George Washington on torture

[Moonlight Graham]

From an editorial by Paul Hill of the Boston Globe:

On Christmas morning in 1776, upon crossing the Delaware River and securing victory in the Battle of Trenton, George Washington sat astride his horse and issued instructions to his lieutenants. "Treat surrendering prisoners with humanity,'' he told them. "Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army.''

It is ironic that these words uttered by an American general would lay the ground rules for the humane treatment of prisoners worldwide.

Washington knew from the cold reality of a vicious war that the moral high ground is not won by access to depravity and revenge against those in captivity, but in the knowledge that retaining the moral high ground would ultimately result in victory and, as such, inspire mankind. Washington stood among the carnage in the darkest hours on the cusp of a nation's freedom and willed his reason to overcome his fear.

Well said, in my opinion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Earlier on, George Washignton had aspirations for a commission in the British army, but suffered the disdain and indignities offered by the British for colonials, not even respecting their rank. No wonder this incident came to be...quite different from honouring prisoners!

....At daybreak on May 28 (1754), Washington with 40 men stole up on the French camp near present Jumonville, Pa. Some were still asleep, others preparing breakfast. Without warning, Washington gave the order to fire. The Canadians who escaped the volley scrambled for their weapons, but were swiftly overwhelmed. Ten of the Canadians were killed, one wounded, all but one of the rest taken prisoner. Washington and his men then retired, leaving the bodies of their victims behind. The French commander, Ensign Jumonville, and most of the other wounded French were subsequently massacred, the French later claimed, by Tanacharison and the other Indians.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_care...orge_Washington

[GostHacked]

BC, what does that have to do with him treating prisoners like humans??

Because the thing that you speak of there, looks like a planned attack on a military group. They were not prisoners.

[Pliny]

Of course, the whole point of the thread is to demonstrate how far America morally fell under the Bush administration from it's original birth in humanity.

In my view, Bush was not a great President but was tough when America needed to be tough. He was poorly advised and tended to react to situations rather than have viable plans and objectives. But in his defense action was demanded by the American people on a right now basis and he couldn't afford to appear to be doing nothing.

Obama has a financial crisis on his hands and he is trying to push through social engineering objectives such as government run health care. I think most Americans agree it needs reform but not the reform Obama envisions.

[Pliny]

BC, what does that have to do with him treating prisoners like humans??

Because the thing that you speak of there, looks like a planned attack on a military group. They were not prisoners.

There were prisoners if you understand what "subsequently" massacred means.

[BubberMiley]

There were prisoners if you understand what "subsequently" massacred means.

Do you understand what "by Tanacharison and the other Indians" means?

[M.Dancer]

Do you understand what "by Tanacharison and the other Indians" means?

He was part of Washington's force, nominally under the good general's authority.

The next morning, Washington, Tanacharison, and a party of British soldiers surrounded the French soldiers and a fight broke out. In the fight, nine French soldiers were killed, 21 were captured, and two, including its commander Ensign Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, were wounded. Washington was meeting with the wounded Jumonville shortly after the battle discussing terms when Tanacharisson approached Jumonville and tomahawked and killed him, took out his brains, then washing his hands with them and scalped him, saying, "Vous n'êtes pas mort encore mon père!" ("Thou are not dead yet, my father." in French)[2] The fight was later called the Battle of Jumonville Glen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanacharison

[GostHacked]

There were prisoners if you understand what "subsequently" massacred means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanacharison

Well it seems that Washington was in surrender negotiations with Jumonville when Tanacharisson made the move. I fail to see how this can be pinned on Washington unless he ordered Tanacharisson to kill Jumonville.

Washington was meeting with the wounded Jumonville shortly after the battle discussing terms when Tanacharisson approached Jumonville and tomahawked and killed him, took out his brains, then washing his hands with them and scalped him, saying, "Vous n'êtes pas mort encore mon père!" ("Thou are not dead yet, my father." in French)[2] The fight was later called the Battle of Jumonville Glen.

