Response to the beheading

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Obviously, who said that Iraquis are human ?

But its not that we are discussing something which is not meant for this thread.

RK, I've heard repeated allegations that the Indian Army is less than gentle with Pakistanis captured in the course of (presumed) terrorist operations in Kashmir or concerned with Kashmir independence. This is not limited to India. There was a shocking scandal earlier this year about torture of 'asylum-seekers' in German prisons. Unaccountably neither of these issues have become the global scandal that the Iraq one has.

Could there be just a bit of a double standard here? Perhaps one of the Indian critics posting on this issue might have comments on the actions of the Indian army?

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
People are demonstrating why these threads are bad ideas. There is far too much naming of names, use of the word "you", and derisive sarcasm for this thread to remain open much longer. Keep the arguments to the issues, keep it civil, keep it "nice", or it's likely this thread will be closed.

I have edited 2 of my recent posts that were guilty of this. I guess I was mentally picturing myself asking these questions in person & hence the infraction for which I apoligize.

The questions that I'd asked are still asked. They are not meant to be rhetorical, sarcastic or derisive. I do want to know how one can rationalize not following something while at the same time one wants the other side to follow it.

Originally posted by Don Stadler:

RK, I've heard repeated allegations that the Indian Army is less than gentle with Pakistanis captured in the course of (presumed) terrorist operations in Kashmir or concerned with Kashmir independence. This is not limited to India. There was a shocking scandal earlier this year about torture of 'asylum-seekers' in German prisons. Unaccountably neither of these issues have become the global scandal that the Iraq one has.

Could there be just a bit of a double standard here? Perhaps one of the Indian critics posting on this issue might have comments on the actions of the Indian army?

This is indeed a separate topic. This particular thread was about Berg's murder which led to the current situation in Iraq and the prisoner abuse scandal. I believe the reason it took this turn was because the 2, in the minds of some ranchers are interlinked.

Having said that:
I believe that the Indian army are not any more noble in terms of their handling of their prisoners. Anytime & everytime they have contravened the principles of Geneva convention, they should had been held accountable for their actions and perpetrators should had been brought to justice. But because it doesn't get much publicity and air time and certainly because there are no pictures that would cause revulsion in the viewer, they get swept under the rug. This is not to say that there is no double standard. IMHO, there certainly is. IMHO many, if not most, Indians will just as soon turn a blind eye to the their army's wanton excesses.

SM: Should US/CPA abandon the Geneva convention? If we do can we, then, express any indignation at the the Iraqi insurgents who use mosques & schools as their bases & invoke Geneva Convention to level such buildings?

Just to be technically correct, the Iraqi prisoners in almost all cases are not POWs and therefore not subject to the same level of protections under the Geneva Conventions that soldiers enjoy. In most cases they are likely either criminals or illegal combatants. The Geneva Conventions are pretty specific about what a lawful combatant is, so I would direct you towards the Conventions themselves if you are interested in the difference.

Regarding the use of mosques and the like for para-military purposes, such use merely removes Geneva Conventions protections to such facilities which would otherwise dictate our operations in regards to those facilities. As soon as they are used for such purposes, they are legitimate targets. Their use by these para-military forces does not hamper coalition forces in any way as far as the Conventions and laws of armed conflict go, merely makes the mosques subject to lawful military action.

...And while I wasn't specifically referring to any single poster, thanks for editing your posts.
[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
RK,

refrained and ignored.

PS: I am talking about apple.

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
RK, I've heard repeated allegations that the Indian Army is less than gentle with Pakistanis captured in the course of (presumed) terrorist operations in Kashmir or concerned with Kashmir independence.

Could there be just a bit of a double standard here? Perhaps one of the Indian critics posting on this issue might have comments on the actions of the Indian army?

If I may say, I don�t really see understand the point here. Ravish may or may not like the way Indian Army operates in Kashmir, but I don�t think he has any command over what they do, than you or me!

I personally, after watching rare bits of International media on the issue, concerns over the heavy handedness of the Indian Army (they prefer to apply force and instigate fear among villagers to get information, than the �win their hearts and minds� method.). Oh, by the way, Indian Civil Administration has condemned the way Army units are operating there and more than once the people involved have been subjected to disciplinary action. It�s an ongoing effort, and yes, I am concerned about the slow pace of improvement. I do not know if this answers Don�s question (I cant use the y-o-u word,

), but I think me being Indian doesn�t necessarily mean I support everything that�s Indian, just like many American ranchers in here doesn�t feel the need to support the war or their way of fighting it, we all have our own conscience to answer to, irrespective of the nationality.

Its all my humble opinion, of course!

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
[QB]

So, what kind of beating should be allowed? How far should one go in the beating technique? Should jamming rifle butts in the prisoner's crotch be allowed? What about hitting the prisoner with a rifle butt till his or her spine breaks? How can anyone know how much beating a prisoner can take before he/she dies from it? What about monitoring his/her internal organs to make sure that he/she doesn't die from internal hemorrhage?

As much physical force as is required to extract information. If that means breaking the back of a terrorist I'd do it in a flash myself. If it means snapping the neck of a terrorist I'd do it myself.

What I see these days is that people have become too sensitive to violence. People are forgetting this is a war and in a war, terrible-horrible things happen. They have always taken place and its only the recent advent of media that is bringing these pictures to our living rooms and thus making them look bad. Do you seriously think the pictures of Berg execution are being broadcast into the halls and homes of ordinary Iraqis? I dont think so. So, they get the sense that their side is perfect.

