Changing Hearts and Minds

According to this CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...nts/index.html, we've approved

Using insects to scare someone with a phobia of insects
Nudity and wearing diapers
Sleep deprivation
Waterboarding

Now, these seem to fall into two categories for me. A "disrespecting" category, and a "threatening" category.

I'm not sure which I find worse. Let's see what George Washington had to say about detainment:

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

And another quote...

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands".

Does anyone think that the example put forth by the US today would be approved of by Washington? Do you think Washington was limiting his treatment of prisoners to the British because they were legal combatants?

If the Libs want to live in their ivory towers and believe the world is a beautiful place, that's great.

But stfu and let men fight fire with fire.

A fucking caterpillar? Waterboarding? Seriously, stfu.

And Washington would be disgusted with this Country even though he was a Federalist; so I could really care less what he thought of present day watered down torture.

So, do you think that authorizing such treatments does nothing to help the enemy's recruitment efforts?

I don't care.

These boys and men are free to join whatever they want.

Thank goodness the country has taken a turn away from the mindset if we do immoral things it is okay because we are morally superior. The neo-cons would love to convert the US into a fascist state. For the time being Bush and co screwed things up so badly that it will be a long time, if ever, before the neo-cons can claw their way back to power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

I don't care.

These boys and men are free to join whatever they want.

---

Do you not care about preventing/frustrating Al Qaeda's recruitment? Why are you against America? lol

what an unchristian like mindset.

Washington, at least, exhibited restraint of a kind uncommonly shown by today's political "leaders."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

I don't care.

---

Then why are you posting about it?

Dick Cheney/24 fantasies aside, I prefer America's keeping the moral high ground.

These guys are very familiar with their own chopping off heads on video.

Chopping.

Off.

Heads.

If the last straw is seeing their own being deprived of sleep, having to be close to bugs, loud music, waterboarding, etc....logical thinking would tell me they were pretty damn close to the edge in being recruited already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byrontx

Thank goodness the country has taken a turn away from the mindset if we do immoral things it is okay because we are morally superior. The neo-cons would love to convert the US into a fascist state. For the time being Bush and co screwed things up so badly that it will be a long time, if ever, before the neo-cons can claw their way back to power.

---

So confident in your analysis you remain completely blind to the control grab by the equally as dangerous far-left. :rollin

I'm still waiting for Obama to pull all U.S. forces out from over 100 countries and end the completely pointless "war" in Afghan/Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Then why are you posting about it?

---

Because I am. What do you care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

Because I am. What do you care?

---

Because I do.

It's pretty apparent you do too.

No, I just get annoyed by you pussies crying about caterpillars when U.S. soldiers & contractor profiteer's heads are getting Duncan McLeod'd.

You all live in a fairy tale thinking these types of people respect moral objectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

so I could really care less what he thought of present day watered down torture.

---

Of course you could care less. You hate America; it only makes sense that you'd hate the rational of its founders.

And you're a bigot.

:lmao

You repeat the handbook very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

No, I just get annoyed by you pussies crying about caterpillars when U.S. soldiers & contractor profiteer's heads are getting Duncan McLeod'd.

You all live in a fairy tale thinking these types of people respect moral objectivity.

---

It's not the head choppers hearts and minds we are talking about. We can't expect you to make any distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

If the Libs want to live in their ivory towers and believe the world is a beautiful place, that's great.

But stfu and let men fight fire with fire.

A fucking caterpillar? Waterboarding? Seriously, stfu.

---

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/...ofyourself.jpg

When fucktards like yourself want to remove one of the best weapons in our arsenal, namely moral authority, it pisses me off immensely.

"Dur dee dur, torture is for *real* men, and if we don't do it teh terrorists win."

When morons like yourself can't tell the difference between the real world of intelligence gathering and the Hollywood movies that they think pass for reality, you cease becoming idiots and become dangerous idiots.

Dangerous, because torture of anybody in our custody boomerangs on us sooner or later.

If you don't think so, then you should venture out into the real world, visit a jihadi website on occasion, and see how the pictures of Abu Gharaib are used to recruit new jihadis.

If you dont' think so, then ask ANY soldier about whether or not we should torture. THEY are the ones who would ultimately bear the reduction in standards, should they be captured. Just about every soldier I have ever talked to, as well as my own personal feelings on the matter jive with this.

Sure the idiots we are fighting will chop off heads, and do all sorts of nasty things.

What intellectual midgets such as yourself just can't wrap your tiny brains around, is that such horrific videos tend to turn people off to their cause, and be antithetical.

Just as our torture turns people off to our cause.

