Gentlemen,
I am the first to admit that some of my views, as expressed here, lean towards a particular extreme. However,
Sunfish, that is ALL I was doing - expressing an opinion, on a thread with (by BEagle's admission) an emotive title designed to stir debate.
Your offensive and downright rude personal attack on me was totally unwarranted. If you dislike my views, please attack THEM, not ME personally. I can assure you that I am exactly who I claim to be (a currently serving Hercules pilot), and that in recent years I have served several tours in several, diverse operational theatres. Your attack was downright insulting, and little else.
I presume from your profile and some parts of your posts that you are now retired from the Armed Forces. I would point out to you that the war being fought now is quite unlike any we have encountered before - you may not appreciate this since you haven't been there (I'm presuming - I do not know how long you served, in what capacity or when you left - feel free to enlighten me, if you can lay off the insults). Coalition troops are subject to scrutiny by both the media and the tank-chasing lawyers as never before. How long is it going to be before a young, inexperienced soldier dies because he hesitated in pulling the trigger, wondering whether or not his actions are going to land him in prison on his return home?
I am well aware of my obligations under the various Geneva Conventions, as well as those under military law, thank you - my length of service runs into double digits so please do not patronise simply because you do not agree with my views. I was not advocating acting outside of the various constraints that govern us - I was suggesting that since those constraints are over half a century old, designed for a different time and a different world, we should seek to review them as a matter of urgency.
In terms of intelligence-gathering from interrogation - the main interest ought to lie with obtaining longer-term information, future plans, weapons sources, whereabouts & movements of leaders, etc. Immediate 'battlefield' intelligence is of little use when the 'battle' was a roadside IED and lasted all of 0.25 seconds. So the aim of applying long-term pressure to a detainee is, in my mind, a sound one.
It appears that the most vociferous critics on the subject at hand are those who left the forces some time ago, have never served in Iraq as it is now, and have the luxury of being able to stand outside the tent merrily pissing in, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to experience what those of us still serving must.
Roghead, spot on, just the sentiment I was trying to convey earlier - except you did it with greater eloquence than I can muster. You are correct, I do NOT hold the moral high ground, nor do I aim to. IMHO NEITHER side can hold the moral high ground in war - consider the view that a hypothetical, completely impartial person may take - we say THEY are evil murderers; they say that WE are. Who holds the moral high ground is entirely dependent on your point of view - to the hypothetical impartial observer, NEITHER side does.
Stuk, I too doff my cap to you. I think I said earlier on this thread that judgement needs to be reserved until the FACTS of this case emerge - sadly, in the eyes of the Arab world, the damage has already been done, by premature, irresponsible and politically-motivated journalism.
Happytruckin,
By moderate Arab opinion I meant the many Arab governments who allow the UK and US to put military bases on their soil and fly aircraft through their airspace.
I think you'll find they are being rewarded / cajoled / compensated for their co-operation (usually with large sums of aid cash), rather than doing it for more altruistic motives. Almost all Arab states would rather not be involved in this at all, were they given a choice.
Maple 01 agree with your points - unfortunately once we HAVE captured them (ie they have surrendered or been overpowered), the Geneva Convention III (1948 I think) on the treatment of PWs is the treaty that takes precedence, and it is much more restrictive. However, this convention was designed to deal with uniformed or readily identifyable members of a force acting on behalf of a sovereign nation - currently terrorists do not fit into ANY of the defined categories of PWs - they are not 'non-combatant civilians', nor are they 'levees-en-masse' because they are an organised force bearing arms and carrying out planned attacks. Another good reason, IMHO, to review the conventions.
Sunfish,
The simple reason is that human beings are not "means" to an end, they are an end in themselves.
two wrongs don't make a right.
Says who, exactly? You seem to deal an awful lot in moral absolutes - from where exactly do you derive this moral authority? Or is it simply a case of 'I'm better than them, therefore I must be right?'
You seem to see alot of this in black and white - I see many shades of grey in these matters, with more shades emerging every day as this war progresses. I do not imagine for a second that we will ever agree on this issue.
War is, by its nature, a dirty, nasty process in which there are no prizes for coming second. I sincerely hope that, sometime in the future, people are not standing up and saying "Well, at least we kept the moral high ground!" - as Al-Qa'ida-delivered nuclear devices vapourise the major cities of the West.
16B