Should US/CPA abandon the Geneva convention? If we do can we, then, express any indignation at the the Iraqi insurgents who use mosques & schools as their bases & invoke Geneva Convention to level such buildings?

Its interesting that you ask this, the talk-show host in my area was asking the same question yesterday. The answer was a resounding yes from the audience. Simply because
1. The Geneva conventions are outdated
2. The enemies that are fighting the US do not follow the same code yet the height of hypocrisy is that the enemies expect US to follow the code
3. US soliders anywhere in combat have never been afforded the benefits of the code if they were captured.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

As much physical force as is required to extract information. If that means breaking the back of a terrorist I'd do it in a flash myself. If it means snapping the neck of a terrorist I'd do it myself.

How will you ensure that the neck you will break is attached to a terrorist's body? This is what it has come down to. What is being claimed (which happens to be the view of ICRC & Amnesty International) is that the majority of the captives in the jails in Iraq & Afghanistan are not terrorists. That is where I've a problem. Lot of people are being, IMHO, rather flippant towards this systemic abuse of non-terrorists under the same hackneyed "this-is-war" excuse.

Sure these things had been going on for a long long time. Just because something has had a past is no excuse to continue it even today. A long long time ago they burned alleged witches. We don't do that any more. Not so long ago they burned busloads of people in this country. We don't do that any more.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Its interesting that you ask this, the talk-show host in my area was asking the same question yesterday. The answer was a resounding yes from the audience. Simply because
1. The Geneva conventions are outdated
2. The enemies that are fighting the US do not follow the same code yet the height of hypocrisy is that the enemies expect US to follow the code
3. US soliders anywhere in combat have never been afforded the benefits of the code if they were captured.

The majority is not always right no matter how resounding they are. I am not an enemy of US and I do expect US to follow the Geneva convention. Why? Because the US is a beacon of decency & freedom and the flag bearer of human rigths. I do not want to see US turn into the pall bearer instead just because our enemies are not like us. If they were, we wouldn't be at war with them. If there is a problem with the Geneva convention codes, amend it (good luck with that); or withdraw from it; don't short circuit it.

If, US still wants to break away from the only code that we have today, that is fine as long as US doesn't try to ride the moral high horse and doesn't try to present itself as the flag bearer of human rights and condemn other countries for doing anything similar to what US has done/is doing.

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

How will you ensure that the neck you will break is attached to a terrorist's body? This is what it has come down to. What is being claimed (which happens to be the view of ICRC & Amnesty International) is that the majority of the captives in the jails in Iraq & Afghanistan are not terrorists. That is where I've a problem. Lot of people are being, IMHO, rather flippant towards this systemic abuse of non-terrorists under the same hackneyed "this-is-war" excuse.

Sure these things had been going on for a long long time. Just because something has had a past is no excuse to continue it even today. A long long time ago they burned alleged witches. We don't do that any more. Not so long ago they burned busloads of people in this country. We don't do that any more

SM, the above is just as cliche as my "this is war" statement is. I guess there is no way any of us can be utterly sure whether those in the prison are terrorists or not. But I'd error on the side of making them guilty until proven innocent, simply because the reverse is too expensive for us(atleast me). One needs to only look at the Berg execution to understand what I am saying. I did view it last night and couldnt sleep the entire night. I still hear him screaming.. and as Rush put it on his show, "..cattle have it better!"

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
Because the US is a beacon of decency & freedom and the flag bearer of human rigths. I do not want to see US turn into the pall bearer instead just because our enemies are not like us.

Oh SM.. words fail to express my frustration at this point. US will not turn into a monster overnight if we whack a few mischevious Iraqis. But on the other hand, a few US soliders lives might be saved.

Jason Menard:

Just to be technically correct, the Iraqi prisoners in almost all cases are not POWs and therefore not subject to the same level of protections under the Geneva Conventions that soldiers enjoy.

Is this the case for Abu Ghraib? My impression was that Guantanamo was being used for the illegal combatants - with "illegal" meaning not fighting according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions and thus not subject to their protections - while Abu Ghraib was basically a prisoner of war camp. In any case, I'm pretty sure the military intended to obey the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib, based on news reports of the interrogation guidelines in use there (that were ignored by the soldiers in question).

With regard to some of the other discussion, I'd also note that the Geneva Conventions aren't nearly as restrictive as some of the U.N. stuff that the U.S. has declined to sign. For example, an ICRC official is only willing to say that sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation seem to be against the Geneva Conventions "when applied constantly" - pretty clearly implying that limited use of these techniques would not be prohibited.

Indeed any country boasting that their military forces strictly follow the Geneva convention are providing nothing but lip service. As Paul points out, it is war, and often times ugly things must be done to ensure the safety and security of troops in the field. If this means depriving enemy captives of certain rights, so be it. I would not advocate outright execution, nor the application of torture to the point where the captive dies...as I'm sure our military operatives know, a dead captive serves little purpose.

I would also venture to guess that the CIA has an extensive toolbox of psychological and physical methods of extracting information from combatants without causing death. And yes, these methods certainly violate that ridiculously-loose definition of torture established by the UN.

If you could imagine yourself as a Sergeant in the field whose platoon is under mortar attack, and you've captured a enemy combatant who likely knows the location of the enemy, to what extent would you go to extract the information?

Would you brandish your sidearm, threaten the enemy soldier, possibly fire the weapon in warning?

