Poll: Should We Execute Our Own Generals?

[Graustein]

EDIT:

If they weren't we'd be out of Iraq and Afganistan- you'll have to forgive me, I can't begin to fathom how to spell it properly.

Well in Iraq's case: Do you know how else you'd be out of there? If you hadn't gone their in the first place.

Oh yes, wonderful insight from a guy who doesn't even live in America. Don't go, you have no business there. Wonderful, what would you know of it beyond what you've read in the bias media?

I'dve thought the media in America would be even more biased, considering how emotional you seem to be on the subject.

 

[sidhe3141]

I find all the arguments posted here unconvincing.

*They do it, we should too: They are actively trying to foment discontent on both sides. We, presumably, are trying to do exactly the opposite. If we use their methods, that's counterproductive.

*Generals are responsible for their subordinates' actions: True under normal circumstances. But evidence indicates that the generals weren't to blame here. Instead, most of the orders were given, and many acts performed, by Halliburton employees.

*These people are trying to kill us: And torturing their families and friends remedies that how, exactly?

*Torture is wrong: If it alleviates sufficient suffering (defined as a net amount greater than it inflicts), no it isn't.

*We need to completely obliterate all who oppose us: A victory by forefit is still a victory. And if you can get people to stop opposing you without force or the threat of force, that's better than victory by forefit because you get allies out of it.

*Torture is a nessecary evil in order to extract information from terrorists: Ignoring for the moment that the vast majority of our prisoners AREN'T terrorists (as that point has already been done to death), terror organizations generally operate in small cells according to a rough form of swarm theory. If we do capture someone, the only things they're likely to know that we don't are the names of the other cell members and the minutes of the last meeting.

*Collateral damage is regretable but nessecary: So what? Pointless torture is abominable and unnessecary.

*A war goes to whoever has the biggest gun and is willing to use it: True in conventional warfare, but this isn't a conventional war. Guerrilla warfare goes to whoever has the most popular support.

*You're an idiot: Ad hominem argument.

*9/11!: Appeal to threat fallacy.

*(insert quote here): Appeal to authority fallacy.

*(insert unqualified generalization about Arabs/Iraqis/Muslims/etc. here): (Insert specific counterexample here)

*And can we PLEASE get back on topic?!

 

[Alex_P]

Your saying no, and then espousing the infantile rhetoric "Remember 9/11! They're not held responsible, why should we be?"

No, I am saying that we have tried to hold the moral high ground for 40 YEARS and it hasn't worked. It is time to start fighting fire with fire. Give me twenty nukes and I will make them rue the day they ever HEARD about guns. They will come to understand that if they want to end us, we are MUCH better equipped to end them FIRST. I don't WANT to commit genocide against them, I just feel that we have no other choice...

The Cold War was full of dirty dealings -- the US certainly played a cleaner game than the Soviets and that's something to be proud of, but calling that the "moral high ground" is quite a stretch. How many fascists and tyrants did we support? The US even helped to create the current mess by encouraging Islamic radicalism whenever it looked like a quick way to fuck over the USSR.

Also, who are "they"? If "they" are Al-Qaeda, how are you planning to nuke them, exactly? Just blast some random mountains? Or maybe whichever Iraqi city happens to be the nexus of the fighting this month? Even divorced of any moral or political concerns, your position makes absolutely zero strategic sense.

What, "preemptive war" isn't enough so now we need "preemptive genocide," too?

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

*A war goes to whoever has the biggest gun and is willing to use it: True in conventional warfare, but this isn't a conventional war. Guerrilla warfare goes to whoever has the most popular support.

The "Global War on Terror" in the fullest sense isn't just guerilla warfare, either. It's a whole lot of different things.

-- Alex

 

[Brett Alex]

Oh yes, wonderful insight from a guy who doesn't even live in America. Don't go, you have no business there. Wonderful, what would you know of it beyond what you've read in the bias media?