You fucking dangerous moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Dick Cheney/24 fantasies aside, I prefer America's keeping the moral high ground.

---

Ok Chump - you can keep the moral high ground while they're chopping off your head for no other reason than you're an American.

Me - I'll take whatever means necessary to get the information necessary to prevent another 9/11. And they don't need pictures of Abu Gharib to recruit - these kids are taught from very early ages to hate the infidel and that to die for jihad is a noble calling.

The highly abstract tone and globalized attribution of fact in #20 prevent any keen analysis of the claims made there.

They bad. Us good. We do bad things to them? They did bad things to us! They deserve it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Ok Chump - you can keep the moral high ground while they're chopping off your head for no other reason than you're an American.

Me - I'll take whatever means necessary to get the information necessary to prevent another 9/11.

---

Like chopping their heads off for no other reason than they are Muslim, right?

Quote:

---

And they don't need pictures of Abu Gharib to recruit - these kids are taught from very early ages to hate the infidel and that to die for jihad is a noble calling.

---

See, that's where you expose yourself as a moronic simpleton.

The jihadis are not the hearts and minds we are trying to affect here.

You're too stupid to realize your idiotic, xenophobic "all Muslims are taught to chop our heads off" mentality for what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Ok Chump - you can keep the moral high ground while they're chopping off your head for no other reason than you're an American.

Me - I'll take whatever means necessary to get the information necessary to prevent another 9/11. And they don't need pictures of Abu Gharib to recruit - these kids are taught from very early ages to hate the infidel and that to die for jihad is a noble calling.

---

Congratulations, you have moved from the simple idiot category to the dangerous idiot category.

The people who cut off heads will do so whether or not we torture people.

The people who we *can* influence, will either be less inclined to help us, or more inclined to join the jihadis.

Despite what you have been told, not all muslims are jihadis. If you really think that is the case, then tell me, so I can stop bothering with you. If you think this, then you have been watching too many movies.

The people we need to influence are the fence sitters and potential recruits who don't hate us. The border guard who might suspect that a passport is fake, but declines to act. THAT is who we influence, not the current jihadis.

It is people like you who truly don't understand the nature of the conflict we are fighting and advocate things like this that act against our best long term interests.

Al Qaeda recruits new jihadis and sympathizers by making them beleive we are evil.

How does torturing people fight the idea that we are evil?

It's an insane pissing contest. *Their* sadism and inhumanity apparently obligate our own.

If you focus too closely on the evil you're fighting, you are liable to take on the qualities you hate *them* for. Friends become alienated, potential friends grow wary, and our bad conduct proves in the minds of our enemies the justice of their own cause.

Why do you think this admin released that memo?

Transparency?

I have no problem with this man being tortured.

http://autone.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/450_ksm.jpg

My bad. Wrong photo.


http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/up...ksmohammed.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Why do you think this admin released that memo?

Transparency?

---

Why do you think they did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

My bad. Wrong photo.


http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/up...ksmohammed.jpg

---

Rosie is looking pretty good these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why do you think they did?

---

Demonize Bush admin and portray the current admin as a "kinder, gentler" America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I have no problem with this man being tortured.

http://autone.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/450_ksm.jpg

---

The fact that to you torture is a joke says something about you, Darrin.

If you had said the same about KSM I'd have some respect for you for making a strong case, but photoshopping Rosie O' Donnell in and encouraging us to laugh at our own urge to torture someone is sneaky and pandering IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The fact that to you torture is a joke says something about you, Darrin.

If you had said the same about KSM I'd have some respect for you for making a strong case, but photoshopping Rosie O' Donnell in and encouraging us to laugh at our own urge to torture someone is sneaky and pandering IMO.

---

Damn. Lighten up, WH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Damn. Lighten up, WH.

---

Topicality!

We were talking about torture. Effing pay attention!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Topicality!

We were talking about torture. Effing pay attention!

---

Is this what you guys are so deadly serious about...?

Quote:

---

Using insects to scare someone with a phobia of insects
Nudity and wearing diapers
Sleep deprivation
Waterboarding

---

Is that stuff really all that bad?

How about having to choose between burning to death and jumping to your death?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Damn. Lighten up, WH.

---

I normally think WH is as good a poster as exists on these boards. And I wouldn't say the same about you Darrin (or myself). And I'm not bothering to go back to look at page one for context, but I can agree with that. Seemed innocuous enough to me.

And these same people that you bleeding hearts are so worried about would stone a woman for being caught in the company of any man who is not a blood relative.


Heaven forbid, don't make these guys spend time in a room with a spider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballijuana

I normally think WH is as good a poster as exists on these boards. And I wouldn't say the same about you Darrin (or myself). And I'm not bothering to go back to look at page one for context, but I can agree with that. Seemed innocuous enough to me.

