Prisoner Treatment

[hacker15]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

From the article cut-n-paste tom posted:

"The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives."

I would like to see the author substantiate this. Has he seen the intelligence that has been gathered at Guantanamo? Is he an expert in interrogation techniques? I think he's just bummed out that he didn't find the POW scene from "The Deer Hunter".

The best intellegence they can get will come from building relationships with the prisoners. Only then can we get into their psyche, catching them in moments of weakness divulging information that is verifiable and valuable. When the threats to safety are removed they let their guard down and loosen up their lips. Beat downs don't produce results. Our own soldiers from WW2 to 'Nam didn't divulge information because of torture. It is simply less effective.

Got to agree with this one. In my former line, "good cop, bad cop" worked pretty well until Hollywood and TV ruined it. It still worked on the really dumb ones but, for those who were a little smarter, it took more doing.....

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Why is it that the media outlets can get all in an uproar over our treatment of their prisoners, but cannot seem to muster up the same level of outrage over the treatment of those abducted or taken prisoner in the mid-east countries?

We certainly have heard plenty of stories of horrible mistreatment (beatings and other physical abuse) and a few forced conversions to Islam, but the media types never get as worked up over these attrocities.

Why do you think this is so? Obviously, some attrocities are ok and others really rankle this bunch.

Strange how this works.

- Brickboy240

Its called elitism. The Liberals think they are above torture, no matter how many Americans are tortured and beheaded by terrorist bastards.

Our interrogation techniques have no affect on the treatment of our captured soldiers by the enemy.


Tom

[VaGunNut]

What I don't get is why our Supreme Court says these thugs are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention.

The following is from the rules:


"Article 4
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."

How do they meet 2. (b) or (d)? I just don't see why they should be covered by the rules at all. If they put on uniforms, stopped hiding in churches and schools, stopped using bombs to target civilians then they should be protected.

Until that time I think bench vises should be employed to assure that any virgins they encounter here or in the after life would remain so.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

From the article cut-n-paste tom posted:

"The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives."

I would like to see the author substantiate this. Has he seen the intelligence that has been gathered at Guantanamo? Is he an expert in interrogation techniques? I think he's just bummed out that he didn't find the POW scene from "The Deer Hunter".

The best intellegence they can get will come from building relationships with the prisoners. Only then can we get into their psyche, catching them in moments of weakness divulging information that is verifiable and valuable. When the threats to safety are removed they let their guard down and loosen up their lips. Beat downs don't produce results. Our own soldiers from WW2 to 'Nam didn't divulge information because of torture. It is simply less effective.

Like baking them cookies and bringing them good old subway? sounds like they are working within the rules to me.

[Son of Norway]

Originally Posted by beardman2

Like baking them cookies and bringing them good old subway? sounds like they are working within the rules to me.

That may be true. And it may be yielding more information than we know. It may work wonders to expose them to the delights of cookies and Subway sandwiches. I bet it beats the crap out of curry and falafel.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

That may be true. And it may be yielding more information than we know. It may work wonders to expose them to the delights of cookies and Subway sandwiches. I bet it beats the crap out of curry and falafel.

I could handle that. Overcooked goat has to really suck though.

[one-eyed-fatman]

The Geneva convention was made for all people taking part in war not just one side. The terrorist don't recognize it or abide by it, why should we?

[bd]

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

The Geneva convention was made for all people taking part in war not just one side. The terrorist don't recognize it or abide by it, why should we?

It puts Bush in a quandry. I think long ago we (the U.S.) agreed to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention if we are in a war. Bush likes to call this a WAR on Terror, which is OK, I guess it is. But if he doesn't abide by the rules that were laid down long ago - he can't really say we are in a WAR....can he?

bd

[cadejo69]

Originally Posted by bd

I think many folks have not learned that you should be careful what you wish for while they are sitting in the comfort of their own homes.


The way captured American troops are treated will have a lot to do with the way Americans treat their prisoners.


bd

Man, some times I wonder what planet you people live in, we are the only ones playing by the rules, no one gives a damn about the Geneva convention or any human rights crap but us(the USA), I know if I ever get capture I will be in a world of hurt, weather we treat their prisoners like we do now or we treat them like they should be treated(F*<{!ing animals), will not make a difference to them, they will torture and kill us just the same. Trying to set an example to them has not worked, its time to get medieval on their @$$ and say to hell what the rest of the world thinks. F...them if they can't take a Joke.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by bd

It puts Bush in a quandry. I think long ago we (the U.S.) agreed to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention if we are in a war. Bush likes to call this a WAR on Terror, which is OK, I guess it is. But if he doesn't abide by the rules that were laid down long ago - he can't really say we are in a WAR....can he?

bd

Once again I remind everybody here. The only way we can have a war is if it is declared a war by the U.S. government. We have not declared a war since WWII.