Mysteriously, the modern Major General is silent on how the soldiers should be treated in captivity.
Doubtless the captured men (and/or women) have useful information that their probably captors want. How should they expect to be managed during their captivity?
How should they expect to be treated? Well, if they’ve been captured by fighters who are not in uniform, have no clear chain of command, are not signatory to any of the Geneva Conventions, then they can expect to be treated in whatever manner their captors want.
It’s like asking how a police officer should expect to be treated when captured by a criminal.
If they had been captured by say, the military of Iran or Turkey or Germany or Mexico, they should expect to be treated as protected POWs. But they weren’t captured by a sovereign state or even a sovereign military force, they were captured by a criminal group. It’s akin to someone being kidnapped by the mafia or the Ku Klux Klan.
Hehe, is this a serious question? They will be tortured and beheaded as is the custom of this backward culture/region, obviously. What are you expecting?
Waterboarding and then a golf clap from the attorney-general. So we agree completely and have the identical expectation.
Which differs from the way a superpower treats its prisoners, only in that we do not behead them.
This is not a salient point, my dear?
I’m glad Major General Caldwell reminded everyone to “make no mistake.” That should clear up a lot of confusion.
What sort of information could soldiers on patrol be expected to have that would be useful to insurgents? Does the military really still rely on “sign/countersign” anymore?
More importantly, once U.S. soldiers have been captured, what incentives do the insurgents have to keep them alive? It seems as though the usual fate of captured troops in Iraq is to be killed later in a more controlled environment. Major General Caldwell mentions two retrieval tactics, “looking” and “praying.” Is there also a more formalized system in place, analagous to hostage negotiation?
A rhetorical question, this is?
It’s a seriously-asked leading question with a blunt answer undermining the attempted sanctimony - my favourite.
It’s salient, or at least amusing, because you just implied that America is a backward region as well. Whether you meant to or not.
I’d take that over the other anytime.
A small minority of one group is mistreated… the vast majority of another group is truly tortured and beheaded. Who are the bad guys?
Both. Some of us have higher standards for our government.
“Truly” tortured ? So, are you one of those Bushites who claims that if it doesn’t involve mutilation or organ failure, it’s not torture ? We have driven people insane, among other things, you know.
My guess is they’re being held for hostage value, not information value.
Who would you rather be captured by - the United States or one of the terrorist groups currently operating in Iraq?
Well as long as you’re better than Al Qaeda, then. That makes everything all right.
I didn’t say that.
This is one of the most specious defenses of torture–“Well, as long as we’re not as bad as they are, that’s all that matters!” And this from the same people who argue that there are absolute Rights & Wrongs and it’s those liberals that partake in “moral relativism”. :rolleyes:
What does it say about the US when Iran can claim to have treated their British prisoners leagues better than we’ve treated a large percentage of ours?
For the record, though, Gen. Petraeus has done what many of his colleagues and higher-ups have not–come out unequivocally against torture (and addressing the troops directly in this position).
Needless to say, all the neocons who’ve slandered the anti-torture crusaders as “weak” or “treasonous” or “anti-soldier” are particularly quiet about it now.
It sound like it to me, too. What did you mean?
Especially since it’s becoming more and more evident that the neocons are the treasonous ones in the US.