Author Topic: Moral high ground?  (Read 5855 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Moral high ground?
« on: April 23, 2009, 09:08:27 AM »
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.

My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?

I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?

What if anything would justify to you the use of water boarding etc...to obtain information?

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2009, 09:11:20 AM »
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.

My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?

I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?

What if anything would justify to you the use of water boarding etc...to obtain information?

Who cares about water boarding?These idiots cut the heads off the people they capture.We have been taken over by a bunch of limp wristed guys,who care way more for those wanting to kill Americans then they do about the safety of Americans.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2009, 09:13:22 AM »
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.

My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?

I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?

What if anything would justify to you the use of water boarding etc...to obtain information?
Torture does not work.  Historically speaking, all one has to do is look at the Spanish Inquisitions and see how many people would admit that they were indeed a witch with magical powers so the torture would stop.

Also, you should research the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven.  This was late 1970s torture where the accused were beaten senseless and admitted to crimes they did not do.  

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2009, 09:14:19 AM »
Who cares about water boarding?These idiots cut the heads off the people they capture.We have been taken over by a bunch of limp wristed ####,who care way more for those wanting to kill Americans then they do about the safety of Americans.
George Washington was strongly against torture as was Abraham Lincoln.

In fact, Washington would execute any of his soldiers if they were found to be torturing any British.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2009, 09:20:11 AM »
Torture does not work.  Historically speaking, all one has to do is look at the Spanish Inquisitions and see how many people would admit that they were indeed a witch with magical powers so the torture would stop.

Also, you should research the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven.  This was late 1970s torture where the accused were beaten senseless and admitted to crimes they did not do.  

You are a liar and the CIA report directly contradicts your lies. 

Waterboarding, which I dont believe is torture, prevented a massive attack on LA and led to the capture of KSM himself who masterminded 9/11..

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2009, 09:20:25 AM »
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
--   George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2009, 09:30:36 AM »
You are a liar and the CIA report directly contradicts your lies. 

Waterboarding, which I dont believe is torture, prevented a massive attack on LA and led to the capture of KSM himself who masterminded 9/11..
Oh you mean this CIA report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say



By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2009, 09:35:58 AM »
George Washington was strongly against torture as was Abraham Lincoln.

In fact, Washington would execute any of his soldiers if they were found to be torturing any British.

Again,please give me a list of injuries the terrorists suffered by all "the torture" that we abused them with.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2009, 09:37:03 AM »
Again,please give me a list of injuries the terrorists suffered by all "the torture" that we abused them with.
CIA Watchdog Report Says Detainees Died During Interrogations         


Written by Jason Leopold   
Monday, 20 April 2009 09:47
By Jason Leopold

According to New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, Helgerson concluded that some detainees were allegedly killed during interrogations.

In an interview with Harper’s magazine last year, Mayer said Helgerson “investigated several alleged homicides involving CIA detainees” and forwarded several of those cases “to the Justice Department for further consideration and potential prosecution.”

CIA Inspector General John Helgerson raised concerns in a 2004 top-secret report his office prepared about the legality of the interrogation techniques agency interrogators used against admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In the report, Helgerson concluded that the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program “appeared to constitute cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, as defined by the International Convention Against Torture” and the interrogation of Mohammed “could expose agency officers to legal liability,” according to a Nov. 9, 2005 report published in the New York Times.

Now, thanks to the release last week of four Justice Department “torture” memos Helgerson’s concerns make sense.

In a footnote to a May 30, 2005 memo issued by Steven Bradbury, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, the same month he was captured. The of times Mohammed was waterboarded was first reported by blogger Marcy Wheeler over the weekend.

Another footnote said that “in some cases the waterboard was used with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with larger quantities of water than permitted under written guidelines.

Both footnotes directly reference Helgerson’s report and the memo, along with two others issued by Bradbury in May 2005, appears to address specific conclusions Helgerson's report raised questions about the legality of the “enhanced interrogations.”

According to the Times report, Helgerson’s investigation into the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, launched in 2003, “expressed skepticism [that] the [torture] treaty does not apply to CIA interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States.”

"The officials who described the report said it discussed particular techniques used by the CIA against particular prisoners, including about three dozen terror suspects being held by the agency in secret locations around the world," the New York Times reported.

“They said it referred in particular to the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...who has been detained in a secret location by the CIA since he was captured in March 2003. Mr. Mohammed is among those believed to have been subjected to waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to believe he is drowning.”

The report has been highly sought after by members of Congress and civil liberties organizations for some time. It is believed contents of the report were shared with Democratic and Republican members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

In fact, a little known declaration from the Justice Department in January makes that clear. The declaration, made in response to a lawsuit filed against the CIA by the American Civil Liberties Union over the destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes, says  “at the conclusion of [Helgerson’s] special review in May 2004, [CIA Office of Inspector General] notified DOJ and other relevant oversight authorities of the review’s findings.”

In June 2004, one month after Helgerson concluded his investigation, then CIA Director George Tenet asked the White House to explicitly sign off on the agency's "enhanced interrogation" program with a memo that authorized specific techniques, such as waterboarding. A similar request was also made by the agency at the start of Helgerson's probe in 2003, according to a report published in the Washington Post last October.

"The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public," the Post reported.

"The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed (and remain classified), were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing."

It's unknown whether Helgerson's review lead Tenet to request the memos from the White House.

According to the Post report, "the CIA's anxiety was partly fueled by the lack of explicit presidential authorization for the interrogation program" and "Tenet seemed...interested in protecting his subordinates" from legal liability.

Last week, after the four "torture" memos were released, Attorney General Eric Holder said he told the CIA that the federal government would provide legal representation “to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee’s behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.”

“To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations,” Holder said. "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.”

But Helgerson's report, if made public, could change all that.

According to New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, Helgerson concluded that some detainees were allegedly killed during interrogations.

In an interview with Harper’s magazine last year, Mayer said Helgerson “investigated several alleged homicides involving CIA detainees” and forwarded several of those cases “to the Justice Department for further consideration and potential prosecution.”

“Why have there been no charges filed? It’s a question to which one would expect that Congress and the public would like some answers,” Mayer said. “Sources suggested to me that... it is highly uncomfortable for top Bush Justice officials to prosecute these cases because, inevitably, it means shining a light on what those same officials sanctioned.”

In her book, The Dark Side, Mayer wrote that Helgerson was "looking into at least three deaths of CIA-held prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Helgerson "had serious questions about the agency's mistreatment of dozens more, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Mayer wrote, adding that there was a belief by some "insiders that [Helgerson's investigation] would end with criminal charges for abusive interrogations."

The ACLU has filed a Freedom of Information act lawsuit to gain access to Helgerson's report. Portions of the report have already been turned over to the organization, but much of it was heavily redacted. If the ACLU prevails, as it did in its litigation over the "torture" memos, and Helgerson's report is released it will no doubt further fuel the debate over the need for a criminal investigation.

According to Mayer, Helgerson’s report is “tens of thousands of pages long and as thick as two Manhattan phone books.”

“It contained information, according to one source, that was simply ‘sickening,’” Mayer wrote. “The behavior it described, another knowledgeable source said, raised concerns not just about the detainees but also about the Americans who had inflicted the abuse, one of whom seemed to have become frighteningly dehumanized. The source said, "You couldn't read the documents without wondering, "Why didn't someone say, 'Stop!'"

According to Mayer, Vice President Dick Cheney stopped Helgerson from fully completing his investigation. That proves, Mayer contends, that as early as 2004 “the Vice President’s office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in The [interrogation] Program.”

“Helgerson was summoned repeatedly to meet privately with Vice President Cheney” before his investigation was “stopped in its tracks.” Mayer said that Cheney’s interaction with Helgerson was “highly unusual.”

One person who was concerned about the CIA’s interrogation program was Mary O. McCarthy, who alleged CIA officials "lied" to members of Congress during an intelligence briefing when they said the agency did not violate treaties that bar, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees during interrogations, according to a May 14, 2006, front-page story in The Washington Post.

"A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that 'CIA people had lied' in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading," The Washington Post reported.

McCarthy "worried that neither Helgerson nor the agency's Congressional overseers would fully examine what happened or why." Another friend said, "She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried." The Post story reported, "In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, friends say, torture was not only wrong but also misguided, because it rarely produced useful results."

In April 2006, ten days before she was due to retire, McCarthy was fired from the CIA for allegedly leaking classified information to the media, a CIA spokeswoman told reporters at the time.

Mayer also suggested that the CIA may have decided to destroy 92 interrogation videotapes, which Helgerson viewed at one of the CIA’s “black site” prisons prior to the drafting his report, after Sen. Jay Rockefeller, began asking questions about the tapes referenced in the report.

“Further rattling the CIA was a request in May 2005 from Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, to see over a hundred documents referred to in the earlier Inspector General's report on detention inside the black prison sites,” Mayer wrote in her book. “Among the items Rockefeller specifically sought was a legal analysis of the CIA's interrogation videotapes.

"Rockefeller wanted to know if the intelligence agency's top lawyer believed that the waterboarding of [alleged al-Qaeda operative Abu] Zubaydah and [alleged 9/11 mastermind] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as captured on the secret videotapes, was entirely legal. The CIA refused to provide the requested documents to Rockefeller. But the Democratic senator's mention of the videotapes undoubtedly sent a shiver through the Agency, as did a second request the made for these documents to [former CIA Director Porter] Goss in September 2005.”

In October 2007, former CIA Director Michael Hayden ordered an investigation into Helgerson’s office, focusing on internal complaints that the inspector general was on “a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention program."

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2009, 09:37:10 AM »
You take staff writers' accounts over the CIA account directly?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2009, 09:37:14 AM »
Torture does not work.  Historically speaking, all one has to do is look at the Spanish Inquisitions and see how many people would admit that they were indeed a witch with magical powers so the torture would stop.

Also, you should research the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven.  This was late 1970s torture where the accused were beaten senseless and admitted to crimes they did not do.  
I understand that but torture will work if the individual knows information...this doesnt really get to the heart of my question though

All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.

My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?

I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?
Why is it that this makes us lose the moral high ground? do you believe this makes us equivilant to them? obvously we could do much much worse but restrain ourselve even though they show no restraint but by us waterboarding we are as bad as they are?

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2009, 09:39:42 AM »
You take staff writers' accounts over the CIA account directly?
Nope.


The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2009, 09:40:27 AM »

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2009, 09:41:21 AM »

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2009, 09:42:24 AM »


Its always amusing when you put the most left wing idiots vids to prove your point.When they release the FULL report and its proven that the "torture" actually worked,are you still going to say its wrong.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2009, 09:43:21 AM »
Why is it that this makes us lose the moral high ground? do you believe this makes us equivilant to them? obvously we could do much much worse but restrain ourselve even though they show no restraint but by us waterboarding we are as bad as they are?

whether it works or not is not whats in question here the question is why it causes us to lose the moral high ground?

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2009, 09:43:37 AM »

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2009, 09:46:40 AM »
whether it works or not is not whats in question here the question is why it causes us to lose the moral high ground?

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2009, 09:51:07 AM »
whether it works or not is not whats in question here the question is why it causes us to lose the moral high ground?
Do you find torture to be a moral practice?  Do you think it casts the nation in a negative light considering we champion ourselves as the Beacon of Light, the shining city on the hill, A country who holds other nations accountable for human rights abuses. We are supposed to exemplify a higher standard.  It makes us difficult to regain our footing as a nation who promotes Liberty and Justice. We even place embargoes and tariffs on nations because of torture.  If we tout ourselves as being morally superior we should be expected to carry it out.


Does it lower your opinion of other nations the abuses they commit of any kind?

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2009, 09:52:42 AM »

Also, it would do you some good to learn the History of the United States and why the Revolutionary was fought and how it was carried out after the war.  The ideals that were set forth.


I notice the lot of you here have no basis or understanding of American History and certainly none of World History.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2009, 09:58:26 AM »
Also, it would do you some good to learn the History of the United States and why the Revolutionary was fought and how it was carried out after the war.  The ideals that were set forth.


I notice the lot of you here have no basis or understanding of American History and certainly none of World History.

The "Redcoats" did not have the ability to kill thousands of people in a milisecond. 

The Redcoats did not have ambitions to kill millions of people.

The Redcoats did not behead infidels for pleasure.

The Redcoats abided by rules of war. 



Your sympathizing with terrorist killers is disgusting.  Come to NYC and go down Broadway all the way till the end and see the hole in the ground where 3000 people.
 

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2009, 10:02:12 AM »
Do you find torture to be a moral practice?  Do you think it casts the nation in a negative light considering we champion ourselves as the Beacon of Light, the shining city on the hill, A country who holds other nations accountable for human rights abuses. We are supposed to exemplify a higher standard.  It makes us difficult to regain our footing as a nation who promotes Liberty and Justice. We even place embargoes and tariffs on nations because of torture.  If we tout ourselves as being morally superior we should be expected to carry it out.


Does it lower your opinion of other nations the abuses they commit of any kind?
I dont find it an unmoral practice when performed on an individual who harbors ill will towards us and might know info that could protect our citizens. If they were to do it on everyday individuals just for kicks then sure i would consider that immoral. Do we not still exemplify a higher standard? we dont cut their heads off, we dont target civilians, we dont use mentally disabled ppl or children to attack civilians, we dont intentionally put civilians in harms way. Why is that not enough for you?

Also, it would do you some good to learn the History of the United States and why the Revolutionary was fought and how it was carried out after the war.  The ideals that were set forth.