On the other hand, if you're a policy maker, are you going to construct a policy which demands that this Sergeant refrain from any form of physical or mental intimidation?
[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: Jeffrey Hunter ]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

SM, the above is just as cliche as my "this is war" statement is. I guess there is no way any of us can be utterly sure whether those in the prison are terrorists or not. But I'd error on the side of making them guilty until proven innocent, simply because the reverse is too expensive for us(atleast me). One needs to only look at the Berg execution to understand what I am saying. I did view it last night and couldnt sleep the entire night. I still hear him screaming.. and as Rush put it on his show, "..cattle have it better!"

Oh SM.. words fail to express my frustration at this point. US will not turn into a monster overnight if we whack a few mischevious Iraqis. But on the other hand, a few US soliders lives might be saved.

I too am equally frustrated by the views that Rush & Savage express.

I am all for saving US soldiers' lives in the course of the war. But that does not include breaking peoples necks or spines or whatever. Extreme torture will never elicit accurate information. The tortured person will say whatever you want him to say. That is how the so-called witches were found guilty of being a witch. I don't have any problem with sleep deprivation.

I was equally horrified when I heard the details (on Fox) and this was not even the audio of Berg's screams. Mercifully, I escaped it; my wife heard it and she was shuddering for quite some time. But I cannot become one of them and do the same thing. If I did, there will be no difference between them and me. I consider them monsters, demons, savages; not animals because calling them animals, is IMO, offesensive to the animal who live by instinct and have not been endowed with the power of discrimating right from wrong.

I guess, you & I have a different opinion on this matter. That is fine with me. But that is what makes us different from the terrorists. We can differ on extremely sensitive issues and still be civil to each other (and even friendly) and not try to behead the other.

I do pray that such horrors will not be visited on anyone else. I would love to see the end of terrorists & terrorism itself. However, I do believe that the hammer approach will not get rid of the terrorists because of the very simple reason that any hammer-based approach, if not accompnied by a softer, gentler approach, will only result in more hate towards US. But I am also aware that negotiation will never work with the purveyors of terror. What needs to happen is that those who are on the fence at this time should not be given any motive to jump into the other side of the fence. We should do every thing we can & then some to make them jump over to our side. I don't have a clue how this can be done in today's extremely volatile and vitiated environment.

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

Is this the case for Abu Ghraib? My impression was that Guantanamo was being used for the illegal combatants - with "illegal" meaning not fighting according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions and thus not subject to their protections - while Abu Ghraib was basically a prisoner of war camp. In any case, I'm pretty sure the military intended to obey the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib, based on news reports of the interrogation guidelines in use there (that were ignored by the soldiers in question).

From what I have heard, the majority of actual prisoners of war have been released. Naturally this excludes those who will be facing war crimes trials, but nobody has come out and said where they are being held. Based on televised interviews with some of the generals having intimate knowledge of the prison Abu Ghraib currently hosts primarily illegal combatants and criminals. To me this would be backed up by reports that military intelligence supervised interrogations are a large part of the job at Abu Ghraib. While criminals for the most part aren't likely to be of intelligence value, illegal combatants are potentially a wealth of intelligence information.

From what I have heard, whether or not a prisoner is an actual POW, in general the military uses the Geneva Conventions as a guide for their treatment. This obviously doesn't mean that these illegal combatants are afforded all protections of the Geneva Conventions, nor should they be, but from what we've all heard it seems like the coalition is applying at least parts of it. I have also heard of a list of "approved" interrogation techniques that the military has. As the military trains primarily to fight other militaries, their written procedures, in my experience at least, are designed with the Conventions and Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) in mind. Given this, I have no doubt that any official document containing "approved" interrogation techniques would be consistent with the Conventions and LOAC.

With regard to some of the other discussion, I'd also note that the Geneva Conventions aren't nearly as restrictive as some of the U.N. stuff that the U.S. has declined to sign.

There are several documents making up the Geneva Conventions, and they are definitely worth a read imho. Here is the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which seems relevant right now.

Noteworthy for folks not sure what a POW actually is, is Article 4 of this document, the beginning of which reads:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Originally posted by KR Campbell:

*You* cannot change a terrorist's mind, but maybe his father, his mother, his brothers or his friends can create a more positive climate. Win *their* respect by behaving with dignity. Forget this generation of terrorists, think about how you want their children, nephews, nieces and cousins to grow up.

I really like the idea of making this a family affair. Reminds me of back in the 80's, in the spring time of my youth, around the time the US fled Lebanon due to some famous suicide bombings, there were some speculation about why the Other Super Power wasn't being plagued by terrorist incidents since they were involved in international meddling much more so than the US. A number of incidents may led to some illumination.

One fine summer day, an ordinary radical Islamic group kidnaped a Soviet diplomat and began making demands on the Soviet govt to do this, stop doing that, give some money or we kill your boy, etc. In a very short time, somehow the KGB found out who were the relatives of one the kidnapers. Instead of sending ransom or giving in to the kidnaper's demands, body parts of a favorite nephew were sent. The Soviet official was quickly released before the nephew lost too many of his parts. A few such incidents happened, perhaps less gruesome, but showing the same iron resolve. In the end, there was a happy ending of sorts. Terrorists gave up for the most part in attacking Soviets.

The rules have to change sometimes when we're talking about saving lives. I mean wouldn't that be the ultimate justification for any rule or standard of behavior? Even the US suspended parts of its own sacred consitution during its Civil War (habeus corpus). Maybe some things need to be done indirectly, with plausible denialabilty, but with a clear message to the terrorists...

