbled but did as he was ordered.
"Now," said Winters, "you can put one round in your rifle. If you drop a prisoner, the rest will jump you." Winters noticed a German officer who had been pacing back and forth, obviously nervous and concerned over Liebgott's exuberance when he first got the assignment. Evidently the officer understood English; when he heard Winters' further orders, he relaxed.

The heat of battle is one thing. Just like if someone jumps out at you with a knife and you are able to pull a gun and shoot him to death. Most people wouldn't accuse you of murder nor convict you. But if you show up to the county jail and shoot him as he's being transported to court and I don't think the law will understand.
 
I'm not implying anything like that. I'm saying that you're

(I assume 'you' - maybe not?) against barbaric behavior in war. Sometimes *gasp* we break some of our own 'civilized' rules, due to circumstances.

I'm saying the firebombing of civilians was barbaric, and generally against the sensibilities of Americans. Yet, it was deemed necessary at the time to win the war, and I'm in no position to criticize so may years later when my very existence may have depended on such actions.

I'm also saying that people of a certain political persuasion jump on anything done by the Bush administration, yet never comment on WWII or other wars. That seems hypocritical to me. I was just trying to point that out.

Hope that helps explain.
 
I don't care what Toobin said

I haven't even read what Toobin said. And you can't hide behind what Toobin said. You are arguing here for a depraved policy that renounces the modern law of war.You want us to abandon civilized norms because we face ISIS and al Qaeda, even though they pathetically pale in consequence to any of our prior enemies.

Maybe you're too young for this, but as a schoolchild during the Cold War, I routinely did duck-and-cover drills. That's because we faced the threat of nuclear annihilation. Yet still I wasn't scared. Why should I be as scared as apparently you are now in the face of these pissants? Maybe you and your fellow conservatives just need to cowboy up. Or buy rubber sheets.
 
It's not about whether it works ever or never

it's about taking a step back and realizing that it's impossible to prove that it works more often than it doesn't at the opportunity cost of giving up our national integrity and moral compass. Do I believe that a detainee under torture, at some point, yielded true actionable intelligence? I do, but I'm not convinced that the detainee couldn't have been broken using non-abusive approaches. And again, unless torture is proven to be undisputedly effective at creating real intelligence, and not just screaming anything to make it stop, I'm not even interested in having the conversation.

Why has it been around since the dawn of time? I don't know, ask an anthropologist. Enduring throughout recorded history doesn't make it any more right than slavery which persisted for thousands of years.
 
There's a difference between . . .

the prosecution of war against enemy combatants and enemy civilian populations as compared to use of torture on confined enemy combatants that are under our control. That's what you're missing.
 
There hasn't been any difference in any war we've

ever been in. And if you think this type of thing didn't happen to POWs in previous wars, you're kidding yourself.

Viet Cong POWs were thrown out of helicopters - without a parachute - as an example what would happen to others if they didn't talk.

Let's not be naive - there is no level to which mankind won't stoop when survival is in question. You can sit back in your easy chair and make judgements, but it's not your responsibility to save lives and protect the country.
 
Re: Ignorance


Ignorance is not seeing the other side of the coin. It is estimated that over 30 million were slaughtered and/or tortured during WW II. I personally saw the pictures and one of the camps in Southern Japan. Thousands were tortured during the Korean and Vietnam wars. I have friends that served during both eras and were tortured by all kinds of means. There are many that believe protecting one American life is worth using enhanced interrogation techniques. Tell the families of those whose loved ones gave the ultimate sacrifice that all means available are not used to save lives. Tell those that lost loved ones during 9/11 that we will not use any and all means to insure it does not happen again. Ignorance is not understanding their pain and suffering! Should we be better, probably, but following our President's lead "the end justifies the means" when implementing government policy.
This post was edited on 12/13 5:41 PM by davegolf
 
impossible to make a call on "torture", other than on a case by case basis.


example 1,

some depraved psycho admits he has buried some little girl alive, estimates that she has 8-12 hours of air before she suffocates, but won't reveal where she is buried.

example 2,

authorities track a suitcase nuke to NYC, capture two of the terrorists involved, (both with elevated radiation levels), neither of whom will give up location of the bomb or co-conspirators. .


in both examples 1 and 2, my feeling is, let's water board them while simultaneously frying their genitals with electricity.

WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!!!



what i don't approve of, is when it's used on a fishing expedition.

and i never understood how someone fighting us in a foreign country we occupy, is considered a terrorist.



point being, i'm guessing all of us would approve of torture in certain circumstances, and totally disapprove in others.

the question shouldn't be whether it's legal or not, but when. (with a high bar, and relative certainty that the one on the receiving end possesses the info we need).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT