Spartacus
Active member
I had posted this a long time ago in another forum. What do you guys think?
Okay first off let me say that I am in no way in favor of excessively abusing or injuring prisoners of war. I do think, however, that modern day interrogation techniques have been stifled by an attempt to maintain political correctness. In other words, it seems like we dont want it to appear as though we are animals, so we go to the far end of the spectrum, ensuring that they are comfortable and secure. This seems to be counter-productive. The only way that you are going to get a prisoner to break is if there is something they fear will happen to them personally, or if there is some reward or value in revealing the information. This is not a theory of mine, but of sociologists for ages; without an incentive, the status quo will not be broken.
I feel that the effort to keep interrogation of prisoners good in the sight of the public is pretty stupid. I mean after all, war in itself is a terrible thing. The only way to shorten it is to a) surrender or b) force the other side to. The best way to do the latter is to be able to make strategically sound and decisive moves. This means that you want the best intel available, and where better than straight from the horses mouth? Why try and keep prisoners with information comfortable and sacrifice more lives? It simply does not make good sense for us to allow prisoners with information to keep that information to themselves. I also feel that the other side would do the same. In fact, of all the countries that signed the Geneva Convention, on the United States of America holds true to it.
I dont have a problem doing everything reasonable in our power to pluck information from prisoners, nor do I feel there is anything inherently wrong about the other side doing it. Other than the fact they are on the other side.
Okay first off let me say that I am in no way in favor of excessively abusing or injuring prisoners of war. I do think, however, that modern day interrogation techniques have been stifled by an attempt to maintain political correctness. In other words, it seems like we dont want it to appear as though we are animals, so we go to the far end of the spectrum, ensuring that they are comfortable and secure. This seems to be counter-productive. The only way that you are going to get a prisoner to break is if there is something they fear will happen to them personally, or if there is some reward or value in revealing the information. This is not a theory of mine, but of sociologists for ages; without an incentive, the status quo will not be broken.
I feel that the effort to keep interrogation of prisoners good in the sight of the public is pretty stupid. I mean after all, war in itself is a terrible thing. The only way to shorten it is to a) surrender or b) force the other side to. The best way to do the latter is to be able to make strategically sound and decisive moves. This means that you want the best intel available, and where better than straight from the horses mouth? Why try and keep prisoners with information comfortable and sacrifice more lives? It simply does not make good sense for us to allow prisoners with information to keep that information to themselves. I also feel that the other side would do the same. In fact, of all the countries that signed the Geneva Convention, on the United States of America holds true to it.
I dont have a problem doing everything reasonable in our power to pluck information from prisoners, nor do I feel there is anything inherently wrong about the other side doing it. Other than the fact they are on the other side.