I notice the lot of you here have no basis or understanding of American History and certainly none of World History.
Im very aware of the ideals set forth for us by others in the past but as they say times they are a changing and ideals while great to strive to live by at times are unrealistic wouldnt you agree?

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2009, 10:14:24 AM »
The "Redcoats" did not have the ability to kill thousands of people in a milisecond. 

The Redcoats did not have ambitions to kill millions of people.

The Redcoats did not behead infidels for pleasure.

The Redcoats abided by rules of war. 



Your sympathizing with terrorist killers is disgusting.  Come to NYC and go down Broadway all the way till the end and see the hole in the ground where 3000 people.
 
1. The Redcoats killed hundreds of thousands, sometimes by the thousand in a few minutes.  More than any terrorist has done to ANY American.

2.  The Redcoats did have the ambition at one time to enslave or kill at will especially as they were colonizing Africa and India.  Historians pinpoint well over a million deaths easily due to British colonization in an attempt to expand their colonial empire.

3.  The Redcoats tortured Americans fiercely which did include severing heads and raping children as well as the burning of civilian homes.  I guess you forgot about the Third Ammendment to the Constitution: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law which was created in part out of the harsh torture the civilians endured.

4.  The Redcoats DID NOT abide by rules of engagement.

5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism.  I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Revolutionary War Prisoners of War

OVERALL FACTS:

There were thousands of American prisoners held by the British during the war.

Of all of the prisoners held in captivity, 4 out of 5 men died.

New York City was the main city where prisoners were held.

By the end of 1776, there were over 5,000 prisoners held in New York City. More than half of the prisoners came from the soldiers captured at the battle of Fort Washington and Fort Lee. With a total population of New York City around 25,000, this meant that 1 out of every 5 people in the city were prisoners.

During the war, more military men on the British prison ships than were killed in battle.

A Prisoner Excange Program was used between the British and American forces during the American Revolutionary War.

The premise of the exchange was to be able to exchange a sailor for a sailor, a soldier for a soldier, with the prisoners being of equal rank. Later on in the war, the exchange program was stopped by the British in 1780. The reason being that with the American forces being smaller than the British forces, the British didn't want to let the Americans get back more of their men by using the rate of attrition being that the Americans didn't have nearly as many military personel as the British.

After the major british defeat at the battle of Yorktown in 1781, the British wanted to restart the program due to the severe shortage of soldiers and sailors in the British military. Gen. George Washington realized this, and with the war coming to an end with the Americans seeing that they were going to be victorious, decided to not start the program back.

Prisoners onboard the British prison ships could win their release if they signed an oath to serve as sailors with the British Royal Navy.

In the latter years of the war, the number of enlistments of British sailors were becoming smaller and more difficult to fulfill. To offset the low recruiting numbers, the British government authorized a plan whereas the American prisoners would be allowed to sign an oath to serve in the Royal Navy in exchange for being released from captivity as prisoners of war.

By the end of the war, almost 25% of the sailors serving aboard ships in the British Royal Navy were former American prisoners who signed the oath.

BRITISH PRISON SHIPS:
The number of American prisoners continued to grow with the progression of the war. The british were having trouble with finding enough places to houe these captured Americans. There was only 1 prison building in New York City at this time. The British had already taken over most of the empty buildings in the city for use as prisons, and there still wasn't enough room for the prisoners. Since it would be too expensive to build enough prisons to facilitate the number of prisoners on hand, plus the estimated number of future prisoners, the British had to come up with a solution.


There were about a dozen Royal Navy ships in the New York City area not being used. This was because the ships weren't seaworthy. It was decided to use these ships as prisons for the captured Americans since it was cheaper to build a ship than a prison. The ships had its masts removed and the gunports nailed shut. The ships were put at Wallabaugh Bay, which is near Brooklyn. The Wallabaugh Bay was really nothing more than mud flats because of the shallow water depth not being deep enough for a regular ship to navigate in.

The most infamous British prison ship was the H.M.S. Jersey. It was a decrepit, former hospital navy ship that was dilapitated and in serious need of repair to become seaworthy again. Normally, the ship would have a crew of about 350 sailors. When it became a prison ship, it held over 1,000 prisoners.

During the daytime, the prisoners were allowed above deck to walk around and get some fresh air. At sunset, they were sent back into the holds of the ship and locked up. The only ventilation while below deck was from a few windows with iron bars on them. It was almost completely dark in the holds. The latrines were buckets located with the prisoners. They would normally overflow from being full during the night, with its contents running over into the sleeping areas.