---

I was flattered that he thought I took the time to Photoshop that myself.

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

lol at the pre-emptive reference to conservatives taking their policy from movies. And
lol at crooks ass-ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rg

When morons like yourself can't tell the difference between the real world of intelligence gathering and the Hollywood movies that they think pass for reality, you cease becoming idiots and become dangerous idiots.

---

I thought it was funny too, but I also had a harsh reasoned response to the post. It's reflected in my somewhat ironic wording.

Torture is not a fucking joke. Sen Graham of SC described the Abu Ghraib tapes as including *serious crimes* like "rape and murder". Allegations and official disclosures of * harsh methods of interrogation* are already legion -- have you read any of them Darrin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballijuana

lol at the hours ago reference to conservatives taking their policy from movies.

---

That was a good movie though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I thought it was funny too, but I also had a harsh reasoned response to the post. It's reflected in my somewhat ironic wording.

Torture is not a fucking joke. Sen Graham of SC described the Abu Ghraib tapes as including *serious crimes* like "rape and murder".

---

There was a leadership problem at Abu Ghraib and that situation was dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Allegations and official disclosures of * harsh methods of interrogation* are already legion -- have you read any of them Darrin?

---

[/QUOTE]

As a rule, I'm against REAL torture. I don't have any issue with the list of unpleasantries in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

That was a good movie though.

---

And from what I understand, it was a pretty accurate depiction of General Patton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

How about protecting our troops?

If we're not only known to torture prisoners but advertise it as our official policy, defined officially as non-torture of course, are our troops more or less likely to be mistreated? Reciprocity governs relations between nations friendly and unfriendly. Isn't having a policy of mistreating prisoners foolish?

We also introduced the mirage of due diligence by having doctors monitior *stressed out* prisoners, thereby quashing any imputation as to motive: physicians were present. No harm was intended, or at least -- no critical, legally defined threshold of pain.

yeah, if only patton could get al-qaeda to line up like germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

And from what I understand, it was a pretty accurate depiction of General Patton.

---

According to legend, Patton had a high, whiny, feminine voice.

Torture will not cease to exist it'll just be better hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

According to legend, Patton had a high, whiny, feminine voice.

---

that would have never worked on the big screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Torture will not cease to exist it'll just be better hidden.

---

Having it as official policy is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

that would have never worked on the big screen.

---

It worked in real life, that is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Having it as official policy is stupid.

---

True but since Bush and Cheney didn't see it as torture they didn't see it as official policy so therefore it was never official policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It worked in real life, that is enough.

---

Maybe he was faking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

As a rule, I'm against REAL torture. I don't have any issue with the list of unpleasantries in the OP.

---

Why limit yourself to the OP? The public record is extensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Maybe he was faking it.

---

I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

True but since Bush and Cheney didn't see it as torture they didn't see it as official policy so therefore it was never official policy.

---

True, but this judgment was invidious. I hate to think who'd be tempted to repeat the experiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

Torture will not cease to exist it'll just be better hidden.

---

Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Is this what you guys are so deadly serious about...?



Is that stuff really all that bad?

How about having to choose between burning to death and jumping to your death?

---

That's really past the 'torture' mark there, into 'killing'.

The thing is, these things in ISOLATION wouldn't be so bad. But taken together, their effects multiply. They have a synergistic effect.

Let's put it this way. You could come home and say you had a bad day at work if you were late, the boss was an asshole, you had a headache and you couldn't finish up the big proposal.

Any of those things by themselves, you'd be pissed, but it wouldn't affect you nearly as much as all of them occurring either together or within a short amount of time.

Sleep deprivation is one of the worst, in my mind, as it confuses the mind and is very good for forcing people to say whatever you want them to as long as you promise them sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And these same people that you bleeding hearts are so worried about would stone a woman for being caught in the company of any man who is not a blood relative.


Heaven forbid, don't make these guys spend time in a room with a spider.

---

Darrin, do you believe EVERYONE we've tortured is guilty? Or has actionable intelligence?

Or do you think that a few might have been captured due to a mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

---

I'm in the military, putz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

There was a leadership problem at Abu Ghraib and that situation was dealt with.

---

As a rule, I'm against REAL torture. I don't have any issue with the list of unpleasantries in the OP.[/quote]

So, are you of the mind that Germans shouldn't have been prosecuted for doing the same after WWII?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...fte_verne.html

The military shouldn't have anything to do with the sort of interrogation under discussion IMO. I know that reflects a pre-9/11 mindset, but I don't believe 9/11 was a bridge we burned after crossing it.

