Investigations of CIA interrogators

[skeptic 992]

Brent;

 

The dropping of the two bombs occurred only then, and it was, from most documents now available a horrible decision by Truman, and also had very negative effects on many other individuals directly involved. Most importantly, it has NOT been done again, and hopefully the horror of it will continue to stop it, though today we have some very warped minds skewing the moral issue you put forward.

 

But the discussion here is the "continued use" of torture, with some suggesting the end may justify the result. Certainly not nearly enough evidence to say with certainty that you will get enough viable info to offset the negative views in spawns.

 

You are not making a valid comparison, as I see it.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Brent, I am not sure if you are being antagonistic or not, but did you read this part of my post?

 

"I Don't know if the end justifies the means, well actually I know that the end does not justify the means, at least the ends does not in the universe of pure reason and logic but in the actual physical world I think you do the best you can with what you got"

 

Please pay particular attention to :

 

"...at least the ends does not in the universe of pure reason and logic but in the actual physical world I think you do the best you can with what you got"

 

I think Truman made the best informed decision that he could make given the facts at the time. He did the best he could with what he had.

 

The atomic bombings in Japan not only ended WWII but also gave Russia something to think about as we moved swiftly from WWII to the COld War and China in North Korea to think about as well.

 

With the hingsight of time, maybe some other tactic would have been better, but I think I have consistently said that war is abhorrent, it should only be the very last resort but once the decision is made to make war, then we make total war and do not let up until we acheive our goal. Oh yeah, that means there has to be goal when we start.

 

In Japan, the immedicate goal was ending the war with as few more American lives lost as possible. I think we accomplished that and ended up destroying only 2 Japanesse cities opposed to the number that would have been destroyed in an invasion.

 

So, actually I think I agree with you but I am not sure

[acco40 95]

Iwo Jima - 4907 Marines, 934 Sailors

Okinawa - 2897 Marines, 3809 Sailors

Palau Islands - 1171 Marines, 185 Sailors

Marianas - 3995 Marines, 513 Sailors

Marshall Islands - 401 Marines, 187 Sailors

Tarawa - 950 Marines, 724 Sailors

Guadalcanal - 988 Marines, 1176 Sailors

 

So, fearing another great loss of American life, Truman decided to utilize the atomic bomb.

 

 

 

[JoeBob 606]

First bomb - August 6th - wasn't enough to convince the Japanese.

USA had to drop a 2nd bomb August 9th.

Who is responsible for the second bomb?

Since it took two, doesn't that beg the argument about needing to drop any?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I thought the loss of one life was terrible

 

I don't know where I heard this, it may have been from Walter Cronkite's "20th Century" on Sunday afternoons when it wasnt football season, coming on just before Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, but I thought the estimates of casualties for an invasion of the Japanesse mainland was one million

 

We had to drop two because just one could have been seen as a one and done situation and they can't possibly have another so we dropped two so they knew we just didnt have the one. WHen actually we only had two, well two we could use, we could have assembled another but it would have taken time

 

We dropped two to show we meant business and we would do what it took to win, thats how you win wars, you kill people, this can't be the first time someone has mentioned it is it?

 

The whole idea is not to wage war, but be prepared to do so and do so so totally no one thinks of messing with you. I thought that was the idea,

[Eagle92 110]

In refence to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII, a few things.

 

1) estimated, repeat ESTIMATED, US casualties for a Japanese Home Islands invasion would have been 1,000,000+ as not only would US troops face IJA forces, but also their militia, home guard, police, and cilvilian armed groups. Several documents that available say at least 1 million US deaths. I know there has been some criticism on these stats, with some folks saying that the 1000000+ figure came after WWII, but a memo from former Pres. Hoover, yes Hoover was still involved in a minor advisory role to Truman, stated the 1000000+ figure. I believe that memo is now at the National WWII musuem in New Orleans. I cannot recall estimated Japanese casualties, but I believe that I read a comment that "Halsley will have his wish," whether that was in a report I saw or historical novel I cannot remember. But it is a fact that the Japan landings would have made OVERLORD look like a picnic.

 

2) Please remember that in addition to the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, US forces were working on plans to invade China and go after the bulk of IJA, which was occupying China. I can tell you that parts of those plans can be found at ECU's library in their special collections as I worked on that project. While the estimates do not come to me, if memory serves it would have been a larger operation than the invasion of Japan.

 

3) Yes we now know that Hirohito and part of his cabinet were thinking about surrender, and if memory serves some peace overtures were made to a 3rd party (either Vatican City or the Swiss), but the military leaders resisted surrender until after the 2nd bomb, and even then there was a coup.

 

4) Last time I researched this area, while there was speculation that the 2nd bomb was more for the Soviets than to get the Japanese to surrender, there was been no records found on the topic. Everything to date states that the #1 reason was to save US and Allied lives.

