More information on that court-martial

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-18 11:09pm

Col. had two soldiers beat the prisoner around the head and body, then dragged him out to a weapons cleaning area, threw him to the ground, fired his pistol at him, and threatened to kill him. Detainee insisted he didn't know anything about any plot. Nothing in the article as to whether he eventually provided information.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2003-11-19 01:30am

Question: Did the colonel's "interrogation" actually prove useful in preventing an attack upon an American unit? Was the plot genuine? Did the interrogation actually help in preventing it from occurring?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-19 01:31am

Stofsk wrote:Question: Did the colonel's "interrogation" actually prove useful in preventing an attack upon an American unit? Was the plot genuine? Did the interrogation actually help in preventing it from occurring?

Would it have justified this behavior if it did? Do the ends justify the means in your mind?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2003-11-19 02:22am

The Kernel wrote:
Stofsk wrote:Question: Did the colonel's "interrogation" actually prove useful in preventing an attack upon an American unit? Was the plot genuine? Did the interrogation actually help in preventing it from occurring?
Would it have justified this behavior if it did? Do the ends justify the means in your mind?

It's the Colonel that is justifying his behaviour. Which is why I ask, what I hope, is a pertinent question: Did the interrogation actually help prevent an ambush?

If his actions actually did prevent lives being lost then it was justified. It may sound atrocious but this is war - people kill each other in war.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-19 02:29am

Stofsk wrote:Question: Did the colonel's "interrogation" actually prove useful in preventing an attack upon an American unit? Was the plot genuine? Did the interrogation actually help in preventing it from occurring?

In the first reports on this, it was said they the ambush plot was genuine and the information obtained allowed it to be stopped at no American loss. However that has not been confirmed.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-19 10:10am

Stofsk wrote:It's the Colonel that is justifying his behaviour. Which is why I ask, what I hope, is a pertinent question: Did the interrogation actually help prevent an ambush?

If his actions actually did prevent lives being lost then it was justified. It may sound atrocious but this is war - people kill each other in war.

So not only do the ends justify the means according to you, but we should also throw away the Geneva Convention because during war you can do whatever is convenient.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-11-19 10:41am

The Kernel wrote:
Stofsk wrote:It's the Colonel that is justifying his behaviour. Which is why I ask, what I hope, is a pertinent question: Did the interrogation actually help prevent an ambush?

If his actions actually did prevent lives being lost then it was justified. It may sound atrocious but this is war - people kill each other in war.
So not only do the ends justify the means according to you, but we should also throw away the Geneva Convention because during war you can do whatever is convenient.

I think you should explain to him why "the ends justify the means" is such a flawed attitude.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-19 01:32pm

It's not, although one must balance "the end justifies the means" with the concept of human rights. Nevertheless, the usual argument for following the Geneva Convention is that you want your own soldiers to also receive its protections if they are captured by the enemy, so there is a contract between nations to mutually observe it.

In this case, that convention does not hold true; the enemy is unconcerned with humanitarian conventions for the treatment of prisoners. So there is less incentive for the Americans to treat the enemy in a humanitarian fashion, particularly if lapses in such treatment will help save their own soldiers from the enemy's unapologetically inhumane treatment.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-11-19 02:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's not, although one must balance "the end justifies the means" with the concept of human rights. Nevertheless, the usual argument for following the Geneva Convention is that you want your own soldiers to also receive its protections if they are captured by the enemy, so there is a contract between nations to mutually observe it.

In this case, that convention does not hold true; the enemy is unconcerned with humanitarian conventions for the treatment of prisoners. So there is less incentive for the Americans to treat the enemy in a humanitarian fashion, particularly if lapses in such treatment will help save their own soldiers from the enemy's unapologetically inhumane treatment.

Disregarding the conventions and accepting "the ends justify the means" because the enemy doesn't follow them would make sense if this man was an enemy. But he wasn't. He was an Iraqi policeman captured in August. Meaning, he was working with the good guys. And AFAIK, the Americans had no proof he was working for the enemy. Breaking conventions without proof will probably create more problems, even if it does solve the current one.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-19 03:36pm

Disregarding the conventions and accepting "the ends justify the means" because the enemy doesn't follow them would make sense if this man was an enemy. But he wasn't. He was an Iraqi policeman captured in August. Meaning, he was working with the good guys.

Given that he was captured, I'm inclined to think he was doing something he shouldn't have, even if he wasn't outright aiding the enemy. We aren't exactly rounding people up for no good reason.

And AFAIK, the Americans had no proof he was working for the enemy. Breaking conventions without proof will probably create more problems, even if it does solve the current one.

Actually, if the reports are true that he did indeed have detailed information on the raid it would seem that he was indeed guilty.

As for the Colonel's actions, while they are not something to be appluaded, they were done to protect his men against an enemy that has shown their only concern is with killing those they veiw as the enemy. They use ambulances as truck bombs against Red Crescent aid facilities. Against that kind of behaviour, I'm not going to get overly worked up over some deserving shit getting smacked around and intimidated.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-19 06:19pm

Stormbringer wrote: Given that he was captured, I'm inclined to think he was doing something he shouldn't have, even if he wasn't outright aiding the enemy. We aren't exactly rounding people up for no good reason.

Apparently you are unaware of the illegal detention center at Gitmo. Or do you honestly think that those men are all guilty and don't deserve a trial?

Actually, if the reports are true that he did indeed have detailed information on the raid it would seem that he was indeed guilty.

The reports also originally said that the Colonel in question simply intimidated the man with a gunshot, not beat him for information. These reports are HIGHLY questionable.

As for the Colonel's actions, while they are not something to be appluaded, they were done to protect his men against an enemy that has shown their only concern is with killing those they veiw as the enemy. They use ambulances as truck bombs against Red Crescent aid facilities. Against that kind of behaviour, I'm not going to get overly worked up over some deserving shit getting smacked around and intimidated.

Perhaps, but he WAS working for the Iraqi government that we put in place. Bush is the one harping that although there are problems in Iraq, the Iraqi people still have freedom from this kind of oppression. If we don't hold men accountable for actions like these then that freedom is just a buzzword for the politicians to throw around.