I'm not saying necessarily that the same gruesome tactics have to be used, nor am I dismissing them out of hand, but the point I'm trying to make is that the gloves have to come off, just with skill, and without digital cameras lurking about...
[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

Herb: Terrorists gave up for the most part in attacking Soviets.

You obviously don't know the history of Russian-Chechen wars.

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:

If I may say, I don�t really see understand the point here. Ravish may or may not like the way Indian Army operates in Kashmir, but I don�t think he has any command over what they do, than you or me!

I personally, after watching rare bits of International media on the issue, concerns over the heavy handedness of the Indian Army (they prefer to apply force and instigate fear among villagers to get information, than the �win their hearts and minds� method.). Oh, by the way, Indian Civil Administration has condemned the way Army units are operating there and more than once the people involved have been subjected to disciplinary action. It�s an ongoing effort, and yes, I am concerned about the slow pace of improvement. I do not know if this answers Don�s question (I cant use the y-o-u word, ), but I think me being Indian doesn�t necessarily mean I support everything that�s Indian, just like many American ranchers in here doesn�t feel the need to support the war or their way of fighting it, we all have our own conscience to answer to, irrespective of the nationality.

Yes, Ashok, that does answer my question. Actually it was more of a rhetorical question. I've been watching metaphorical sets of angelic wings sprouting onto the backs of various people in the news, most notably the Germans lately, and getting a little tired of it.

Yes the US has a major problem in Abu Ghraib which we must deal with, and no that doesn't give the people of any nation whose record is less than perfect the right to anoint themselves in judgement. Not that I include any of the present company (aka Ranchers) in that group.....

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Herb: Terrorists gave up for the most part in attacking Soviets.

You obviously don't know the history of Russian-Chechen wars.

I know no more than what I read in the popular media (little).

But my comments pertained to Soviets and their experiences with the Middle Eastern situation. In the case of Chechnya, the Russians have not reacted with skill as Machivelli and I would reccommend. Unlike my example with the Soviets, they don't seem to be targeting individuals, but rather entire villages in some cases. Rather than targeted killings; indiscriminate wholesale slaughter. In these cases the terrorists actually really have nothing to lose since their families have already been brutally murdered. People with nothing to lose cannot be controlled by any means.

Take note of the genius of the Soviet method : By cutting off body parts of a family member, death is not immediate or even necessary. In the case of a finger missing , even not that serious. The situation escalates slowly. At many points the terrorist can stop and is given an incentive to stop even as the situation becomes more serious. Family pressure, even peer pressure may even encourage the immediate situation to be resolved without further violence.

The Russians handled Chechnya ineptly, both militarily and politically. This is the opposite of what I advocate. Above all, I advocate effectiveness by whatever means.

[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Just to be technically correct, the Iraqi prisoners in almost all cases are not POWs and therefore not subject to the same level of protections under the Geneva Conventions that soldiers enjoy. In most cases they are likely either criminals or illegal combatants. The Geneva Conventions are pretty specific about what a lawful combatant is, so I would direct you towards the Conventions themselves if you are interested in the difference.

The fact remains that Americans captured by foreign armies can now expect to be the recipients of the same kind of treatment. And this is thanks not only to the Americans' ill-conceived and ill-concealed interrogation tactics, but also to the apologists who seek to justify or mitigate their actions. What these apologists don't realize is that they are playing right into the terrorists' hands and, inevitably, ensuring the beheadings of countless other Nicholas Bergs in the future. You wanna play this game, Mr. Rumsfeld? Bring it on!

Originally posted by Alan Labout:
What these apologists don't realize is that they are playing right into the terrorists' hands and, inevitably, ensuring the beheadings of countless other Nicholas Bergs in the future. You wanna play this game, Mr. Rumsfeld? Bring it on![/QB]

As opposed to doing nothing about it and letting another 9/11 happen?? I dont think I'll be alone in signing up to be the next Nick Berg if that'll prevent another 9/11.

Herb: In the case of Chechnya, the Russians have not reacted with skill as Machivelli and I would reccommend.

Herb, tell me you are kidding.

Unlike my example with the Soviets, they don't seem to be targeting individuals, but rather entire villages in some cases.

You are trying to find logic among perfect madness. :roll:

Rather than targeted killings; indiscriminate wholesale slaughter. In these cases the terrorists actually really have nothing to lose since their families have already been brutally murdered. People with nothing to lose cannot be controlled by any means.

Any why do they need to be controlled? What business does Russia have in Chechnya? Remind me, who invaded whom, we invaded Iraq, or Iraq invaded us?

Take note of the genius of the Soviet method :

Do you realize that it's the same method that helped to kill thousands of our people? Do you realize what you are so fond of?

The Russians handled Chechnya ineptly, both militarily and politically. This is the opposite of what I advocate. Above all, I advocate effectiveness by whatever means.

So how about gas chambers. Very effective. Do you see where we are going?
[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

I dont think I'll be alone in signing up to be the next Nick Berg if that'll prevent another 9/11.

Ah, that's why we have a pledge of allegiance in schools!

I'll tell you what I intend to do -- I'll continue to write some good Java code, and if it compells the apocalypse to come and stand in my way, I'll look straight in its eye and cut off its ugly head.

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
As much physical force as is required to extract information. If that means breaking the back of a terrorist I'd do it in a flash myself. If it means snapping the neck of a terrorist I'd do it myself.