I was going to say this earlier, but I thought, no, I'll give them a chance.
"You're not American. You don't understand."
Well done. That exact argument can be used to justify almost anything. "You're not part of Al-Qaeda. You don't understand." Does that make it right?

Maybe I don't understand fully, but what I do know, is that the senior US administration (Bush, Cheney and the like included) made 935 False Statements in the lead up to the Iraq War. 935 lies. Thats what the war was waged on. 935 falsehoods. Various intelligence agencies took the fall for this, but some sources have admitted not suppling half of the false statements to the administration.

Linky here [http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/] if you are interested.

Sometimes standing outside of the Zoo gives you insights into things you'd never notice in the cages.

 

[sidhe3141]

*A war goes to whoever has the biggest gun and is willing to use it: True in conventional warfare, but this isn't a conventional war. Guerrilla warfare goes to whoever has the most popular support.

The "Global War on Terror" in the fullest sense isn't just guerilla warfare, either. It's a whole lot of different things.

-- Alex

Good catch. But the same principle applies: both guerilla warfare and the "Global War on Terror" need to be fought as a battle against a state of mind rather than against a concrete enemy.

 

[Graustein]

*Generals are responsible for their subordinates' actions: True under normal circumstances. But evidence indicates that the generals weren't to blame here. Instead, most of the orders were given, and many acts performed, by Halliburton employees.

I can't remember if anyone other than me made this claim, and I thought I specified that the General had to be aware of the acts in question for the blame to lie on their shoulders.

Just clearing that up, sorry if you were referring to someone else or I didn't specify that.

 

[Fire Daemon]

If torturing POW helps the General to save lives and win the war then so be it.

I'm trying and failing to come up with a scenario in which that could possibly be the case.

I can think of many. "Where the road side bombs are hidden" "Where a munitions store is hidden" "Where Nuclear Weapons are hidden" Hell where anything is hidden really. If you can find where the enemy gets his weapons from or from where he plans on attacking you then you gain an advantage in the war.

Assuming they know anything, which isn't guaranteed. Assuming they're actually INVOLVED with the terrorists, which isn't guaranteed. Assuming they have anything against America, which, again, isn't guaranteed but will be once you're through with them. And finally, assuming that this torture actually anything more than sadistic or, as Necroswanson puts it, "emotionally traumatised" guards abusing prisoners for kicks or to vent frustration. Which is what I'm talking about and, surprisingly, not guaranteed.

Not that I condone torture at all, precisely the opposite.

Torturing people who know nothing will be a waste of time if you want strategic information.

And I point back to my previous post for my opinion on people who torture for other reasons then this.

If you want to disagree with what I say don't only select a small part of what I typed, because if you read the entire thing you might see that I agree with you.

 

[Khedive Rex]

You're right, that was uncalled for. Well, that just means it's time for me to duck out before I turn into a babbling blob.
Onto something fun.

Yeah, sounds like a good excuse for me to dip out as well. Bed time!

Oh thank god! Save room for me! I'm escaping to!

SSSSLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPP!!!

 

[Graustein]

Torturing people who know nothing will be a waste of time if you want strategic information.

And I point back to my previous post for my opinion on people who torture for other reasons then this.

If you want to disagree with what I say don't only select a small part of what I typed, because if you read the entire thing you might see that I agree with you.

My mistake. I'd forgotten the whole of what you'd said by the third post in this particular discussion. Sorry bout that.

 

[sidhe3141]

*Generals are responsible for their subordinates' actions: True under normal circumstances. But evidence indicates that the generals weren't to blame here. Instead, most of the orders were given, and many acts performed, by Halliburton employees.

I can't remember if anyone other than me made this claim, and I thought I specified that the General had to be aware of the acts in question for the blame to lie on their shoulders.

Just clearing that up, sorry if you were referring to someone else or I didn't specify that.