[BrentAllen 10]

I'm still trying to figure out why it was ok to drop the bombs on Japan, and it is bad to waterboard terrorists.

 

We are at war with a terrorist group, not an army. They don't wear uniforms. They don't live in a clearly defined geographic area. They hide among the civilians. They don't want to fight our army - they attack our civilians. They are unconventional in every sense of the word. If we think we can fight and win using conventional methods of war, we are nuts! We killed thousands of women, children and the elderly in Japan because we had to do what we had to do. Since we can't defeat this terrorist group on the battlefield, we will have to rely on the gathering of intelligence. If we have to use some enhanced methods to do so, this is one of those cases where we do what we have to do.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I think I said that

[BrentAllen 10]

OGE,

I read that you felt that way about Japan - do you feel the same about enhanced interrogation techniques? Maybe you have said that as well, but for some reason, I thought you were siding with Beavah on the issue.

[Beavah 205]

I'm still trying to figure out why it was ok to drop the bombs on Japan, and it is bad to waterboard terrorists.

 

Because the Japanese cities weren't surrendered captives.

 

Even in World War II it would have been dishonorable, unethical, and illegal to torture prisoners. In fact after the war we tried, imprisoned, and in some cases executed people who had done exactly that.

 

At the same time, we released enemy pilots and rocket scientists who firebombed London. Even welcomed them as citizens and gave them jobs.

 

If we are at "war" against an enemy in uniform, then torturing captives only leads to stiffened resolve, better recruiting, less willingness to surrender, and the torture of our own men and women in retaliation.

 

If we are at "war" against an unconventional enemy, then torturing captives only leads to stiffened resolve, better recruiting, less willingness to surrender, the torture of innocent parties by mistake, less willingness on the part of local population to cooperate in giving us vital intelligence, and the loss of allies and respect in the eyes of the world.

 

In all cases, it does serious harm to the long term mental health and unit discipline of our own men and women.

 

There is a reason it is illegal, eh? And it's not just because it's cowardly, dishonorable and immoral. It's also counterproductive.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

these are quotes from this thread that I have written:

 

there is only one way to fight a war, all out, pedal to the metal and full speed ahead.

 

I had thought we learned from Viet Nam that there is no such thing as a limited war and everytime we try it, its a disaster. War is brutal business and to be succesful, you have to be brutal. You kill who needs to be killed before they kill you. It seems simple enough why do we have to keep "rediscovering it" oh yeah, those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it

 

I Don't know if the end justifies the means, well actually I know that the end does not justify the means, at least the ends does not in the universe of pure reason and logic but in the actual physical world I think you do the best you can with what you got

 

but I think I have consistently said that war is abhorrent, it should only be the very last resort but once the decision is made to make war, then we make total war and do not let up until we acheive our goal. Oh yeah, that means there has to be goal when we start.

 

The whole idea is not to wage war, but be prepared to do so and do so so totally no one thinks of messing with you. I thought that was the idea,

 

 

What part of the above leads you to beleive that I side with Beavah?

[packsaddle 753]

I agree with Beavah's distinction. Anyway, OK, again..this time to Brent or OGE, it might help some of us to understand your argument if you would describe what conduct, if any, that you think would 'cross the line' in terms of acceptable ways to question prisoners. And then explain how we can understand your reasoning the same way you do.

 

What I am getting from the absence of an answer is that there is no limit to what you would do to a prisoner. If this is incorrect, tell me...what is the limit? And how did you decide that limit?

[Eagle92 110]

I admit I have mixed emotions on this topic. On one hand torture is not a reliable method of getting intel from people in the short term, but long term it can.

 

Look at some of the debriefings from Allied POWs in Japanese POW camps, or worse, read about the German POWs in Russian camps. There is a very good reason why Germans, and Europeans in general, were terrified of the Soviets after WWII and begged for the US to stay. Heck some German ex-POWs were so terrified of the Soviets, even after several years of living in freedom in West Germany, that they either did not want their identities revealed when working with the US or refused tio work with the US on Soviet treatment of POWs.

 

You see the Soviets took something learned from the German Luftwaffe, playing mindgames with POWs to get intel, and added to it with communist indoctrination, Pavlov's "physiology" ( cause and effect relationship of psychology and automated responses), and some physical abuse to get results. NARA has about 2 five inch binders worth of documents on microfiche on what the Soviets did, and taught their allies the ChiComs, NKs, and Vietnamese, who all added to the process

[Eagle92 110]

Forgot to add, terrorists to not meet the criteria of protected persons under the Geneva Conventions and so are not entitled to any protections. So they can be summimarily executed. Been a long time since I did research onthe topic, and do not have time to look up the exact passages at the moment, but maybe when I get home b/c I did a lot of research onthis topic back inthe day.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

And I thought I made it clear

 

There are no rules in War