Can we safely say that *'s illegal wiretapping & torturing doesn't work?

[KansDem]

Bush wanted to commit unlawful and immoral acts in order to "fight the war on terror." However, developments in recent days, especially the leaking of the NIE reports, indicate that the more Bush broke the law, the greater the number of terrorists grew in the mid-east due to the torturing practices of BushCo, and the more disgusted Americans have become, due to the prospect of having their phone conservations warrantlessly intercepted. Bush and his gang of thugs and cutthroats have caused a reverse of what we were told was the goal of the War on Terror.™

If we treated German POWs during WWII like we treat Iraqi prisoners today, we would still be fighting Germany. The humane treatment of German POWs in American camps has been credited as significant in bringing WWII to an end. Simply stated, Germans were more inclined to surrender when they sensed Americans were "not as bad" as they were led to believe. However, if we had tortured German soldiers and civilians like we do Iraqis, then it would have been a "fight to the finish" as no German would want to fall victim to American sadism and violence. Bush and his mob would have done well to have heeded that historical lesson.

Bush wanted us to believe his unlawful approaches to gathering intelligence was in our own good. But, that has not been supported by the evidence. Now we have a huge disaster on our hands with no solution in sight. It's time to end the torture and wiretapping: they don't work, and Bush's insistence that they do proves he's lying.

We know better now.

[LostInAnomie]

1. The best evidence that they don't work and haven't yielded results...

... is that * and the Repukes haven't been on TV trumpeting an actual success. If these measures had even stopped one terrorist from doing anything the Repukes would have immediately held a press conference, had a framed picture of the guy, and used him and his prosecution as a political club.

[lgn19087]

2. "If we treated German POWs during WWII like we treat Iraqi prisoners today

What? How do you figure that?

[KansDem]

3. Humane treatment of German POWs is credited in part to ending the war

As I recalled, there was a concerted effort to treat German POWs humanely, banking on the idea that their letters home to Germany describing this treatment would help turn Germans against the war. It seemed to work:

That there were few problems may be due to the humane treatment they received from Horn, Peterson and Lieutenant Blair.

After the war many prisoners wrote letters (now in the NWMHC Archives) thanking the Horns and Petersons for their kind treatment. Several requested aid packages or assistance in getting to America. One remembered Peterson sending flowers and fruit to sick prisoners at Moorhead's St. Ansgar Hospital, two trips to a movie theater and "Bier and cigarettes" on Saturdays. The later were forbidden by Army regulations as was a memorable trip mentioned by another prisoner to Moorhead’s Magic Aquarium Bar.

http://www.info.co.clay.mn.us/History/pow.htm

Also:

The honorable and legal treatment of enemy prisoners also pays practical dividends. Experience shows that events in wartime have an interactive character: ill treatment of captives by one side is often reciprocated. In addition, a reputation for humane treatment of enemy surrenders induces more surrenders: and we get more reliable information from cooperative surrenders than from dissatisfied and alienated victims of abuse.

http://www.psu.edu/ur/oped/cimbalanovember142005.html

Also:

By contrast, POW facilities held by Allied nations like the USA, UK and Canada usually complied strictly to the Geneva Conventions, which sometimes created conditions POWs found were more comfortable than their own side's barracks. This approach was decided on the idea that having POWs well treated meant a ready supply of healthy and cooperative laborers for farmwork and the like, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, which eased personnel shortages. There were also the benefits of a lower chance of having to deal with escapes or prisoner disruption. In addition, as word spread among the enemy about the conditions of Allied POW camps, it encouraged surrenders which helped further Allied military goals efficiently. Furthermore, it may have raised morale among the Allied personnel when the usefulness of this approach was accepted by reinforcing the idea that this humane treatment of prisoners showed that their side was morally superior to the enemy.

http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

Once the fanatics (ie, SS) were weeded out (and sent to one camp in Oklahoma, if I recall correctly), German POWs received many privileges and humane treatment. For example, they were permitted to operate small stores with basic creature comforts (including wine and beer, if I recall correctly). And they were permitted to work on farms (in the midwest). Since many German POWs came from farms in Germany, this was welcomed work.

The letters home to Germany told relatives of the humane treatment received in American POW camps. This led to many Germans changing their views on the war.

If we had treated German POWs then like we do Iraqis now, then the end of the war might have taken much longer as many Germans wouldn't want to face the kinds of violence and sadism displayed by BushCo's "War on Terror" today. It would have been a fight to "the last man." Sound like Iraq?

[lgn19087]

4. We beat Germany and Japan by

bombing them into oblivion. We treated the POWs well, but for every happy prisoner there were a hundred dead innocent civilians in places like Dresden. I would certainly agree that positive treatment inspired some small-scale and individualized surrenders by units, but I would hardly say that that's one of the big reasons we won the war.

[KansDem]

5. Well, in stark contrast, we are bombing Iraq into oblivion, AND...

We are treating their POWs like pieces of shit. Also their civilians. How will this plan work out? For starters, we've been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII, and it appears the "insurgents" are winning. We beat back the German and Japanese war machine in a shorter amount of time than we have fought the Iraqi "insurgents." And the "torture is OK" national policy voted on today, if it becomes law, will do more to harm this country's ability to fight "terrorism" for the reasons cited. In short, we have lost credibility: Bush and his enablers have taken the American high road of honor and morality and placed it directly on the bottom of the deepest cesspool.

[lgn19087]

6. I would agree with everything you said

but we were in WWII longer than we've been in Iraq.

[KansDem]

7. Maybe...maybe not...

The Iraq invasion began on March 20, 2003. That is roughly 3 years and 6 months ago. WWII started for us on December 7th, 1941. We celebrated "VE" day with Germany's surrender on May 8, 1945. That's approximately 3 years 5 months. One month shorter than the current Iraq war.

Now, we didn't declare victory over Japan until August 14, 1945 ("VJ" day). That's about 3 years 8 months, so technically you're correct. We've been in Iraq one month longer than our war with Germany but two months shorter than our war with Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

I could be wrong with my arithmetic, but I checked it twice...

An afterthought: Unless you are considering the end of the Iraq War to be May 2, 2003, the day George the Torturer landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared "mission accomplished," then you are correct: our involvement in Iraq was less than two months, way shorter than WWII.

[lgn19087]

8. Nope, your arithmetic is correct

I wasn't talking about 5/2/03. We're almost there, but not quite yet. But to be truthful, weren't there still pockets of Japanese resistance in the Philipines and Okinawa and some of those other places for months after the war ended?

[KansDem]

9. Sure, they were pulling Japanese troops off islands years after...

...who still thought they were at war.

In 1944, Lt. Hiroo Onoda was sent by the Japanese army to the remote Philippine island of Lubang. His mission was to conduct guerrilla warfare during World War II. Unfortunately, he was never officially told the war had ended; so for 29 years, Onoda continued to live in the jungle, ready for when his country would again need his services and information. Eating coconuts and bananas and deftly evading searching parties he believed were enemy scouts, Onoda hid in the jungle until he finally emerged from the dark recesses of the island on March 19, 1972.

About.com

But, of course, the signing of Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri marked the offical end of the war.


Photos