Did those pictures REALLY show that they were being interrogated ??

something must be wrong with world which cant see the difference between interrogation and humiliation ??

It must be positive thoughts that people see humiliation as interrogation.

Thanks God, for not making me that positive.

And who-so-ever thinks that war-criminal (not POW) should be humiliated, then again thanks God, for making me to understand the difference between humiliation and physical torture.

And to Mr. Stadler, I am/was not talking about India or US or XYZ. I was talking about humiliation.
And there is difference between humiliation and interrogation.

To support humiliation in the name of interrogation is what should be protested. I hope everybody understands the difference between the pain of slap and rape.
Slap could be a way of interrogation but certainly rape cant.

I hope I made myself clear regarding humiliation of prisoners of Abu jail.

Regarding killing of Berg, terrorists are using the current incident of humiliation as excuse for their heinous act. Thats all. They must be brought to justice.
Again, what kind of justice, I think to the human justice.

Now we, if want, can discuss how many times which country's army humiliated which countrty's prisoner (though I, myself, atleast this time, was not thinking whether its a US or brit or xyz army)
OR we can discuss in how many parts terrorists body should be cut
OR we can discuss how humiliation is defferent from interrorgation.

OR we condemn the act and wish that they must brought to justice.

Please continue...

herb slocomb:

The rules have to change sometimes when we're talking about saving lives. I mean wouldn't that be the ultimate justification for any rule or standard of behavior? Even the US suspended parts of its own sacred consitution during its Civil War (habeus corpus).

If saving lives were the ultimate justification, Lincoln would have done much better to let the South secede, rather than escalating what was to be the bloodiest war in history. Wars tend to involve deaths; to justify them there must be something more than life at stake.

As for the Soviet government, I'd agree they really bought in to Machiavelli's opinion that it's better to be feared than loved. Ultimately it doesn't seem to have prevented their demise, though.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Herb: Terrorists gave up for the most part in attacking Soviets.

You obviously don't know the history of Russian-Chechen wars.

Like the US, the Russians have grown soft in their treatment of terrorists.
The USSR would have crushed the Chechen insurrection in short order using maximum violence.
The Russians attempt to do it with minimum violence and the result is a continuation into a quagmire of terrorist incidents which leads to more people (most of them outside the Chechnia) getting hurt as a result.

It's like the PLO problem.
When they attempted to take power in Syria in the 1960s and '70s the Syrian army drove them like cattle into a single city which was then levelled after which all survivors were shot. The operation lasted several days, left the city a pile of rubble and 20.000 Palestinians dead.
The PLO never bothered Syria again.
Israel tries the soft hand of targeting only confirmed terrorist in small scale operations and as a result gets more violence in return (including condemnation by the world for protecting themselves).

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Incase you have not realized it yet, these are prisoners and the objective of holding them captive is to punish them for their behaviour and to interrogate them for information on other offenders

Although many of them are guilty, the Red Cross estimates that between 70% and 90% of the prisoners are innocent. Statistically the chances are that many of the people in that naked human pyramid were not guilty. Surely there can be no excuse for physically harming a prisoner until they have been found guilty though some kind of due process, even if it is only a military tribunal.

Feed the prisioners food from 5 star hotel and provide them room service in their cells.

Obviously the prisoners should not expect good food (or room service

), but they should have enough food - there are accounts of prisoners collapsing because they have not had enough food. Starving people is not right.

I can imagine a prison run by liberals-- Feed the prisioners food from 5 star hotel and provide them room service in their cells.

I can imagine a prison run by the far-right. Prisoners would be locked up without trial, beaten until many die, starved and sexually abused.
[ May 14, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
But I do have a problem with the claim that "food and sleep depravation" are also "torture".

Food deprivation is most definatly a form of torture if the prisoner is on the point of starvation. Similarly sleep deprivation is also torture when used in a large amount. In WWII the Japanese used both food and sleep deprivation against POW's and this was labelled as torture. Obviously the actions of the coalition soldiers is no where near as bad and as wide spread as the torture implmented by the Japanese in WWII, but unfortunatly that is not how it will be seen and portraid through-out the arab world. That is why we have to be quick to stop it now and show that world that we do not condone torture. Even if some people do condone using these methods, its going to harm the chances of the coalition succeding, and that is reason enough to stop it.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Just to be technically correct, the Iraqi prisoners in almost all cases are not POWs and therefore not subject to the same level of protections under the Geneva Conventions that soldiers enjoy.

I'd agree that the Geneva Convention does not apply to prisoners that are not POWs, but it is interesting that yesterday Rumsfeld said that no more pictures of prisoners could be released to the press because the Geneva Convention applies.

[QB
Regarding the use of mosques and the like for para-military purposes, such use merely removes Geneva Conventions protections to such facilities which would otherwise dictate our operations in regards to those facilities. As soon as they are used for such purposes, they are legitimate targets. [/QB]

I'd tend to agree here that the Convention is negated when the mosque is used for a military defense, but unfortunatly its not the best PR to attack a mosque. For reasons of propoganda alone attacking mosques should probably be avoided, although granted there will be times when it cant be avoided easily.

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

... but the point I'm trying to make is that the gloves have to come off, just with skill, and without digital cameras lurking about...

[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

Well, you are entitled to your opinions Herb, and I make no excuse for terrorists, but I am sure that I don't want to live in a world like that.

As to the Soviets, I seem to remember that they were eventually forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. So the same technique can't have worked there.