[Wilber]

One could say that the treatment of prisoners during the Indian Wars was less than humane (if they took any) and the lot of a Civil War prisoner was often not great. It often depends on who the enemy is and the commander involved. Wellington often threatened his troops with hanging if they were caught looting the locals and he made good on his threats.

[noahbody]

“To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil.”

— Michael Ignatieff

I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded. Indeed, Mark Bowden points to a Time report in March 2003 that Sheikh Mohammed had “given US interrogators the names and descriptions of about a dozen key al Qaeda operatives believed to be plotting terrorist attacks.” We must at least entertain the possibility that the operatives working on Sheikh Mohammed in our name are engaging not in gratuitous sadism but in the genuine belief that this form of torture—and it does qualify as such—makes all the difference

. - Michael Ignatieff

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/30/cheney-...heikh-mohammed/

[eyeball]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanacharison

Well it seems that Washington was in surrender negotiations with Jumonville when Tanacharisson made the move. I fail to see how this can be pinned on Washington unless he ordered Tanacharisson to kill Jumonville.

Get enough people together who feel torture should be transformed into a justifiable perhaps even noble act and anything is possible. Don't be surprised if the neutrality of these wiki articles aren't in dispute one day.

It was probably this period in Washington's life that caused him to develop a keener appreciation for the need to diligently apply as much humanity during inhumane times.

[bush_cheney2004]

One could say that the treatment of prisoners during the Indian Wars was less than humane (if they took any) and the lot of a Civil War prisoner was often not great. It often depends on who the enemy is and the commander involved. Wellington often threatened his troops with hanging if they were caught looting the locals and he made good on his threats.

Indeed.....such moral posturing is often built on the shifting sands of circumstance. Holding up General George Washington as a historic example is not without conflicting episodes. It is ludicrous to exalt or accuse him for standards and expectations that did not exist. It didn't work then, and it won't work now....but nice try.

[M.Dancer]

There are other aspects to Washington and his thoughts of British POWs.

1) The British were at the time not an alien nation. They were Kith and Kin who pretty much spoke and sounded like Rebels. It would have been unpolitick to treat them as, say, the french when those guarding them might easily be cousins, brothers, neighbours.

2) The Rebels were campaigning to be recognised by all the European powers as a legitimate state and not merely a rebel uprising so it was politick of them to act civily towards the british and to behave according to the rules of warfare as observed at the time. The rebels first recognition as a power happened only a month prior to the crossing of the Delaware and was probably not well known at the time.

3) The Crowns treatment of prisoners was most probably harsh at first, given that they believed the rebels were criminals who would be hung anyway.

By 1778 the Crown began treating the American troops as POW and by 1782 they were recognized as POWs

Never the less, then is then....

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_summer_fall/pows.htm

[BubberMiley]

Holding up General George Washington as a historic example is not without conflicting episodes.

But your so-called "conflicting episode" is just a lame attempt to smear Washington for something someone else did.

[jbg]

Of course, the whole point of the thread is to demonstrate how far America morally fell under the Bush administration from it's original birth in humanity.

In my view, Bush was not a great President but was tough when America needed to be tough. He was poorly advised and tended to react to situations rather than have viable plans and objectives. But in his defense action was demanded by the American people on a right now basis and he couldn't afford to appear to be doing nothing.

I still think that a President has a duty to advocate for and lead the U.S. Torture isn't my favorite thing but crazed Muslims are not the same as British or Hessian troops. The British and Hessian troops were targeting American troops. If they wanted to rape schoolchildren Washington wouldn't have been so nice.

Obama has a financial crisis on his hands and he is trying to push through social engineering objectives such as government run health care. I think most Americans agree it needs reform but not the reform Obama envisions.

Exactly.

Which is why his support is plummeting.

