it has nothing to do with the Geneva convention, it's just plain wrong.
Says who, Pr00ne? If, as you claim, it is nothing to do with the geneva 'tie your arms behind your back' convention, then who is to say it's wrong?
I do not condone the beating of a defenceless prisoner, but something is not 'wrong' just because YOU say it is, Pr00ne. Can I suggest you stop trying to fight wars from the comfort of your armchair and get out there and see just what the troops have to put up with, before passing judgement in a case you know nothing about?
The terrorists are winning the war, because they do not respect the Geneva Convention or any other form of common decency. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in war, only winners and losers. We believe (however tentatively) that our cause is generally just, that we are in the right. So do they. They believe that they have the right to slaughter innocent women and children in their 'struggle', simply because they are not muslims, or the wrong type of muslim. So who is right?
The answer is both of us, and none of us, or any combination of the above, depending on your point of view. If we continue to straightjacket ourselves with a 50-year-old set of rules, written long before any concept of trans-national global terrorism existed, we will lose.
As I stated above, I do NOT condone the beating of a defenceless prisoner (if indeed that is what happened - we seem to only have the word of one, probably local, witness based on the information I have seen so far) - however, when facing an enemy that lurks in the shadows, does not have the balls to show itself openly, and is virtually indistinguishable from the locals who just want to get on with their lives, we sometimes need the leeway to bring some pressure to bear in order to achieve the objective and save lives (in this case, both ours AND theirs). The present ROE and constraints do not allow for this, and when it is done out of urgent necessity, we are lambasted in the press, the muslim world gets hold of it and the situation is inflamed further.
I do not want gangland-style beatings, or anything else that is unnecessarily cruel, but I have no problem with causing stress, embarrasment, inconvenience, insult, fear - even a little pain if necessary, in order to gather vital, life-saving intelligence. All of the above has been used to good effect since time immemoriam, yet it is now considered 'bad'.
We will not win this war without getting a bit 'down and dirty' when necessary - and sometimes it IS necessary. You cannot fight a war by 'asking nicely' - if you could, we wouldn't need to carry guns!
16B