If mailing a few body parts is all it takes let's go round to Osama Bin Laden's family and start carving them up. After all, there's plenty of them and we know where to find them.

Regards,
Ken

Originally posted by Alan Labout:

And this is thanks not only to the Americans' ill-conceived and ill-concealed interrogation tactics, but also to the apologists who seek to justify or mitigate their actions. What these apologists don't realize is that they are playing right into the terrorists' hands and, inevitably, ensuring the beheadings of countless other Nicholas Bergs in the future. You wanna play this game, Mr. Rumsfeld? Bring it on!

Such purely political rhetoric should be stricken from the board, as the Kerryism is so abundantly clear it serves little purpose other than to instigate immediate rebuttal, hence the purpose of this post.

At what point has anyone in the Administration attempted to justify or mitigate the prisoner abuse? They are in staunch opposition to the behavior, and the investigations are in full-force. From what I have seen, and I believe others will agree, this has been made very clear, unless of course you are playing politics, manipulating, warping, and blinding yourself to the facts.

I respect Rumsfeld perhaps more than I've respected any other politician, and the fact that some political parties are continuously attacking not only Rumsfeld, but the entire administration in a time of war? Espousing false accusations and other garbage? Do yourself a favor...walk in their shoes for a day, in a time of war, and see how you hold up. I hear fewer and fewer solutions, and more and more whining, like some spoiled little kid.

Disclaimer: this is not directed towards anyone in specific, so please, no offense is intended.

Originally posted by KR Campbell:

As to the Soviets, I seem to remember that they were eventually forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. So the same technique can't have worked there.

The Soviet withdrawl had nothing to do with any type of terrorism.

But even if you argue that idea, these tactics require a strong degree of intelligence infiltration amongst the natives. Unfortunately, our CIA was emasculated by a prior administration, so maybe this approach is not possible at the current moment.

If mailing a few body parts is all it takes let's go round to Osama Bin Laden's family and start carving them up. After all, there's plenty of them and we know where to find them.

Regards,
Ken

It would depend on how close were the ties between Osama and those relatives. I think they are not that close, and that Osama could be rather cold blooded about such actions in any event. Furthermore, many Al-Queda cells are operating somewhat independently.

So why did I mention the story you may ask?

Well, I did not mean for the cutting of body parts to be a grand strategy to solve terrorism. It does work in certain limited situations quite well, but it is just one tactic of many tactics implementing a new stategy. The new stategy is to quit abiding by any high minded moral stances that sound good and make people feel good at home, but is causing gallons of red American blood to be spilt unto dusty Iraqi plains.

Originally posted by KR Campbell:

Well, you are entitled to your opinions Herb, and I make no excuse for terrorists, but I am sure that I don't want to live in a world like that.

Regards,
Ken

Ken,

Perhaps you were not listening closely enough to the screams of Berg as he was beheaded?

That IS the world YOU are living in today. Now if you're an idealist like I am, and actually want to try to make the world a better place, we'll be talking soley about what will or will not reduce the number of terrorists at the lowest cost of innocent lives leading to a net saving of human lives. No moralizing or sermonizing allowed, just a grim faced realization that there is dirty job that needs to be done and an iron resolve to do it.

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Like the US, the Russians have grown soft in their treatment of terrorists.
The USSR would have crushed the Chechen insurrection in short order using maximum violence.
The Russians attempt to do it with minimum violence and the result is a continuation into a quagmire of terrorist incidents which leads to more people (most of them outside the Chechnia) getting hurt as a result.

Map is no doubt more knowlegable than me on these matters, but I don't think the Russians have used "minimum violence" by any stretch of the imagination. At least for the first year or so of occupation; where there was evidence of slaughter of civilians on a very not insiginifcant scale. I believe many of the terrorists who took hostages in Moscow were widows who had no family due to Russian executions. Take a look at photos of Chechen captial shortly after the Russians took it. Not much left except rubble...

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Herb: In the case of Chechnya, the Russians have not reacted with skill as Machivelli and I would reccommend.

Map :Herb, tell me you are kidding.

Maybe I was not clear : The Russians could have resolved the Chechnyan situation in a manner that would have produced less terrorists and caused less loss of human life. I am not kidding.

I am not advocating any specific method or even condoing the political goal of the Russians, merely stating that if they are going to do something with Chechnya, it should be done with the least amount of human suffering.

Herb :Rather than targeted killings; indiscriminate wholesale slaughter. In these cases the terrorists actually really have nothing to lose since their families have already been brutally murdered. People with nothing to lose cannot be controlled by any means.

Map : Any why do they need to be controlled? What business does Russia have in Chechnya? Remind me, who invaded whom, we invaded Iraq, or Iraq invaded us?

I am not saying Russia has any justification at all in Chechnya. I am saying that if you are going to do something, do it right and minimize human suffering.

I think the attempt to draw a parallel between Russian invasion of Chechnya and US liberation of Iraq is ridiculous. Iraq was liberated from a pychopath who murdered over 500,000 of his own citizens and there was no reason to believe that he had become a pacifist who would not murder another 500,000 before he took his last breath unless the Iraqi people had not been saved by the Americans.

Take note of the genius of the Soviet method :

Do you realize that it's the same method that helped to kill thousands of our people? Do you realize what you are so fond of?

No, you misread Machivelli and I. We want to minimize human suffering and this can only be done by skillfull means.

The Russians handled Chechnya ineptly, both militarily and politically. This is the opposite of what I advocate. Above all, I advocate effectiveness by whatever means.

