Remind me again why we should treat enemy combatants

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure Chicos could make a point without quoting Rosie O'Donnell.  Nevertheless, this issue has nothing to do with the right or left.  Thankfully, the majority of Republicans and Democrats don't believe we should tourture just because Al Qaeda does.

I make points all the time without Rosie, but she's such a treasure trove....like a liberal pez dispensor of idiocy that it isn't hard to just watch her for 3 minutes and grab 4 or 5 of them. 

And I'd like to know what you define as torture because most Republicans I know are all for the tactics we are using which I wouldn't define as torture, yet many on the left do.


If you want a better quote, then here.  "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Great quote.  I believe in it 100%.  But you imply that its meaning is "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do evil."

Does it matter what I define as torture?  I only responded to your initial post which was, why are we adhering to the Geneva Convention when Al Qaeda is torturing people.  I answered why I thought we do.

BTW - Are there really Republicans (and I mean in our government, not you and your buddies) that are advocating we break from the way we treat P.O.W.s set forth in the Geneva Convention that we helped draft and signed?

Actually I don't imply that at all with the quote.  My reading of the quote is that if good men sit around and do nothing when bad deeds are done, then evil will succeed.  This is why I believe it was good to take out Saddam Hussein...an evil man who killed many, supported terrorism (funded it actually), etc, etc.  That's why I believe we should do more in Darfur and elsewhere.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think this whole beacon thing is great.  I also think you need to compare apples to apples.  We get weakneed over waterboarding for #$&*#^ sake and these guys are decapitating, cutting balls off, maiming, etc.  Night and day differences.

And you know what, ask a WWII vet how we treated some of the enemy back in 1943, 44, and 45.  We were serious back then, we played to win because that's what is ULTIMATELY important.   The enemy was scared of us then, not now.  They just laugh.  They know when we catch them they're going to get 3 squares and a chance to watch Jeopardy at night on the tube.  Yeah, I'm being sarcastic but I guess I don't understand why during WWII we could rough up a few folks under the greatest generation with the clear intent to get information and to demonstrate being caught wasn't a vacation, yet now we can't waterboard someone without everyone getting hot under the collar.

Exactly when did the country take the hard left turn to being soft?  1966?  When exactly was the date because se still haven't recovered.

Chicos,
Great point, being a military guy I can personally atest to the emotions and physical anger myself and my peers have gone through witnessing terrorist tactics.  Sometimes it is very difficult to overcome and "rise to the higher moral ground".  Those that think the interrogation tactics we utilize are barbaric or considered torture haven't witnessed the destruction wrought on innocent civilians as terrorists tried to attack an Iraqi convoy with an VBIED (Vehicle Born IED) and only hit an elementary school for girls.  Yes, our society is "civilized" and recognizes that torture is wrong, barbaric, unethical, etc but those who have lived or operated in the Iraqi culture don't understand how "civilized" actions appear to iraqis.  If you arrest an IED maker and put him in jail for 10 years (the standard sentence in Iraq) he, as well as his peers, laugh because its a weak or soft consequence.  Why is prison a sign of weakness?  Because under the previous regime if you were found guilty of stealing a loaf of bread or not bowing when you met saddam he simply shot you in the leg.  Living under a cloak of fear and intimidation and suddenly seeing what democracy is like has been a bit too much for these people.  Talking with an Iraqi general last year who was an Iraqi officer in Saddam's army he relayed this story:
Nowadays, many terrorists shoot rockets or mortars into our military FOBs or camps.  We normally search out the location of the round and many times find empty tubes or a few rounds laying around so we go house to house and ask who did it and of course nobody says a word for fear of being hurt by the terrorists who fired the rounds.  We asked the General what they used to do and he said they would go back to where they "think" the round came from not necessarily where it actually came from and they'd kill all the livestock in that area and tell the people that if another round came from this direction they'd be back to kill their family.  You think another round came from that area?  hell no because if somebody suspicous came into their neighborhood they were watched and monitored like a hawk for fear of losing their loved ones.  So we asked what the Iraqis planned on doing once the Americans left.  "We'll go back to how we used to do it" he said.  My Iraqi counterpart also wanted more public hangings for any kind of crime, theft or murder, or even jaywalking to restore law and order but of course US command won't allow that so in the meantime they have to follow suit with what we do all the while waiting for the day when we leave and they can go back to business as usual.

 

I agree with you Army.  Sometimes you have to be overly oppressive with zero tolerance and this particular situation is one that is perfect for it.  Zero tolerance.  It wouldn't be pretty and people would howl, but you could turn the situation around in a matter of months with a zero tolerance policy. 

Once the JAG lawyers and politicans get into how to fight a war....well it's all over.  Tie one hand behind their back, don't engage until engaged, don't have live rounds in your guns while on patrol...these are some of the famously fabulous decisions that have cost thousands of American lives over the last 30 years because of stupid Rules of Engagement and force response in the name of not hurting someone's feelings in Washington.  If you're going to fight, then fight to win.