Was it okay for the Japanese to torture our soldiers if the justification

[WCGreen]

was that they were trying to get information about the pending attacks on the civilian cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

According to Pat Buchanan that would be okay.

Just now he was using that very argument against prosecuting individuals who finagled the law to justify the practice of torture if the ends justify the means. He claimed that if we knew a prisoner or "detainee" had knowledge of an immanent attack on the US where hundred of thousands of innocent civilians could be killed then torture was justified.

Buchanan further sanctified the treatment of these special "detainees" because they weren't wearing uniforms.

Since we were at war in 1945, the rules of engagement applied to the Japanese and so torture of American soldiers was out. We executed some soldiers for Water boarding our prisoners.

Tortured logic.

To me it's entirely clear on how to proceed with the investigations of how, when, where and why torture was used as a weapon in our declared war on terror.

If we are truly a nation of laws then the people who broke those laws should be held accountable. They also should be willing to face the consequence of their actions and gladly accept their sentence. They would be in many places held as zealous patriots. But the rule of law would be preserved.

A while back I wrote a thread about how the US was an exceptional nation. It is because we are a nation held together only by our belief in the rule of law. How this will play out will determined if we are indeed unique or just another in a long string of tin horned empires.

This is it. Will we rise to the occasion or fall in disgrace.

The last test passed was Watergate. The last test we failed was Bush pardoning the Iran contra thugs.

This one, however, goes to the very core of our belief system.

[stray cat]

1. If it would have prevented the Japanese deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It would have been wrong not to get the information - however knowing that torturing a specific individual will prevent a nuclear strike that will wipe out an entire cities population is a tough hurdle.

[WCGreen]

2. Well, it has to be considered....

[karynnj]

8. It is alsovery likely that no captured soldier knew anything about the impending bombs

Thus they could not have provided the information under any circumstances. This is actually why there is a flaw in the strawman of preventing imminent attacks. The number of people who know are very small and the number vulnerable to capture are fewer. In addition, the very act of capturing one of those few -in and of itself - likely causes the plan to be aborted.

[LiberalFighter]

13. The only way their premise of a captured soldier knowing about something

would be if every soldier was informed about everything that anyone in the military was doing.

And I thought the military did everything they could to keep everything secret except for those directly or indirectly involved in the operation. Even those involved directly in the operation in many cases didn't know what they were doing until the hour of the operation.

[mmonk]

11. Torture is unreliable and instead of getting the truth,

it is mostly used for false confessions and to spread fear in general populations. One of best and most successful interrogators in US history used a far different method that included empathy and culture to try and get into the head of the prisoner. He, ironically, was used in WW II interrogating the Japanese. Right now, I can't remember his name.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Buchanan is just plain wrong.

Torture is never justified. It is always wrong, and not just because it doesn't yield the truth.

It degrades those who use it.

K&R

[WCGreen]

6. Good point.

[mmonk]

4. Then no, now yes.

We have traveled from the best generation to the worst generation in one lifetime.

[WCGreen]

5. I had a thread about how disappointed I was on how this generation comports

itself...

[irishcat52]

7. Torture is wrong, just as murder is

This is an interesting anomaly. The problem here is that torture is always wrong -- ends never justify the means.

However, if torture could elicit information like that of the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the torture could be justified on those grouds. The only problem with that rationale is that torture hardly ever elicits correct information. Cheney is trying to get some information declassified to prove that the torture actually worked, but this will be a reach.

If murder is always wrong, then torture is wrong. However, if the killing was self-defense, then the situation is different.

Pat Buchanan is hardly a person worthy of analysis. He is a right-wing bigot. What is amazing is that these characters, like Buchanan, Bennett, et. all, call themselves pro-life.

To answer their query to "What would Jesus do?" the answer is simple: Jesus would never torture.

[WCGreen]

9. thank you for losing your DU virginity on a thread of mine...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Forkboy]

12. Give that fucker credit for being consistent anyways.

:puke:

[Chuckleberry]

14. Torture might even be unreliable in ticking bomb situations

The effectiveness of torture even in ticking bomb situations was disputed by the memo disclosed yesterday by the Washington Post written by the military agency advising the Bushies:

"The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009042403231

[TheKentuckian]

15. "It is because we are a nation held together only by our belief in the rule of law."

Is not a statement that I honestly believe. It is good propaganda but our hold on being a nation of laws is tenuous at best and is mostly fanciful or wishful.

There were no good old days. If we want them to ever be then we must forge them. People need to stop looking and referring back to times that never were. The only such period was the days when many more could comfortably ignore reality.

There is nothing to "restore" only an unrealized ideal used mostly to sell the masses on feeling better about themselves than they had right or reason to possibly believe.

[WCGreen]

16. Well, the way I see it is that we are striving to live up to that

ideal. At least those less cynical feel that way. I see why you are so cynical but the truth be told, we are a nation built on the rule of law which was established via the Constitution. Whether we live up to that calling is a matter for debate but it is the Constitution and not god or a royal family or some mythological proclamation from some mystical being that gives us our reason for existing. It is the Constitution.