Replies

History tells us the truth. In the all-out wars that we have won, there have been numerous time-critical, combat situations where much more severe methods were used to extract information so that missions could be accomplished, US casualties minimized and ultimately the war won.

That doesn't mean those people enjoyed what they had to do...it doesn't mean we became the enemy because their is a huge moral difference between the baisis for fighting the war and, in 99% of the cases, between the very methods and intent of the severe circumstances.

If someone is toturing, dismembering or brutalizing for the sake of the brutality or in sadistic ways...then, yes, punish the deed. Or, if someone uses their judgement in a case like this to extract info and that judgment proves out wrong...then discipline the one doing so.

But when the judgement proves correct, when the mission is accomplished, when US casualties are minimized or altogether avoided...and when the very prisoner is neither seriously injured or permanently marked in any way (and IMHO, even if he was), then you should laud the officer and seek more who can do the same, that is have the judgement pan out to the accomplishment of the mission and minimizing or avoiding casualties.

In WW II, my Dad indicates to me that it took almost two years to get to a point where we understood this clearly, understood the mortal danger we faced and the types of ends we had to go to to defeat it and preserve our way of life and very liberty. That learning occurred through hard experience, and the currency was American blood.

Best regards.