My ex husband is ex SAS, my eldest son is Special Forces, Australian Army...both served in active duty...

I know my sh*t...


Oh... and I have asked.... they are trained specifically to deal with situations that may arise where torture may be used...

If you took the time to read what I wrote and not what you chose to see I didn't state that there was no difference. What I stated was a willing small loss of morality (ie: justification for torture) has a tendency to grow, that is snowball, into a greater loss of morality. So when does it end? When you become as vile as that which you seek to defeat? Makes for a hollow victory.

Then there is the matter that not all those picked up for 'interrogation' will have knowledge of anything or be connected with the 'enemy' yet in torturing them (collateral damage)you create more 'enemies' seeking to right a wrong.

Just so you dont get any ideas that im speaking out my as*s
Brother-USMC one of the first to step foot in that desert.
Good friend from highschool-Army rangers-2 tours
3more friends from school- USMC- 2infantry/1medic
I think ive got you trumpted. Im outa hear see yall tomarrow night.

Is this a 'my penis is bigger than your penis' moment?

Hmmmmm. SAS

AO: South Atlantic somewhere between the Falkland and Antarctica


A Zodiac with a full team of SAS was lost at sea when pushed off course by s a sudden storm they refused to break radio silence though they were authorized to do so in emergency conditions. These men were headed to the Falklands a month ahead of the Naval Strike Force to prepare for the invasion and mark targets. The entire team froze to death on their Zodiac.

Note: The SAS have what is considered one of the toughest training regimens and selection processes in the world.
SAS are sent into areas for covert missions which never see the light of day but make work easier for regular troops going in.
SAS personnel are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor.

Australian SAS highly respected by American troops for assistance rendered during the Vietnam conflict.


SAS troops have never been accused of torture or anything which could bring disrespect or dishonor to their Regiment.

Thanks Karma... but what would I know? I was only married to an SAS man for 18 years, and mother to a Special Forces person for 23 years...

I cant trump friendship... I was just a wife and mother...

believe what you will

but there is a big difference

between

having friends

and living with it

but thanks to all of them

No, but the key word there is ACCUSED. Anyway, im not going to get into this part of the argument. There is a time and place for anything. But a soldier, special forces or not, is responsible for doing only what he or she needs to do to accomplish the mission. There is a certain warrior code i believe in to this day. But the lives of my fellow soldiers comes before the humiliation of an enemy. There are extremes i would not turn to though. However, I'm willing to bet in a desparate situation anyone would resort to being brutal so save his or her family, whatever that family may be. Jess i admire your outlook on the world. I wish everyone on the planet thought as you do. There would be no war. It is a precious state of mind.

But one thing everyone needs to understand is war itself is unimaginably brutal and cruel.

Aside from all that i think my big issue on this topic is what we consider torture.

And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had been long abandoned ... -- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."
....1984, George Orwell

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html#cnnSTCText

Just an article for those that say torture doesn't work. I am not saying I am for torture. I am just saying it can work. In fact, the guy in this article that performed the water boarding doesn't like it personally and doesn't wish to do it again, yet states it is effective for gathering information.

OK, what we have here is a minority,
BUSH and Cheney, overruling a majority.

A majority of people backed up with experience
and first hand knowledge
involving the effectiveness and morality of torture,
vs. Bush, a draft evader, who used his daddy's money and power so he could remain safe at home and pursue the fine arts of whiskey and cocaine.

Here's a bit of the arguments involved:

John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions. McCain said military officers have implored Congress for guidelines, adding that he mourns "what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget . . .that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies."

that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies."

I said that earlier, do we really want to blur the differences between what an American is, and the enemy.
When I volunteered, I did so knowing that for ages America's enemies had tortured American POW's. I knew that and still served with a conscience, my greatest motivation being that we are different and better than our enemies."


The amendment that Bush is vetoing was written by John McCain, and passed the Senate with a vote of 90 to 9. Before the vote, McCain gave a speech on the Senate floor. I wont paste the entire speech, just his opening line directed at the very things being discussed here.

McCain said terrorists "hold in contempt" international conventions "such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture."

"I know that," he said. "But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith.".........

The list of experts that endorsed the Amendment look like a who's who in America's military leadership, including Colin L. Powell, who endorsed the amendment and said it would help address "the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib."

A letter from Army Capt. Ian Fishback, who has fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Over 17 months, he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees?"
"But he found no answers. . . . The Congress has a responsibility to answer this call."

Congress answered, Bush Vetoes!
Who said he listens to the available advice of experts advisers?
This is just another example of the Bush, I know better policies!