I'm not saying that the generals weren't to blame because they didn't know about what was going on (in fact, my opinion is that people that inept shouldn't be generals in the first place); I'm saying that they aren't to blame because there isn't anything they reasonably could have done (Halliburton was responsible and exercises massive corruption, so a general who had spoken out would quickly find themselves replaced by someone who didn't care).
Of course, if the general in question actually DID give orders pertaining to the methods used, the argument works.

 

[Graustein]

Fair enough. I didn't really know the precise details.

My active imagination is now formulating an increasingly unrealistic scenario in which atrocities occur without the general's knowledge and not as a result of any incompetence on the part of the general. It's not going so well

 

[Knight Templar]

No, thats just messed up. Not all of them are as gulity as each other.


And if we kill them what makes us diffrent?

Oh thats right we played by the rules, that washes the blood of.

EDIT, your poll doesn't have a "no", thats wrong.

 

[anti_strunt]

*Generals are responsible for their subordinates' actions: True under normal circumstances. But evidence indicates that the generals weren't to blame here. Instead, most of the orders were given, and many acts performed, by Halliburton employees.

I can't remember if anyone other than me made this claim, and I thought I specified that the General had to be aware of the acts in question for the blame to lie on their shoulders.

Just clearing that up, sorry if you were referring to someone else or I didn't specify that.

I'm not saying that the generals weren't to blame because they didn't know about what was going on (in fact, my opinion is that people that inept shouldn't be generals in the first place); I'm saying that they aren't to blame because there isn't anything they reasonably could have done (Halliburton was responsible and exercises massive corruption, so a general who had spoken out would quickly find themselves replaced by someone who didn't care).
Of course, if the general in question actually DID give orders pertaining to the methods used, the argument works.

I quote the Taguba report (which can be found here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html it's freely available):

13. (U) Another obvious example of the Brigade Leadership not communicating with its Soldiers or ensuring their tactical proficiency concerns the incident of detainee abuse that occurred at Camp Bucca, Iraq, on May 12, 2003. Soldiers from the 223rd MP Company reported to the 800th MP Brigade Command at Camp Bucca, that four Military Police Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had abused a number of detainees during inprocessing at Camp Bucca. An extensive CID investigation determined that four soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had kicked and beaten these detainees following a transport mission from Talil Air Base.

14. (U) Formal charges under the UCMJ were preferred against these Soldiers and an Article-32 Investigation conducted by LTC Gentry. He recommended a general court martial for the four accused, which BG Karpinski supported. Despite this documented abuse, there is no evidence that BG Karpinski ever attempted to remind 800th MP Soldiers of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions regarding detainee treatment or took any steps to ensure that such abuse was not repeated. Nor is there any evidence that LTC(P) Phillabaum, the commander of the Soldiers involved in the Camp Bucca abuse incident, took any initiative to ensure his Soldiers were properly trained regarding detainee treatment.

Brigade General Karpinski was demoted to colonel in 2005.

 

[Intellectual.Osmosis]

As a deployed soldier, I have a few opinions, though I am trying my best to keep my bias in check; being a Bush supporter, Christian, Conservative, and believer in the War on Terror, and proud of it, I have trouble agreeing with numerous liberal statements. However, those are your opinions... and I signed up for service to make sure you had the right to have yours. I also will not laud my service/experience as being comparable to all situations, I just wish to give you some background information on my experience. That being said, I'd like to ask a few questions, as well as make a few statements.

How would you confirm which civilians are truly 'innocent civilians' and which are supporting Insurgent Forces? Though I'm no statistics major, we've garnished a lot of knowledge from being persuasive; you'd be really surprised how much you know. Even the smallest bit of garnished intelligence, combined with numerous other tiny bits, have resulted in the capture of known terrorists and munitions dumps. Not to say everyone who is arrested is a terrorist... but would you rather we don't arrest suspects? Rather, how would you categorize a suspect from everyday hajji?

