Charlie wrote:
Here's the rub.

What do you do with an enemy who is intentionally targeting innocent
civilians? Such as al quaida.

If you have an enemy combatant in custody, and you believe that said
enemy combatant has information regarding impending attacks on said
civilian targets, what do you do?

As an American citizen, I want my government to do *anything* it takes
to extract that information from the enemy combatant, who, by the way,
by not wearing the uniform and fighting under the banner of a country,
does not qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention.

While the principles of not resorting to torture are noble to be sure, I
am *not* willing to sacrifice the lives of my family and myself to
uphold that lofty principle.

In conflict after conflict, from Bataan to Hanoi to Somalia to Iraq, our
enemy has proven that they have not the slightest hesitation in
torturing our soldiers - our high standards not withstanding. So the
argument that we need to take the high road to prevent future
mistreatment of our soldiers falls flat under the weight of the facts.

Just the opinion of one American civilian who has the highest respect
and gratitude for the service of our fighting men and women, and wants
to give them the benefit of every tool imaginable to protect us.

Charlie


Gentlemen and Ladies:

The US military has always (at least in my service since 1961)
completely rejected torture and other physical means of coercion. Now
just because officially certain things are not permitted, didn't mean
that torture has not taken place. The Abu Ghrab and other related
incidents are examples. I personally saw torture when I was in Vietnam,
torture at the hands of South Korean MI personnel handling North
Vietnamese Army POW's. It was abhorrent to me then as the memory of it
is now. You will ask why I didn't attempt to stop the torture, and I
will answer because I was weak-willed at that time and turned my back,
departing the area, in essence putting my blind eye to the telescope.

Where arguments about killing or targeting civilians vis a vis military
personnel fall down is in warfare which involves civilians who are
exposed to that war.

The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo are perfect examples where the
civilian populace was specifically targeted by US and British military
forces. There were monumental numbers of casualties among the
"innocent" civilians. Of course, at that time, the policy of the Allies
was that anyone who supported a war against the allies was not innocent
but compliant.

In the cases of formally recognized military powers warring against each
other, practically all organized military and nations recognize the
Geneva Conventions or at least some semblance of those conventions.

Of course, the oriental nations, with the very different philosophy
about prisoners of war and about "treatment" flies in the face of
treatment of POW's by civilized nations. Excellent examples of this
include the Japanese during WW2, the North Koreans and Chinese during
the Korean War and, of course, the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese,
specifically the communist Viets held an all time record on butchery and
brutality. But, remember that culture is what drives people to do what
they do. The Oriental culture is a brutal one which has a callous
disregard for human life. There can be no debate upon that subject
since it has been proven over and gain.

Members of the Middle Eastern culture, specifically those who have
Surrendered to al-Islam (The Muslim), also view treatment of people
through a completely different "lens" than do Occidentals or even
Orientals of the Chinese subcontinent. In the case of the case of the
Muslim, the well-being, including lives, of non-Muslim (infidels and
pagans) is held to a degree which is lower than that of the female. The
female is held "one step down" from that of the Muslim male.
Accordingly, the infidel and/or pagan is not considered a whole human
being in the eyes of various Islamic dogma. They are certain non-Muslim
who are protected by rules set forth in the Holy Koran .. the so-called
"People of the Book". People of the Book include some Middle-Eastern
Christian sects which exist to this day in Muslim countries and which
are lauded for their protection of the Prophet Mohammad (Blessings and
All Grace Upon Him).

So, when a non-Muslim is captured or taken hostage, he or she can be
treated the same as a dog or other non-sentient animal and slaughtered
if necessary. This is the common thought behind the killings of
hostages including beheading and shootings. As difficult as it is for
Westerners to accept it, the homicide of hostages is as common to the
Middle East as the killing of "surrendered and dishonored enemy" in the
hands of the Japanese of World War Two. Religious or cultural beliefs
in both cases, you see.

This is an intense and complex situation. There is no way that it can
be accepted or even understood in side the frames of reference which we
Westerners have from early childhood. We can use all of the usual
arguments such as "what if a terrorist has an A Bomb planted and we have
to torture him" ... all the way to "well what if it were your child held
hostage" .. putting the argument on a personal and direct level versus
generalities.

The argument that we as "civilized countries" should never torture fails
to take into consideration that no people or country should torture. We
always manage to brand Muslim or Japanese or Vietnamese or Cambodians as
barbaric savages -- disregarding their own thousand years of culture.
That is the easy path, make out your enemy to be a savage and then you
can do anything you want to him.

Where does this philosophy take us? Back to the original question "To
torture or not to torture". People who torture should be prepared to
suffer the consequences of their violation of regulations. It is as
simple as that. Those who have been punished after the Abu Ghrab
fiasco, deserved what they received in punishment and in my opinion, the
punishment skipped over a whole lot of other culpable people of all
ranks and services.

What if the regulations change? What if the rules are rewritten and
officially published to say that a certain type of torture is acceptable
whilst others are still OK? This is the Water-boarding versus Bright
Lights theory (argument actually). Is subjecting a prisoner to high
intensity flood lights 24 hours per day while strapped to a chair,
torture .. or simply "harassment". Is strapping the same to an ironing
board type contraption and doing a see-saw with him into a source of
water to emulate drowning torture or only "physical discomfort"?

And if your answer -- as an interrogator -- is that these are "Tortures"
then you are honor and duty bound to refuse any order to comply with
conduct of that torture. A soldier will never get into trouble for
refusing an unlawful order. That, by the way, was the mistake that many
made at Abu Ghrab, they didn't think about their actions, took the words
or orders from someone above them, and rarely refused to act improperly.
Add that mix to the Lynndie England types and her inbred trailer trash
associates, and we had what we had there .. And I am including Generals
Karpinsky and Fast in that description of trailer trash idiots, too.

I am waiting for an answer: To torture or not to torture ... That is
the question.

----------------------------------

Extract from a recent classroom lecture by the author;

Some of my military career was spent conducting interrogations for
Military Intelligence purposes. I am at this time a visiting
"professor" at the University of Military Intelligence at Ft Huachuca,
AZ, where the Department of Defense has combined efforts to train ALL
counterintelligence personnel (including interrogation specialists) in
the proper ways and means to extract information from prisoners.


(c) 2007 by David E. Mann, PhD(Hist)