9/11 didn't erase our previous history, it only rendered it *temporarily* quaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Is this what you guys are so deadly serious about...?



Is that stuff really all that bad?

---

So you are fine with all that being done to our soldiers if they were ever captured in any war.

Ok, I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And these same people that you bleeding hearts are so worried about would stone a woman for being caught in the company of any man who is not a blood relative.


Heaven forbid, don't make these guys spend time in a room with a spider.

---

Heaven forbid you could ever understand whose hearts and minds are actually at issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

We should slap around our own soldiers suffering from PTSD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

---

Sure we do. We don't like some of the things they are ordered to do.

Quote:

---

So you are fine with all that being done to our soldiers if they were ever captured in any war.

---

...forget captured troops, would he be fine with this kinda torture happening to him in a Mexican prison....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

(Psst -- they don't really like the military)

---

One of my arguments was based on respect for the military, and my having been a proud member of that miltitary.

Fuck your useless stereotypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I think some of you guys need to watch Patton again. That's the kind of military leadership we need - none of this moral high ground crap.

---

As I said before, a dangerous idiot.

9-11 came along and slapped us in the face with our collective ignorance of the rest of the world.

The first thing I did was seek out middle easterners and muslims, and start picking their brains about it.

I read and researched as much as I could on Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda movement, and islamic extremism in general.

Did people like you go out and bother talking to muslims after this to learn something?

No.

You and Darrin, and Yonivore, and just about every other conservative I have ever talked to seems to be comfortable in a bubble of ignorance.

For some reason, you want to feel comforted by some simplistic view of the outside word in which "us" and "them" are black and white, survival depends on doing things that undermine our most deeply held principles and morals, and every muslim is out to get us. That is dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Tsu

If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

---

Knowing the enemy is one of the most basic principles of war, and as obvious thousands of years ago as today.

Understanding the nature of the conflict you are fighting is *the* first step in formulating a cohesive response.

Patton fought a standing army of a formal nation state. His opponents used a level of technology similar to his, sometimes superior actually, they wore uniforms, and were rather easy to spot on the battlefield.

I'm sorry, but islamic extremists have none of those characteristics.

The nature of this struggle is that of a war of ideas.

On one side is the USA.

Our idea is that we are a righteous democracy, generous, and respecting of the basic human rights embodied in our constitution and fought for by millions of our own citizens willing to give their lives for nothing more concrete than principles.

Their idea is that we are an evil empire. We are hypocrites who not only don't respect the supposed rights we say we promote, we are a force of evil by supporting the various corrupt tyrannies that populate developing world governments. Our secular, liberal "democracy" is hollow and out to get islam. We are interested in nothing but power.

The more people they convince of this idea, the more recruits they have, and the more ability they have to harm us.

The more we convince people of our idea, the more cooperation we get in general, and the fewer recruits they get.

The more violent and less ethical we become the more they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

As I said before, a dangerous idiot.

9-11 came along and slapped us in the face with our collective ignorance of the rest of the world.

The first thing I did was seek out middle easterners and muslims, and start picking their brains about it.

I read and researched as much as I could on Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda movement, and islamic extremism in general.

Did people like you go out and bother talking to muslims after this to learn something?

No.

You and Darrin, and Yonivore, and just about every other conservative I have ever talked to seems to be comfortable in a bubble of ignorance.

For some reason, you want to feel comforted by some simplistic view of the outside word in which "us" and "them" are black and white, survival depends on doing things that undermine our most deeply held principles and morals, and every muslim is out to get us. That is dangerous.



Knowing the enemy is one of the most basic principles of war, and as obvious thousands of years ago as today.

Understanding the nature of the conflict you are fighting is *the* first step in formulating a cohesive response.

Patton fought a standing army of a formal nation state. His opponents used a level of technology similar to his, sometimes superior actually, they wore uniforms, and were rather easy to spot on the battlefield.

I'm sorry, but islamic extremists have none of those characteristics.

The nature of this struggle is that of a war of ideas.

On one side is the USA.

Our idea is that we are a righteous democracy, generous, and respecting of the basic human rights embodied in our constitution and fought for by millions of our own citizens willing to give their lives for nothing more concrete than principles.

Their idea is that we are an evil empire. We are hypocrites who not only don't respect the supposed rights we say we promote, we are a force of evil by supporting the various corrupt tyrannies that populate developing world governments. Our secular, liberal "democracy" is hollow and out to get islam. We are interested in nothing but power.

The more people they convince of this idea, the more recruits they have, and the more ability they have to harm us.