They were given only 1 cup of water once they went below deck. The prisoners had a ration issued to the in the morning. Most of the rations were inedible. They were left over rations from England and very old. The total amount equaled to about 1/2 of a normal British sailor's ration. Hunger and diseases were prevalent among the prisoners. Every prisoner suffered from vitamen deffenciency, typically it would be scurvey.

By 1781, the H.M.S. Jersey held over 1,100 prisoners. Smallpox and yellow fever outbreaks were at an epidemic proportion among the prisoners.

Every few days, some doctors would come aboard the ships and take the extremely sick prisoners off and transfer them to 1 of 3 hospital ships in the bay. The bad part of this is that the sick prisoners rarely left alive from the hospital ships. The prisoners who died on the ships during the night were put in a corner of the ship's hold until morning. The following day, the dead were bundled up, tied together, and hauled up to the top deck. They were then sent to the adjoining shoreline of the bay, where they would be buried. On the shoreline, from the waterline to about 30 yards away was a marshy shore. It was here that the dead would be buried. A group of prisoners would volunteer for a burial detail and go with the dead bodies, under heavy guard, and bury the bodies. On average, 5 to 6 prisoners a day died aboard the H.M.S. Jersey and likewise on the other prison ships.

The ship's guards were notorious for being very brutal. They would try to cheat the prisoners out of anything that they could. It was also known for them to torture the prisoners with the threat of injury and actually injuring or accidentaly killing the prisoners. The prisoners couldn't do anything about it, though. At the closing months of the war, when the british realized that they were going to lose, the treatment of the prisoners by the guards improved dramatically. Anytime a prisoner was caught trying to escape, or captured after escaping, was shot on the spot.
During the Revolutionary War, the management and treatment of prisoners was very different from the standards of modern warfare. Modern standards, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, expect captives to be held and cared for by their captors. One primary difference in the 18th century, was that care and supplies for captives were expected to be provided by their own army, their government, or private resources.

Throughout the war, there were exchanges of prisoners. These might be made in the field or at higher levels of organization. Usually high ranking officer exchanges would be negotiated for specific named people. There were some exchanges based on numbers for lower ranking people, but these were so limited as to be rare events.

Three other aspects were different than those normally seen in modern warfare. The first is that letters were permitted, and sometimes even encouraged. Prisoners could buy or exchange for food and clothing, including any money sent by their families. The second was the use of "Parole" by both sides. This would allow prisoners some freedom, in exchange for their promise not to resume the war. The last is that prisoners were encouraged to enlist in the army of the other side. Over the course of the war, as much as a quarter of each army had actually seen service on the other side.

The British forces held relatively few places in strength for long periods. American prisoners tended to be accumulated at these sites. New York City was the major site, Philadelphia in 1777 and later Charleston, South Carolina were also important. Facilities at these places were limited, sometime severely. At times the occupying army was actually larger than the total civilian population.

The British solution to this problem was to use obsolete, captured, or damaged ships as prisons. Conditions here were appalling, and as many men died imprisoned as were killed in actual combat. While the Continental Army named a commissary to supply them, the task was almost impossible. Elias Boudinot, as one of these commissaries, was competing with other agents seeking to gather supplies for Gen. George Washington's army at Valley Forge.

Some British and Hessian prisoners were paroled to American farmers. Their labor made up for shortages caused by the number of men serving in the American army. Usually their return was room and board, supplied by the contractor.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2009, 10:18:49 AM »
I dont find it an unmoral practice when performed on an individual who harbors ill will towards us and might know info that could protect our citizens. If they were to do it on everyday individuals just for kicks then sure i would consider that immoral. Do we not still exemplify a higher standard? we dont cut their heads off, we dont target civilians, we dont use mentally disabled ppl or children to attack civilians, we dont intentionally put civilians in harms way. Why is that not enough for you?
Im very aware of the ideals set forth for us by others in the past but as they say times they are a changing and ideals while great to strive to live by at times are unrealistic wouldnt you agree?
It is not enough for me because I am against the entire concept of torture in all instances.  As an Atheist, I find it morally wrong.  I do understand that Christianity and Islam do permit this type of treatment and I think this gives justification for some to see it as an acceptable practice. 

We should not regress in our ideals, ever.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Moral high ground?
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2009, 10:20:45 AM »
The "Redcoats" did not have the ability to kill thousands of people in a milisecond. 

The Redcoats did not have ambitions to kill millions of people.

The Redcoats did not behead infidels for pleasure.

The Redcoats abided by rules of war. 



Your sympathizing with terrorist killers is disgusting.  Come to NYC and go down Broadway all the way till the end and see the hole in the ground where 3000 people.
 
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism.  I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.