You quote the Geneva convention when it's convenient for you, which by the way again, what I suggested in post 107 and 114 is NOT severe and does NOT meet that definition. How do you feel about the fact that the Geneva Conventions CLEARLY STATE that people like the terrorists, DO NOT have ANY Geneva Convention protections, because they are NOT lawful combatants, and they are NOT uniformed or fighting under a nations flag, and they are dressed as civilians, not part of a military organization, wantonly inflicting civilian casualties and attacking our uniformed military from cover, in ambush, dressed like civilians. The Geneva Conventions call that kind of person a "terrorist" and it says CLEARLY that we can shoot such terrorists and no promise of quarter or trial must be given. Since you believe that the Geneva Conventions are so great, do you think it is okay that we shoot all the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else, even if they surrender, because that is EXACTLY what the Geneva Conventions says we can do. Is that okay with you, or do you only subscribe to the parts of the Conventions that work for your argument?
Also, terrorists are NOT defined as POWs or enemy combatants, and additionally have NO protections under the Geneva Conventions once detained, so the rules of the Conventions don't apply to them in the field when captured, or under detention after capture. What do you have to say about THAT? 8)
OH, and you STILL haven't specifically replied to ANY of hte things I asked you about before in my other posts. ESPECIALLY 107 and 114. Are you here to discuss issues, or just spew what you THINK and never back it up with fact? 8)
As I have said, this is a bogus argument. Torture is already illegal, and any soldiers who cross the line already are charged and do serious time.
It might be interesting to read the book The Interrogators, written by an army interrogator. The book is interesting for what it says, and what it doesn't say.
What it says is that interrogators are taught very strict guidelines as to what is permitted, and what is not, and they are repeatedly warned that they will do 10 years in the slammer if they cross the line.
They spend a great deal of time studying the Geneva Convention, as applied to their work, and they know it very well.
He describes how they responded to the difficult demands of trying to extract information from people who didn't want to give it up, and still respect the basic rights of his prisoners. It isn't always clearcut, but they agonized over how and where to draw the line not only so they didn't not go foul of any law, but also so they could remain square with their consciences.
One of the best tools they had, though, was the fact that his prisoners knew that if they did not talk, they might be sent to Guantanamo. That fear was enough to lead many of them to talk. But they had to be careful how they played on that fear; because to do it purposefully crossed the line. You can get an idea from this the kinds of limits interrogators must live within.
They can't touch the prisoner.
Now for the part of the story he doesn't tell in his book, according to what I read elsewhere. After a long run in Afghanistan, where he was a successful interrogator and lead interrogator, he was pushed out by officers who thought he wasn't aggressive enough.
A year later, those officers were themselves charged with abusing prisoners, and relieved from their jobs. So there is a natural tension between the need for information which can save the lives of your fellow soldiers, and the need to respect the humanity of your enemy. Americans are the only fighting-men on earth who care about such things; a lot of countries are signatories, but they don't actually field troops, and when they do, they frequently violate these rules.
We are the only nation on earth that actually respects the humanity of its enemy prisoners. Period.
This argument is misplaced, because its already illegal to torture prisoners. This is an attempt to use civilian courts to go after soldiers and intel agents in a way that has never been allowed, ever, in history. And should not be allowed for very good reason.
One day in Iraq, a JDAM was dropped on a terrorist safe house in a residential neighborhood. It was riskier than normal, but it was the best that could could be done on short notice. Several elusive terrorist leaders were suspected of holding a meeting there, but wouldn't be present for long. A number of adult males (later confirmed to be our targets) were killed in the strike. So were two young children who were apparently playing in the alley behind the house.
I bring this up because having poor intelligence causes our aim to slip, and 'surgical' operations to get dirty. We tell our interrogators that they can't use techniques on terrorists that they can use on U.S. service members in survival training. (We wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of anything.) So we do the best we can.
It's nice to be able to say 'We never torture, no matter how extreme the circumstance', but those words come at a terrible price. We say 'but it's worth it' because it doesn't cost us a dime. The word 'torture' really hits us in the gut, but 'civilian casualties'? They're just the cost of doing business, aren't they?
Those two kids didn't have to die, by the way. We had just captured a guy who had information that would have changed our response entirely. A smirking bastard who knew we wouldn't lay a finger on him, and was right. But were we? I'm not even talking doomsday scenarios, here. No millions of Americans would have been saved if we had taken the gloves off with this man who chose the life he led. Just two young kids in a dirty little town in Iraq no one's ever heard of.