Well? Do the normal rules apply or if war is formally declared does this give us license to “get medieval” on their asses?
If the US declares a state of War, even on terrorists, it is bound by the Geneva Convention, specifically, Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929:
There may be more recent incarnations of this treaty. You can read about them by exploring the various treaties and documents of International Humanitarian Law at the International Committee of the Red Cross website. It is quite thorough. In any case, it is clear that if we follow our own rules, the prisoners cannot be mistreated for any reason. The US has a good overall record of handling its prisoners of war humanely (isolated events notwithstanding).
Anecdotal aside: During WWII German enlisted prisoners were housed informally in lumber camps near where I live in Northern New England. (near Berlin, NH, ironically) They were given jobs outdoors, modest pay, and limited privileges including swimming and viewing films. There was even some casual interaction with local residents at a distance. After the war, they were repatriated as required by treaty, but many sought to return to the US through sponsorships. There was one isolated event in which a guard attempted to force a prisoner to “run” in order to shoot an escapee, but cooler heads prevailed. Executing escaped POWs is also prohibited by treaty.
As far as I am concerned, get out the hot pokers and iron tongs, heat up the coal fires and bring out the surgical instruments. Even that’s too good for 'em. These folks want to die because they figure they’ll go directly to heaven, so I figure make the trip a painful one and get some information out of them in the process.
Unfortunately, our laws disagree.
ShipperEight - Welcome to the Straight Dope! First of all, it’s a good idea to read the forum descriptions before posting. That kind of invective more properly belongs in the Pit. This forum is for fact-based discussions only.
There is a recent thread in Great Debates on the subject of torture which may be of interest to you: I’m Going to Bite Off More than I Can Chew Again I Think On This One. The subject leaves a lot to be desired.
C’mon, astro, do you really want to “get medieval”?
Look at what ShipperEight has to say. Fortunately, our laws disagree.
Humanity aside, I don’t want to open that can of worms. Not here.
Peace,
mangeorge
Forgot to click the ‘email’ doohickey. 
Peace,
mangeorge
So do our forum rules. Keep that crap in the Pit.
In a rational macro sense no. “Gettin’ medieval” is not something we as Americans should be doing in our role as defenders of individual rights and showing respect for the rule of law, but in a personal micro sense the image of that jet plowing into the WTC and the thousands of lives snuffed out in the ensung carnage … well let’s just say that if I was still running a Radio Shack store on Wisconsin Ave. in D.C. and a man wearing an FBI jacket came in looking for micro torch cylinders, pliers, extra large alligator clips and the heaviest amperage 12VDC power supply we have, I would render service with a smile.
i say screw the law and beat the b**astards hands with a baseball bat until he talks.
Remember we’re talking about suspects. Morality and Miranda not withstanding, we have a fundamental precept that suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Remember that a large number of people questioned in the investigation of any crime, even those considered suspects, are actually innocent.
I’d be more than happy to indulge my vengence on a guilty perpetrator, but to beat an innocent suspect is evil. The same evil we’re trying to combat. You’re saying that you’re willing to become (or allow the investigators to become) judge and jury. So goes civilization.
It’s been said that during WW II, if a prisoner was escaping, and was not in uniform, they were considered spies and could be executed.
If that’s true, and it may not be, any terrorists not in a military uniform could be treated as a spy and executed.
True or false?
If they can be proven to be the terrorists involved, they will likely be executed for their crimes, not something like spying which would be an obvious farce given the circumstances of the crime. If it can’t be proven, they won’t be punished at all. That’s the American way.
Surely you’re not advocating shooting all suspects on sight? Astro already wants to get medieval on any suspicious character, so this would cut right to the chase.
When the Soviets captured the U2 pilot (Powers?), he was simply questioned repeatedly and allowed little sleep. This seems to eventually break people down. That is the most that I can imagine us doing.
This reminds me of the final scene in the first Mission Impossible movie where the good guys finally catch up with the bad guys on the train. Given how the whole thing proceeded the bad lady tells the agent who has her that her attorneys will have a field day with this one. He responds something to the effect of, “I don’t we’ll need attorneys for this one.”
Not to get too far off track, but if you want an apropos movie reference, how about the last scene of The Seige where the cop (Denzel Washington) arrests the general (Bruce Willis) for beating (and killing?) a suspect in the terrorist attacks on New York.
What about feeding them pork?
IIR, there were a few threads in GQ a while back about the supposed use of pig-fat laden bullets by the British. I don’t remember if it was a UL or not, but I do believe that very devout Muslims would consider the incorporation of non-hallal (sp?) materials into their body to be something that would prevent them from achieving heavenly bliss. Of course if I am wrong about this, that makes the rest of this post a bit irrelevant.
Would the Mamma Cass Treatment [sup]*[/sup] be unconstitutional in the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ sense? (Also keep in mind that these are innocent-until-proven-guilty folks.) I would think that as severe fundamentalists, it would be a very effective counter to the suicide bomber mentality- As it stands, there is virtually nothing we could do to stem their zealous disregard for conventional standards of war. They could say nothing, wait in calm silence in a jail cell, and know that they helped (by their silence) forward the overall cause. Even if an agent did use unconventional practices, a person can rely on their religious views to pull them through. However, if we threaten to extinguish their immortal soul, they actually would have something to gain by cooperating.
I assume that this issue has come up in the courts before- does anyone know if Muslim or Jewish prisoners have the right to hallal or kosher food? If so, I would imagine the reasoning behind those decisions would be relevant to this suggestion.
[sup]*[/sup]Snopes is your friend