Is this fair?

[Mike]

Suspected Terrorist Treatment

Simple enough..Is their treatment fair?
Let's try to keep this a relaxed topic. (I say that now, but 10 posts from now everyone will be really worked up. )

[Knothead]

My reaction would be, Yes. They are being treated fairly.

The prisoners have the option of co-operating, which is a FAR better deal than their fellow travellers gave the people in the WTC!

These people are members of a sect dedicated to the destruction of the civilized world. As the one U.S. officer was quoted, "There was a before 9-11...and there is an after 9-11. The gloves are off now."

We are civilized people, and we would like very much to strive for a civilized society, one that does not use torture...and that's fine... as far as it goes...

[daveleau]

Simply, this is war. We are not killing them, nor are we doing them real physical harm, and nothing is going to scar them for life. War is not easy. War is not friendly. We must get info out of these people to save soldiers' lives in future fights and civilian lives in future terror attacks. I say they are being very light in their treatment of these prisoners of war. They are not breaking the Geneva Convention with any of these tactics. And it is not like these tactics were not used when the GC was created. They knew there would still be a need to get info out of POWs. Thus they left some tactics available so the enemy would not be completely neutered and unable to collect any intelligence.

They are completely fair. And it has nothing to do specifically with 9/11. 9/11 does not give us any more or any less license to treat prisoners any differently than before. I have not heard one news report (even a freaking news report from the most liberal of medias) that would lead me to believe we are overstepping our bounds as Americans or human beings.

Also, these are not "suspected" terrorists. These are TERRORISTS. Saying they are suspected is like saying you suspect the WTC towers have fallen.

[Lemon[H]ead]

http://www.somethingawful.com/insert...k_jengawtc.jpg

(deep linking, so sue me)

JENGA!!!!!!

[Mike]

Oh God Sean....

[CERuppel]

On the subject of the Geneva Convention and its application to the Afgasnistan conflict:

The prisoners being held for interrogation by the CIA (or whoever) are not military personel of any nation or goverment, nor are they acknowledged citizens of Afganistan. As such they are not under the conventions strictures (read them, would you?).

Instead it should be pointed out that this non-military combatants fall under the legal heading of terrorist, whether they are affiliated with any group. By taking up arms against the legal goverment of a nation without the legal declaration of war they have caused the treatment they are receiving.

If that is not clear think about south america for a minute. Those "freedom" fighters hae been fighting a decades long war and have not been treated with the grace of the Geneva Convention for any of that time. Did any one of you stop to yell about that? You should. They have legal basis for thier fight, have declared war and set thier goals in writing. They have met the requirements of the world court. But they atre tortured, poisoned, blackmailed, and worse things than I can think of.

But that isn't something to make noise about. The USA is not involved.

And just what does the USA being involved change?

Hint: Think of our courts...

[Theophylact]

I'm going to abstain, at least until I get back, because I fear I'll fly off the handle otherwise.

[Knothead]

Originally posted by Theophylact
I'm going to abstain, at least until I get back, because I fear I'll fly off the handle otherwise.

Aw. come on, Theo!
Fly off the handle, I can certainly understand...but which handle? (meaning, which way?)

Expiring minds wanna know!

Edit: And besides, what's so bad about "flying off the handle?"

I can scarcely imagine YOU, of all people, posting anything truly bad. Knot to worry, I say.

I think we should be prepared for similiar treatment to US soldiers in the forthcoming Iraq War.

"What goes around comes around."

---------------Epidemic

[Theophylact]

The Israelis do this, and it's both wrong and ineffective. The second Intifada (the present, more violent one) was in part a response to the brutal treatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli interrogators. The French used even more brutal means -- out-and-out torture -- in Algeria, and lost Algeria anyway. The Phoenix Program that the US and South Vietnam used tortured and killed perhaps 10,000 suspected Viet Cong agents (some of whom were probably just people against whom certain locals had a grudge), and the net result was what you see.

You can always get answers this way. But the answers are frequently merely what the questioner wants said, not the truth.

Even far short of torture, people confess to things they've never done. Not long ago, I suggested this piece by Michael Kinsley suggesting why. It's still good.

But even if it worked, it would be wrong, because it dehumanizes the practitioner as well as the victim. And it's all too easy to slip from discomfort to extreme duress and on into torture. And there is where Americans should not go -- at least, not if we believe we have a moral edge over our enemies. Simple survival has its justification, but civilization is more than that alone.

I want to continue to be proud to be an American, not because we're stronger than the others, but because we're better. Treating people inhumanely is not the way to be better.