michael, your comments about torture are interesting, + in my opinion are refective of a person with no sense of history, + are bolstered by soldiers who do not want to "go public".
are you aware of the book "flyboys"?
are you aware of the brutal toture / murder of our c.i.a. agent in lebanon during the reagan administration?
the united states of america is obliged to use whatever means necessary to defend the innocent citizens of this country.
v/r..........mikee

The points Maj. Moran lays out in this article make perfect sense when dealing with captured enemies. Treating them as human beings will get you a lot farther than treating them like dogs. This point can be further applied to the point you made about Germans being respectful towards Americans of the "Greatest Generation". We (the Allies) were the much gentler occupying force and oversaw the rebuilding of Germany and the establishment of a free Western Democracy. The Russians stripped Eastern Germany of industrial equipment and man power, not to mention subjecting them to 44 years of communist rule. The Western way was clearly the more favorable of the two options. This is all fine and dandy, if one ignores the years of allied bombings against German cities and the revenge killings that took place after the German surrender. The argument is made that American daylight bombing was aimed at legitimate military targets within urban areas. The British on the other hand were fully committed to terror bombing these same urban centers in an attempt to break the will of their enemy. American bombers were not uninvolved in the terror campaign, the bombing of Dresden being the most well known example. After the war was over, war criminals were legally and extra-legally executed. The death and terror that the western allies brought to Germany's door step was nothing compared to what the Soviets perpetrated, but it is not as if the West treated Germany with kid gloves. What I draw from this little history lesson is that when the fighting stops, do all that you can to rebuild and help out your former enemies, for they are no longer your enemy. As Maj. Moran says, "I consider a prisoner... as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy... get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows there is no hope of escape, that it is all over." This logic that applied during WW2 does not apply to our current fight.
The nature of the threat and the nature of our global legal system preclude the option of taking the enemy "out of the war". Former Gitmo detainees blowing themselves up in Iraq or the "revolving door" policy for detainees in the same country lend credence to this point. Speaking the co-author of On Point II (Transition to the New Campaign: The US Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom) at a presentation he gave I asked him about how members of the military he interviewed felt about detainee operations in Iraq. He said he had seen frustration expressed about the inability to hold suspects for as long as they desired. And that as long as they kept their mouth shut, there was a good chance they would be out soon. A friend of mine from when I was a child who did a tour in the Anbar province during 2006 expressed a similar frustration, that they would continually detain the same guys to no effect. If capture, arrest, detainment, etc. does not take the ƒ??enemyƒ? out of the fight, then following a logical path, they are still the enemy. Therefore, those that still cling to their cause, the ƒ??hard coreƒ?, should be treated as they are. Enemies, even in captivity.

[I agree that the humane treatment of prisioners should be our national policy, but individuals who do not follow the rules of war and do not fight as combatants under the Geneva Convention do not have the rights conveyed by that Convention. As long as we do not torture as a sadistic policy, as did the Russians and the Nazis, and do so to obtain information that saves lives, I do not oppose the "torture" authorized by the Bush Administration as long as there is no long-lasting physical injury.] John Butchko.

I agree completely, John. Nice job of summing it all up.

It is easy to obfuscate the issue of torture by talking about the treatment of the general population of prisoners. Those of us who advocate doing whatever it takes to protect the lives of American citizens - be they civilians or soldiers - are NOT advocating treating the general prisoner population like the Japanese, Germans, and Russians did. So that's a straw man.

What we're saying is that, in an age of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, there are situations in which getting actionable intelligence in order to prevent massive casualties among innocent Americans may require the harshest treatment imaginable. And that such treatment in this context is not only necessary but moral. Conversely, it is the height of immorality to, for example, sacrifice the entire population of Chicago for the sake of an anti-torture policy when you have captured the terrorist cell leader who has just killed hundreds of thousands in New York City.

Humane treatment of the general prisoner population should always be official US government policy. But that policy should also state, clearly and unequivocally, that the United States government will do whatever it takes to protect its citizens; and that the welfare of American citizens will always come before the welfare of prisoners.

The debate on torture has taken a turn somewhere.
The first turn is about POWs. Everyone is against torturing a POW, including me. The rules of war demand humane treatment.

The second turn is about Terrorists. That's where the debate should focus. Is a terrorist a POW? I think NOT.......that's what makes him a
terrorist. You play terrorist. You pay the price. It is that simple for me.

SGT D said it beautifully below. Like him, I am a patriot who loves the principles and ideals that our country was founded on. I have seen evil, inhumanity, darkness in all corners of the globe. For those that have seen what the real world is like out there, America is the light against that darkness. This country is the only place on earth where one enjoys such sweeping personal liberties and freedoms. To now be viewed as no better than any petty dictatorship in the last 100 years hurts deeply. I know that "we", as a country, are better than this, we just need to get past our preoccupation with dick size and false bravado.

This is an intelligence-intensive war we are in. The nature of our enemy dictates that, overall, the most reliable source of intelligence is people themselves. We need to be able to talk to them, and we need them to want to give us truthful information. Maintaining the moral highground goes a long way towards setting those condition. Torture on the other hand simply validates the enemy's own recruiting propaganda, and thus makes it harder for us on the battlefield. Additionally, it taints all the subsequent information from any sort of criminal proceeding, which is ultimately where you want these guys to end up. Now, torture works wonders if all you are looking for is a false confession for some trumped up kangaroo court in which guilt is already a foregone conclusion. But if you want actionable intelligence, meaning intelligence good enough to put us through the "right" door, for the "right" guy, at the "right" time, that only comes from folks who aren't scared shitless that they'll be hooked up to alligator clips and a car battery at any time.