I find the core question of this post a trap; yes, if someone committed a War Crime, they should be tried for it, obviously. Yet there are so many subtle nuances to this topic, such as was tortured ordered by the General? Condoned? Even known about, in any provable way? It's not fair to put the weight of a few men's failings on a leader so high up on the food chain that they've never even heard their names. I ask that you phrase this better next time, as most of these replies involve 'but ONLY IF' remarks.

I must also address two things that I saw repeated in these replies;

1. The reference of Australia being the goodie two shoes in every war, following the Geneva code to the letter. With no offense to the Aussies(of which I know a few over here), their country commits a fraction of the troops that the American military does. Comparatively, they are in command of few posts/prisons/etc over here. So should a much smaller force, with scaled down responsibilities, be set as such a role model? The smaller the numbers, the smaller the scale and risk of these issues coming about. Just an observation, as otherwise this is going to get allegorical.

2. I've forgotten your name, forgive me, as the day has worn me out, but whoever keeps doing the "Stalin Game" bs is being a sarcastic child. So he quoted Stalin; though a madman, tyrant, and murderer, his words can still ring true to people who are not also madmen, tyrants, or murderers. It looked to me like a keen observation of people; if one person dies, a nation mourns, examines their lives, and does numerous TV specials. If a ship sinks, a general condolence is given, as well as maybe a lifetime movie... but I've drifted off point.

My point was that your response, regardless of your thoughts on the proper context of the quote or it's use in this thread, has been an eye sore and incredibly childish. I commend the person you did it to for not rising to the bait.

Now then... on addressing the peoples of this country. The mindset is completely different than that of the Western world. Concepts we find so everyday are different here... I can't begin to describe it, or even fathom it all myself; anyone who thinks they can just by reading CNN.com or Fox News is fooling themselves. This culture is as alien as another world; we're talking Star Trek here. Everyone's not a terrorist or a Muslim... they're just... different. I applaud the effort of some to understand them, but don't speak like your an expert unless you've actually live in both cultures. Hell, I certainly don't understand it all.

And the last moral quandary here; does torture beget torture? Is a man shaped by the cruel reality that he is thrust into? I'm torn here, by my ideals and the harsh truths I've come upon. No, I have not seen torture, and I believe it to be fundamentally wrong... but I've seen what happens when we let vital intelligence slip away due to taking the moral high ground. People die, and the people ask US what we did to stop it? As if we, those sworn to protect, let it happen... almost like we were accomplices.

I'd just like to say... if it came down to torturing a man for information, to save even one life that would have been lost, I would take it and all the blame and criticism that came with it. The insurgent forces understand the power of one man who's willing to give up everything for what they believe; their culture has even given them near holy status. Yet the path of our civilization is one of Damnation.

I don't condone random torture of detainees; however, all should be questioned, if not persuasively. The risk is to great... I cannot fathom another young boy sitting in his class room watching Towers fall, like I did. Sorry, personal bias and experience leaking through... so I guess I should close this off.

War is Hell, said one William Tecumseh Sherman, and he meant it from experience. Terrible things are destined to happen, though to my knowledge, nothing has yet matched the deed that sparked off this War. Scars heal, bones mend, and the world goes on as people judge the actions of all for the moral failings of a few. Good men who've fought regardless of their beliefs, men who went through the blood and the mud together, are spit upon because all are convinced that the war has made them monsters.

The world then decides that it's not good PR to go after Johnny Enlisted, and wants to go after their leaders... and somebody gets crucified. The higher up the food chain, the bigger the ratings. We all know in our hearts that criminals and scum should be prosecuted in some way or other; my parting question is, will you let the media and biased hearts be judge, jury, and executioner for these men? Or will you give them the same trials and rights you demand for the Guantanamo Bay detainees?

With a Parting Sigh,
A Soldier

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

They should be punished but execution solves nothing and I think that life in prison could work, as long as they were not treated unfairly or like they were at a hotel.

Basic prisoner rights but not much else.

 

[Stalington]

Execute them! Warhammer Commissar Style!