Military men and women deal in violence, they kill people for a living, and in the heat of the movement many will have no problem about kicking the crap out of prisoners for information. This attitude isn’t going to go away, and no matter how many rules and regulations you put in place, it won’t work, soldiers will still give prisoners a shoeing if they feel the need to, and if it comes out that this has been going on then more than likely the military will close ranks and cover it up. As far they are concerned if you aren’t in a combat situation you can’t understand, and the military will go a long way to protecting its men and women, especially if they feel they are being scapegoat by people who weren’t on the ground and have no idea about how what it’s like on the ground.

Speaking as a part time member of the military, I would have no trouble in kicking the crap out of someone if I thought I could get vital information out them, if that information was needed fast and peoples lives were on the line, and it’s a particularly common view (I'd like to point out that if however, It is not the official or common policy or practice of the British Army, or any other Western Army to abuse prisoners, but if a do or die situation arose, you do what you have to do). When you train people in combat and violence you can’t expect them to be the most empathetic people on the planet when it comes to peoples welfare, especially when they've been trying to kill you and may be withholding information that may get you killed.

[ If you are willing to take yourself down to their level, what the hell are you fighting for? The enemy, who has been dehumanised as a terrible monster who is killed, raping, pillaging and torturing people willy nilly is what you want to stop. When you become them, what's the point in even trying to stop them? You just became them.

They just won.

Granted, this is more of an ethics debate and really has no place here but it's just a little food for though ]

Your already down on their level so to speak. You think that planting a bayonet into the face of some 18 year old conscript who's just doing what he's told gives a person a particularly moral high ground?

[ o quote Michael Weston from Burn Notice:

"The fact is, torture is for sadists and thugs. It's like getting groceries with a flame thrower; it doesn't work and it makes a mess."

and

"Torture just gets you the fastest lie to make the pain stop"

Frankly, I tend to agree. ]

Yeah, that's a tv show, you know fiction.

The fact is there have been numerous cases where torture has been highly effective. The KGB didn't keep places like Lubyanka open simply for their own amusement. As a interrogation tactic its not more or less effective than any other form of interrogation, prisoners can string people along in many other ways. The main and only real argument against torture is the moral implications.

Considering my friends serving overseas are fighting the Taliban the chances of them getting good treatment if they were captured is slim to none. They are at the very least if ever captured guaranteed far worse treatment than any Taliban captured. And honestly you get captured you hope for the best, but it is very difficult to have any sympathy or respect for someone who has just tried to kill you.

The idea that torture is ineffective is a fairly recent one, a nice way to justify not using it. Is this actually the case? Not really no. Torture can be ineffective and unreliable, but no more so than any other form of interrogation can be. Morality aside in order to be effective it simply has to be used in the right situation.