Some folks are missing the long-term implications from all this too. Generations from now, when my great-grandchildren are faithfully serving their country, I want our legacy to them to be a world with multiple countries that love what America did for them. My grandfather and his generation did it for us in Europe and Asia and it would be a damn shame if my generations legacy around the world is that we're no better than any other dictatorship. It didn't require brutality then, and it doesn't now.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents

Eriik

Michael, please start listening to your readers. You keep thinking the debate is about abusing civilians or POW's. No one is advocating that. What people are saying is that we are dealing with a different sort of enemy, one that targets civilians, and there may be time when we are faced with a difficult choice.

You are debating an argument that no one is making.

Mike,

You are a good guy, no doubt. Buttt.... There is a big difference between fanatical Islamo operatives and the German and Polish people encountered in WWII. Americans that I have always known (Via Army, Marine Corps, Air Force associations) have always been the good guys and deplore the engagement of gratuitous sadism towards enemy combatants. But what is called "torture" nowadays can best be described as a more efficient means of communication in exigent circumstances. Circumstances that includes saving a life from the activities of these brainwashed madrassas graduates.

M

The "moral high ground" is subjective. Going back to the the subject of WW2, sure, the western allies were on a higher moral high when compared to the Nazis. BUT we (western allies) still bombed civilian targets and killed at the very least tens of thousands of civilians in the process. Towards the end of the war German villages were leveled with artillery fire if advancing allied troops encountered any resistance. Is terror bombing not amoral? Does shelling villages where you know civilians are hiding not contain at least some moral ambiguity? In the Pacific, the Japanese were brutal to the people in the areas that they conquered. What they did in China rivals the brutality of the Holocaust. But does that make the firebombing of Japanese cities by the XXI Bomber Command or the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki any less amoral? There are stories of children being sucked out of their parents arms by the hurricane force winds generated by the massive whirling firestorm at the center of Tokyo during the raid on the night of March 9-10. Supposedly 100,000 people died during this one raid. Tokyo was literally burned to the ground. This was not some far off barbaric time, it was 65 years ago. The ideals of America are supreme and should always be strived for, yet one cannot make important policy decisions based solely on ideals. Other options must be weighed. America must do what is necessary to achieve victory. Thucydides saw this trend towards necessity in writing his History of the Peloponnesian War and said "but war...is a hard master and tends to assimilate men's character to their conditions". Whether we like it or not, America is at war and must act accordingly.

I end on a William T. Sherman quote. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."

When we first went into Iraq, I religiously read posts by "Chief Wiggles", an Interrogator. My wife and I sent parcels of supplies (school supplies and toys) to Chief
Wiggles. He commented frequently that his approach was to make friends with the prisoners he was interogating. He was interrogating 5 Generals , and tried unsuccessfully to get them
back into the new iraq Army. All that he said made sense. The decisions passed down to him to deal with these generals was nonsense; he never posted that, but it was obvious.
He was a great man.
Good Luck!

If they are retreating from battle, they are targets. If they are captured and under our control, they are prisoners. There is a fairly comprehensive discussion of torture under the topic of Water Board. There is evidence that torture is not effective compared to other methods of interrogation. WRT torture, there are only "feelings" that it works. No actual evidence. KSM confessed to anything and everything. Even falsely claimed to have personally beheaded Daniel Perle. Under torture, you get what you want, not what you need..at least that is my understanding.

Actually, Mr. Yon did not compare islamic terrorists to Japanese suicide bombers. If you want to make stuff up to make your point, that's on you. And, of course you don't know his world view so make that up too. Fascinating approach to an intelligent discussion.

There is never a valid excuse for the mistreatemnt of a prisoner, however horrible and inhumane that prisoner may be. Our nation has been set apart in its way of dealing with people, even its enemies. It is the acknowledgement of "human beings" that have caused our nation to treat people as "people," in spite of the evil.
However, there is a difference between the maltreatment of prisoners and the "torture" method to extract information from the enemy. Recently, after a debate in the White House, memos of the Bush administration describing "torture" methods for interrogating Al Qaeda "suspects" and such were released. Some, such as the human rights activists, have suggested that those that used "torture tactics" be prosecuted.

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution," Obama said. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ieY7oDaxYqxjoJCpy24n5QxSsKnw.

After the 2001 attack, Bush's administration allowed for such tactics as forced nudity, waterboarding and sleep depravation. In their defense it was stated that the tecnhiques did not equal torture since they did not inflict long term physical or mental pain. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/17/bush-torture-memos-obama-mukasey.
However, it must also be noted that Bush later changed his policy in agreement with Senator John McCain which called for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/.

The Obama administration has said they will not use any of these techniques.

Many American soldiers have been tried and convicted for mistreating prisoners. In 2006 eleven soldiers were convicted of crimes related to detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-ghraib,1,2501080.story.
Four other soldiers were also tried for other cruel acts, even among the Iraqi civilians. One of them was sentenced to 110 years in prison for his role in the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and her family. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6930845.stm.
A U.S. army master seargent, the highest rank convicted of Iraqi deaths, was convicted because of the execution-style slayings of four bound and blindfolded Iraqi detainees. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-04-15-iraq-soldier_N.htm.

Our nation has made mistakes but we are still striving to hold on to some of the historical values that have made our nation so great. Those who have acted in an inhumane manner have been tried and convicted, paying consequences for their evil actions. We are to hold each other accountable, even those fighting for our country and those in authority, in order to uphold some "values".