[bush_cheney2004]

But your so-called "conflicting episode" is just a lame attempt to smear Washington for something someone else did.

Brilliant....that's an excellent excuse for Bush and Cheney as well. Someone else did it....LOL!

[BubberMiley]

You're trying to revise history and saying that Washington ordered it? You don't have any source for those allegations, do you?

[bush_cheney2004]

You're trying to revise history and saying that Washington ordered it? You don't have any source for those allegations, do you?

No....you're saying that in the usual pattern of leapfrog assertions. I simply took the original OP and turned it on its head given the historical record. I do the same whenever somebody invokes a "Founding Father", liberty, and freedom in the same sentence by easily describing the actual social and economic conditions of the day (e.g. slavery, suffrage, indentured servants, etc.)

Frankly, I am supportive of whatever Washington may or may not have done for operations under his charge, in the context of the time and pressing matters at hand. Ditto for George W. Bush.

[Wilber]

Indeed.....such moral posturing is often built on the shifting sands of circumstance. Holding up General George Washington as a historic example is not without conflicting episodes. It is ludicrous to exalt or accuse him for standards and expectations that did not exist. It didn't work then, and it won't work now....but nice try.

It's a mistake we make. Who among us would want to be judged by the standards of those 250 years from now, whatever they may be? We will be of course.

[BubberMiley]

Frankly, I am supportive of whatever Washington may or may not have done for operations under his charge, in the context of the time and pressing matters at hand. Ditto for George W. Bush.

Or, to paraphrase, you have no grounds for your insinuation that Washington tortured and killed prisoners.

[bush_cheney2004]

Or, to paraphrase, you have no grounds for your insinuation that Washington tortured and killed prisoners.

Just keep doing what you do best.....and call it paraphrasing. Washington most certainly "tortured and killed" prisoners, if only because he was incapable of stopping such actions by all of his forces in response to the brutal treatment of American prisoners by the much hated British.

Now why don't you tell us all about young George chopping down a cherry tree and not lying about it.

[BubberMiley]

Washington most certainly "tortured and killed" prisoners, if only because he was incapable of stopping such actions by all of his forces in response to the brutal treatment of American prisoners by the much hated British.

He did it by being incapable of stopping others from doing it? Well, that's surely not as bad as ordering others to do it.

[bush_cheney2004]

He did it by being incapable of stopping others from doing it? Well, that's surely not as bad as ordering others to do it.

It's not "bad" either way......conditions for prisoners in those days were deplorable, and not much better for the troops or sailors. Today we call it "torture".

[Moonlight Graham]

I still think that a President has a duty to advocate for and lead the U.S. Torture isn't my favorite thing but crazed Muslims are not the same as British or Hessian troops. The British and Hessian troops were targeting American troops. If they wanted to rape schoolchildren Washington wouldn't have been so nice.

Exactly.

That's a bit off. If the British or any other country were fighting a war against the U.S. and were attacking on U.S. soil, they wouldn't be targeting innocent civilians , but they would likely be hitting non-military targets run by civilians, and many other targets they attacked there also would likely be civilian casualties.

Washington i'm sure did some bad stuff during his time on the battlefield, as everyone did back then. But towards the end of the American Revolution, maybe he changed his tune a bit. Maybe it was just because it was the British, who knows. But the point of his quote is no less powerful.

Why are some people more concerned with revenge in the "war on terror" than taking the high road & sticking to basic moral principles (oh, and international law)? Were all the messages/lessons about "being the good guy no matter what" that i learned over and over again in the comic books, movies, cartoons, and books i grew up reading/watching just a pile of rubbish to seemingly 50% of the population?

[Moonlight Graham]

Frankly, I am supportive of whatever Washington may or may not have done for operations under his charge, in the context of the time and pressing matters at hand. Ditto for George W. Bush.

Really? So where would you draw the line if you were Bush in terms of treatment of prisoners? You think Abu Ghraib was ok?