So how about gas chambers. Very effective. Do you see where we are going?

No, where I'm going is the route to reduce the sum total of human suffering. Where others on this thread are going is the prolongation of conflict and increase in human suffering because they are afraid to use "immoral" methods that lead to results that save human lives and reduce suffering for Iraqis and Americans.

herb slocomb:

The new stategy is to quit abiding by any high minded moral stances that sound good and make people feel good at home, but is causing gallons of red American blood to be spilt unto dusty Iraqi plains.

I think I much prefer the existing strategy of doing our best to be ethical, without bending over backwards to make people feel good.

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

If saving lives were the ultimate justification, Lincoln would have done much better to let the South secede, rather than escalating what was to be the bloodiest war in history. Wars tend to involve deaths; to justify them there must be something more than life at stake.

When I say preserving "Life" is the rational standard of morality, I mean a life lived as a human should live a life, e.g. with liberty. A war fought to preserve one's liberty is justified by this morality since a life lived as a cowering animal without liberty is hardly a life worth living and in a certain sense not a proper human life at all.

As for the Soviet government, I'd agree they really bought in to Machiavelli's opinion that it's better to be feared than loved. Ultimately it doesn't seem to have prevented their demise, though.

Take note that their demise had nothing to do with any short comings in Machivelli's philosphy as you imply. The Soviet Union basically voluntarily distintgrated; this distingration was especialy not dur to any attacks from those that feared them.
[ May 14, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
herb slocomb:

The new stategy is to quit abiding by any high minded moral stances that sound good and make people feel good at home, but is causing gallons of red American blood to be spilt unto dusty Iraqi plains.

I think I much prefer the existing strategy of doing our best to be ethical, without bending over backwards to make people feel good.

This is where Machivelli is often misunderstood. He is not amoral. He advocates virtue and morality many times. But there are times where certain actions we would normally call immoral can save lots of lives.

Another story is in order I see. In the initial invasion of Iraq a certain US Marine unit was cut off from supporting coalition forces and seemingly surrounded. During the fighting an Iraqi prisoner was captured. The Marine sargent asked the prisoner some questions that would save the US forces lives. The prisoner would not answer. So, the sargent pulls out his pistol and fires off a few rounds into sand and perhaps makes some threats. The prisoner talks and reveals information that allows the Marine unit to break out of their encirclment and save their lives.

Now the sargent was later court martialed because what he did was un-ethical, but I guess some people would rather have had the sargent to watch as his men get picked off one by one around him...

Now, don't pick the apart the story and miss the principle that's being illustrated.

herb slocomb:

When I say preserving "Life" is the rational standard of morality, I mean a life lived as a human should live a life, e.g. with liberty. A war fought to preserve one's liberty is justified by this morality since a life lived as a cowering animal without liberty is hardly a life worth living and in a certain sense not a proper human life at all.

I can agree with that. How are we going to ensure the future liberty of millions of Iraqis? They aren't used to having a government that provides much liberty, and it's not that easy to set such a government up. I would contend that to 'save', in a sense, these millions of lives, it's important for the U.S. to set an example during the occupation that the future Iraqi government can follow.

Take note that their demise had nothing to do with any short comings in Machivelli's philosphy as you imply. The Soviet Union basically voluntarily distintgrated; this distingration was especialy not dur to any attacks from those that feared them.

I disagree. The Soviet government collapsed because of lack of popular support; it was this lack of support that made it so easy for first Gorbachev, then Yanayev and his crew, to be removed from power. The lack of popular support was in turn directly attributable to the use by the Soviet government of the same techniques described in Machiavelli's The Prince.

My reading of The Prince, by the way, is that the techniques described therein do not have a goal of "minimizing human suffering", but only of allowing the prince to gain and retain power as efficiently as possible. Sometimes that involves minimizing human suffering, sometimes not. Machiavelli further states that the methods appropriate for use by the ruler of a Principality - what we would today call an autocracy - were very different from those appropriate to a Republic, and his other writings pretty clearly indicate that he thinks Republics are better for the people.

So, the sargent pulls out his pistol and fires off a few rounds into sand and perhaps makes some threats.

I see a world of difference between firing a few rounds into the sand and firing a few rounds into the prisoner, and at least as much difference between that and torturing the prisoner's innocent noncombatant sister.

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
herb slocomb:

Herb : When I say preserving "Life" is the rational standard of morality, I mean a life lived as a human should live a life, e.g. with liberty. A war fought to preserve one's liberty is justified by this morality since a life lived as a cowering animal without liberty is hardly a life worth living and in a certain sense not a proper human life at all.

Warren : I can agree with that. How are we going to ensure the future liberty of millions of Iraqis? They aren't used to having a government that provides much liberty, and it's not that easy to set such a government up. I would contend that to 'save', in a sense, these millions of lives, it's important for the U.S. to set an example during the occupation that the future Iraqi government can follow.

Firstly, we should avoid setting a bad example by not broadcasting to the world every single indiscretion that is made by coalition forces. The primary result of such public airing of dirty laundry is to endanger more lives by making the peaceful transition more difficult if not impossible. The continuing civil chaos will result in more deaths and suffering. I'm not saying I condone indiscretions. They should be deal with, but privately as m uch as possible.