The more we convince people of our idea, the more cooperation we get in general, and the fewer recruits they get.

The more violent and less ethical we become the more they win.

---

So did you the read part about the terrorists being crazy fucking lunatics and hate every single non-muslim and it was their duty to kill us all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clandestino

So did you the read part about the terrorists being crazy fucking lunatics and hate every single non-muslim and it was their duty to kill us all?

---

Indeed.

The hard core fanatics are hard to turn.

I have also read up on a few of them who have turned their back on the extremism.

Your problem with perceiving this conflict correctly is that you seem to think that all muslims are part of Al Qaeda.

They aren't.

It isn't the opinion or sympathies of the hard core types that you have to sway, is it?

It is the fence sitters who *might* join. THAT is the group of people you fight for by not being violent and unethical.

We won the fight in Iraq against them, partly because they are murderous fucks who kill indescriminantly. The sunni population turned against Al Qaeda partly for that reason.

Our change in tactics was actually to release MORE prisoners, and use LESS force. We got "softer" and became stronger.

Wrap your mind around THAT.

"Why do you think this admin released that memo"

why do you think dubya kept those documents secret? national security? war on terror?

We learned a lot of lessons in Vietnam, and that all got boiled down into the Army's counterinsurgency manual.

We fought Iraq for 3 years the "conservative" (read: ignorant) way. Round up anybody who we even *thought* was a sympathizer, stick 'em all in a prison, and don't worry about a little collateral damage from that airstrike...

Then suddenly we discovered that (gasp) we learned something from Vietnam, and had actually written a book on it. They changed strategy and tactics to take advantage of this, and unsurpisingly it worked.

Soft power is far more important than hard power in the struggle against extremists.

Killing is necessary, but not sufficient.

Torturing prisoners, for any reason, hurts your cause far more than any short-term intelligence gain.

Before this issue of torture by insects and diapers was on the table, before the EEEEEVIL George W. Bush was even governor of Texas, why did Islamic terrorists bomb the WTC in 1993?


Were we not winning their hearts and minds back then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Before this issue of torture by insects and diapers was on the table, before the EEEEEVIL George W. Bush was even governor of Texas, why did Islamic terrorists bomb the WTC in 1993?


Were we not winning their hearts and minds back then?

---

No, not really.

We had always been dimly aware of terrorism up until then, but it had been mostly a few hijacked airliners.

We became a bit more aware of it, and concentrated a few more resources to it, but it takes a good bloody nose like 9-11 to get people's attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

According to this CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...nts/index.html, we've approved

Using insects to scare someone with a phobia of insects
Nudity and wearing diapers
Sleep deprivation
Waterboarding

Now, these seem to fall into two categories for me. A "disrespecting" category, and a "threatening" category.

I'm not sure which I find worse. Let's see what George Washington had to say about detainment:

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

And another quote...

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands".

Does anyone think that the example put forth by the US today would be approved of by Washington? Do you think Washington was limiting his treatment of prisoners to the British because they were legal combatants?

---

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war!...... Washington and the British both prosecuted war under a common understanding called the "Rules of War"
an understanding that was kept in order to minimize the barbarity that is war. I don't think for a moment he would have extended that understanding to Al Queda. The tatic Al Queda uses, is to use war to maximze terror and barbarisim not minimize it. But that's not really the question your asking is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war!...... Washington and the British both prosecuted war under a common understanding called the "Rules of War"
an understanding that was kept in order to minimize the barbarity that is war. I don't think for a moment he would have extended that understanding to Al Queda. The tatic Al Queda uses, is to use war to maximze terror and barbarisim not minimize it. But that's not really the question your asking is it.

---

So you want the US to become like Al Qaeda.

I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war!...... Washington and the British both prosecuted war under a common understanding called the "Rules of War"
an understanding that was kept in order to minimize the barbarity that is war. I don't think for a moment he would have extended that understanding to Al Queda. The tatic Al Queda uses, is to use war to maximze terror and barbarisim not minimize it. But that's not really the question your asking is it.

---

You are a moron. Did you read the VERY LAST PART OF MY POST? In which I asked that very question?!?

Quote:

---

Does anyone think that the example put forth by the US today would be approved of by Washington? Do you think Washington was limiting his treatment of prisoners to the British because they were legal combatants?

---

Idiot.

Now, if you think that's the case, then why would Washington say "Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army..."?

Think about it. The only reason there for not copying the British army is to show that America was on the side of morality, righteousness, and good. Isn't that correct?

Given that quote, would it make sense to think that Washington was fine with setting an example of respect for regimented soldiers, but would be fine with doing such to an unregulated militia (ie. terrorist)?