McCain,
IN MY EXPERIENCE, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear-whether it is true or false-if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

and you want to lower our standards??
For what? Bad intel!

Lets suppose we capture and torture a man involved in a terrorist attack on the US before the attack takes place!
He gives info that say the attack will take place in California.
We dispatch all available personnel to the West Coast to prevent the attack.
While they are there, the attack takes place, only in Miami instead.
Did the torture generate useful intel or a distraction which ensured its success.

All the arguments I hear for lowering ourselves to the standards of the enemy (Terrorists), involve a tit for tat mentality. A mentality that threatens the very core of American morality.
A mentality shared by a Minority!

I will say this yet again for any and all proponents of torture, do not allow that which you would not want done to you.

For the slower folks this means, the enemy may be you one day, do not okay that which you would not accept done to you for gathering information.

Torturing humans should not be allowed, never ever.

If it is accepted at any level as "okay" the backlash of that is ALL officers of protection and control in a country get a free hand at "whatever it takes to do what they think is right", and you will one day see torture in your neighborhood by your protectors.

It cannot be acceptable to us.

i guess my real concern is what determines torture? Causing any discomfort or humiliation? Should we hook them up with internet cable t.v. and comfy furniture? I'm really not for torture, but sometimes what people define torture as is just plain ridiculous. There is no reason to complain about them living in an 8 by 8 room. And like i said, sleep deprivation is a bit of a stretch to identify as torture.

What would happen if you were in the wrong place at the right time and the government felt you knew something that you were refusing to tell them and they "simulated drowning" on you to get you to tell that which you did not know? Denied you of sleep, food, water, etc.... And got worse and worse with you because you kept not telling them what they wanted to hear. How would you feel about that?

Do not tell me that the tortured are less than you, they are human, regardless to their beliefs, actions, etc..... They are the same as you in the sense of a human life. If they did terrible things then they deserve punishment under our laws but torture is not a punishment under human laws, it is torture.

i've never been waterboarded, however i have been sleep deprived, humiliated and even malnurished. I know what most of this is like, but what exactly constitutes torture? Does what your saying mean that we should put our prisoners in the hilton to make their stay more comfortable? Where is the line drawn? Should we shoot them up with drugs instead of sleep depriving them?

The sad truth is that the United Stated of America is a corporation. President Bush is the President of a corporation.

The Fed is a privately own corporation.

The I.R.S. is a collection agency and a corporation.

Who owns these corporations? Don't think for one moment that you do or that the tax payers do. They don't.

Let's just say that "The Company" owns these corporations.

The Company has control over the CIA. The Corporation of the United States doesn't. The CIA is not under the control of the United States. It was supposed to be an entity that gathers information. It may do a little of that, but the information it gathers is for the Company, not for the U.S. Other things the CIA does are, black OPS, selling drugs, over-throw of small third world companies (for the company) selling weapons, etc. Well they do just about anything they are asked no matter how illegal or immoral. They will laugh in the face of anyone from the Corporation of the United Stated trying to tell them what to do.

There are two divisions in the CIA. Half don't know what the other half is doing. They know things only on the need to know basis. They only do what they are told.

There are other groups, trained as terrorists and black OPs who also train other terrorists. There is a lot of corruption in the world, and a lot going on that most are not aware of.

I think we should treat them with humanity.
At least as well as we treat our domestic Felons.
Treat them in a way that sets an example of morals.
Even when confronted with their inhumanity!

At least then we will have respect!

Torture is torture. Doing things to people to get them to talk is torture. We cannot be accepting of this technique at all. If we do then we are no better than terrorists, criminals, tyrants.

Punishment of people for wrong doing that is proven is a whole different thing. Do I believe that an 8 x8 cell is torture, to me hell yea, can't even imagine it but that is our form of punishment. Our jailing and housing humans like animals is not a great system either by any means but it is what we have. We are not to torture these people either for "information", that would be torture.

There is no comparison to placing a person in jail for a PROVEN wrong doing and gathering up people who MAY know something and incarcerating them for the sole purpose of illiciting information from them and not charging them with a crime. No comparison at all.

so, the people that we capture, the ones who were shooting at us, how do we get information from them? And i think you'll find that we don't use any of these techniques on just your average person. They have to be proven to either be, or be aiding the enemy. So i guess my question now is, lets just say we caught a terrorist, or insurgent placing an IED in the road. How do we figure out who he works for? Who his friends are? Etc. This information is crucial to ensure as few people die as possible. This does not apply solely to American soldiers. This is also a matter of keeping civilians safe.

FYI we do get a lot of information through paying off civilians. When they come to us we treat them like gold. Even if we know they are giving us bad intel we still give them stuff. We dont arrest people just because we think they know something