PDA

View Full Version : Is the West prepared to do what it takes?



ogukuo72
05-17-2004, 03:30 AM
In the movie "The Untouchables", Sean Connery asked Kevin Costner whether he was prepared to do what it takes to take down Al Capone. The recent storm over the photos of 'torture' in Iraq poses this question: is the west prepared to do what is necessary to win this war on terrorism? Is it willing to give up some of its moral high ground and moral beliefs to win this war and save lives?

Intelligence is critical in this fight. We need information, and sometimes we need information fast. Often, the information we need are possessed by people who are not willing to give it to us. We need to use techniques to pressure them to give it to us. It is nasty, it is brutish, but this is what it takes.

Of course, such interrogation techniques must be applied professionally, and within strict limits. Only as much pressure as necessary should be applied, and actual physical pain is to be avoided. This actually helps in getting the information that is needed. If the suspect understands that the interrogator is here to do a job, that he will only do as much as he needs to, and that it is in his interest to co-operate, then he will be more inclined to do so.

There is no place for gratitous behaviour. What happened at Abu Gharif <sic?> is inexcusable for the simple reason that amateurs had been allowed to handle the prisoners, and they had promptly gone out of control. The kind of humiliations used were not only gratituous but actually makes the professional interrogators' work harder by hardening the minds of the prisoners.

Having said that, we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. It is irrealistic to stop using all interrogation techniques altogether as some human rights organisation suggested. I applaud their moral uprightness, but they are being naive. And it appears to me that their moral standards are more important to them than saving the lives of those who would be hurt by terrorist attacks. If a softer and more moral method can be found to get the necessary information out of suspects, we should certain adopt it. But in the absence of anything like that, we must be allowed to get on with the job.

I realise that I must sound like some sort of cold blooded monster to some people. I apologise if I hurt the moral sensitivity of anyone. But this thing must be said. And I ask once more: is the West prepared to do what it takes?[/quote]

henksmoeder
05-17-2004, 04:06 AM
Well, it's an opinion. I certainly don't believe that torturing 'is what it takes'. Torturing will only make bad situations worse.

Tane Angle
05-17-2004, 07:46 AM
Torture doesn't help, it only hurts. Are nations willing to use coercion? Yes. However, it should only be used rarely, in the most time-critical of situations.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Durandal
05-17-2004, 08:18 AM
No, I do not think the West has "what it takes".

It has nothing to do with torture...

It has to do with nation building and putting aside differences to fight a common enemy. To date, no one has shown me, other than individual citizens of these Western Nations and some of its politicians (in the legislative branch here or equivalents in other nations).

It is something that has happened for most of my adult life. I hear grand tales from my parents and grand parents of the 40s and 50s and then I see stuff like Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia, and Mozambique happen. (Edit: There is no grand collective responsibility. There is greed. There is petty name calling. There is a divided world even when it comes to the most simple of issues. I am not talking about socialism...I am talking about collective morality.)

Politics rules and common sense is out ther door. Sure the troops on the ground have the will and often times know better than the politician that sent them there (whether it be a U.N., NATO, and "Coalition" led operation), but they do not make policy (nor should they if the truth be known but I believe governments should listen to them).

None of this has to do with "torture". The whole photos issue is simply a symptom of the problem.

Shiruzu
05-17-2004, 09:33 AM
The question is: Couldn't there be some people, that take profit out of the whole "war on terror" ? Maybe some people don't even want to win it... (and i'm not talking about Bin-Laden and his gang ;) )

Durandal
05-17-2004, 09:50 AM
Care to expand upon that?

Shiruzu
05-17-2004, 09:58 AM
Guys in the weapons-business for example... i'm sure they allways go " woot ", if a new offensive is announced.

Or remember the time of the Antrax-Letters? I don't want to know, how much face-masks, pills and "survival-kits" were sold...

Its the fear, that makes people consume - if the people live in a constant state of fear, they will buy anything, which says it brings them a "safer life".

So some people make profit out of this fear and they would be dumb, to end this state.

Tane Angle
05-17-2004, 10:00 AM
Since I never really answered the question before, here goes.

Does the West have what it takes? I think so. Does President Bush or his administration? No. No US President has. After all, Jimmy Carter was the last US President to be sincere about rescuing hostages. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. have all sent the message that America will stand idly by and twidle its national thumbs as its citizens are taken hostage. We've never sent the message that if our people are taken, we will make serious efforts to get them back. We've never been tough on terrorism. Even Bush Jr. is not tough on terrorism. We're a joke.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

catdat
05-17-2004, 12:14 PM
I think that before you can answer that question we need to define what is "winning" the war on terror.

All the terrorists are dead?
They all surrender?
They sign a document saying they'll behave from now on?

Please. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "revolutionary". I guess if I was British and I was on a ship in Boston harbor and some people dressed as indians stormed on board and dumped my cargo into the bay I'd probably label that as terrorism, no? What if I was a resident of Atlanta and a marauding army burned my city to the ground, Terrorism?

So I guess you'd have to say when everyone in the world is on the same sheet of music and we all want to stop killing each other then we'll have beaten "terrorism". Our problem is that anyone who opposes us and doesn't have a standing army that wants to duke it out mano-a-mano is going to be labeled a terrorist.

I'm not holding my breath for Utopia.

Anyone else care to define when we'll win? I'd sure like to know what to tell my kids.

Just some thoughts..catdat