Secondly, we cannot set the example of how a republic should be run from inside Iraq. That example comes from how we run the US. Iraq is in chaos. Military rule is needed, not constitutional rule. Only when some degree of order is maintained can we begin the democratization of Iraq. Watching Americans being burned and beheaded fosters contempt for American weakness and the weakness of American values. Establish order first, then from a position of strength bestow the magnaminous generosity for which we pride ourselves. The ordinary Iraqi will be gratefull for the order that is achieved, even if a few heads had to knocked together. I suspect the Iraqis are more realistic than some give them credit for. They know we up against pyschos, and they know we may have to bend some rules to subdue them. But they want to get on with their lives without the chaos and are growing impatient with our inability to bring order. Continue this nonsense much longer and they will suport another Sadaam who brings order and who is smart enough to hide his murderous activities from the public media.

Herb :Take note that their demise had nothing to do with any short comings in Machivelli's philosphy as you imply. The Soviet Union basically voluntarily distintgrated; this distingration was especialy not dur to any attacks from those that feared them.

Warren : I disagree. The Soviet government collapsed because of lack of popular support; it was this lack of support that made it so easy for first Gorbachev, then Yanayev and his crew, to be removed from power. The lack of popular support was in turn directly attributable to the use by the Soviet government of the same techniques described in Machiavelli's The Prince.

The USSR could have continued intact had not Gorbachov voluntarily liberalized the USSR with his policy of glasnost (openess). Then he did nothing to reverse his cours of action and simply allowed the empire to unravel when he certainly had the means to stop it with military force.

My reading of The Prince, by the way, is that the techniques described therein do not have a goal of "minimizing human suffering", but only of allowing the prince to gain and retain power as efficiently as possible. Sometimes that involves minimizing human suffering, sometimes not. Machiavelli further states that the methods appropriate for use by the ruler of a Principality - what we would today call an autocracy - were very different from those appropriate to a Republic, and his other writings pretty clearly indicate that he thinks Republics are better for the people.

Herb : So, the sargent pulls out his pistol and fires off a few rounds into sand and perhaps makes some threats.

I see a world of difference between firing a few rounds into the sand and firing a few rounds into the prisoner, and at least as much difference between that and torturing the prisoner's innocent noncombatant sister.

Let me repeat the general point of the story I gave : Sometimes actions that are considered immoral lead to desired outcomes such as saving a greater number of lives. Let's not be dogmatic in denying this truth nor shy away with unmanly weakness and lack of resolve the desire to do what is right - saving lives - because we are afraid of inapproprite moral labels.

herb slocomb:

Secondly, we cannot set the example of how a republic should be run from inside Iraq. That example comes from how we run the US. Iraq is in chaos. Military rule is needed, not constitutional rule. Only when some degree of order is maintained can we begin the democratization of Iraq.

I agree, and I didn't mean we should set a local democratic example. The example I think it's important to set in this case is that even the American military that is occupying Iraq recognizes certain civil liberties, and is not free to use whatever methods it deems expedient for its short term goals. Obeying the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting those who violate it demonstrates that even a world power can and does operate under the constraints of some form of law. That will be an important lesson a year from now, when the Iraqis have their own constitution with, hopefully, its own protections of civil liberties, because it will set expectations both within the government and in the populace that those protections will be treated as more than a meaningless piece of paper.

Watching Americans being burned and beheaded fosters contempt for American weakness and the weakness of American values.

Possibly. On the other hand, Arab news is reported to be playing that video far less than the U.S. news is - Al Jazeera didn't even air the actual beheading, playing only the first two minutes of the tape. The sense I'm getting is that Al Qaeda misplayed its hand this time - that this particular piece of news is going to generate net sympathy among Arabs for America and will cause many of them to dissociate themselves from the terrorists.

Establish order first, then from a position of strength bestow the magnaminous generosity for which we pride ourselves.

Is it your impression that order has not, by and large, been established? Six months ago, the papers were full of how basic services were still out in large parts of Iraq; those stories are no longer appearing. For the last month or two, almost all the news we've heard about Iraq has been from only three limited places: Fallujah, Najaf, and Abu Ghraib. Since the news that doesn't get published is generally the good news, I conclude that things are likely going pretty well through most of Iraq.

On the Soviet tangent:

The USSR could have continued intact had not Gorbachov voluntarily liberalized the USSR with his policy of glasnost (openess). Then he did nothing to reverse his cours of action and simply allowed the empire to unravel when he certainly had the means to stop it with military force.

That is not how I understand things happening. Yanayev & co took power from Gorbachev in the time honored Soviet way - at the point of a KGB gun. Yeltsin then headed a peaceful popular uprising against Yanayev, an uprising which faced down a few divisions of tanks. Yeltsin then dissolved the Communist apparatus of state. It's true that he brought Gorbachev back for a few months, but I think it's clear that by then, it was Yeltsin that was in charge, and the Soviet government was history.

Now, you could argue that glasnost was an error on Gorbachev's part, and that without it, he might have been able to continue a rule by fear. On the other hand, the intellectual liberty from glasnost may have helped compensate for the continued downward Soviet economic spiral in the 1980s; it's possible that without glasnost, the revolution would only have been accelerated.

Good job, Herb.

Map is no doubt more knowlegable than me on these matters, but I don't think the Russians have used "minimum violence" by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think so either. They didn't even bother to reduce their own casualties too much. It's just a general bardak and some people making money by any dirty means.

In a major library of free Russian books on the Internet, they have reports from both sides. It was an interesting reading, first one written by our soldier, another by a Chechen civilian. The latter somehow sounded more human, maybe because the author is much older. The former is partially translated into English, which act was performed by some volunteers, so I have no idea about the quality of translation.