So. Torture.

[Floppertje]

In answer to the question: yes. If you're sure, and if it's the only way, then yes. But I have to agree with pretty much everyone else here: the question is in no way relevant to reality.
Let's put it another way: would you yourself torture someone? It depends on the situation. Let's say someone kidnapped your child and you get your hands on someone who can lead you to him/her. Would you torture them for the information? I think a lot of people would, even considering the risk that the information would be false and you're not sure this person even knows. It's your child! you'd do anything to keep them safe. And I wouldn't blame you. Same goes if, say, soldiers on the ground capture an enemy who knows the location of a bomb that will kill their buddies. I wouldn't blame them if they take a crowbar to his kneecaps to find out.
HOWEVER. that's a long way from torture or 'enhanced interrogation' being government policy. THAT is something I don't support.
When something really shocking happens, whether it's your child being kidnapped, a bomb threat or 9/11, the people affected go temporarily and understandably crazy. But that's not the default mindset you want to be running your country on (patriot act, looking at you).

 

[gorfias]

I don't know if I'd surrender to Al Queda, even with a gun to my temple [to avoid the brutal torture murder they'd have in mind].

And yet our soldiers still do it [/quote]

But if even one fails to surrender and fights harder because he fears treatment in capture, NameHere still has a point. I don't doubt that it has happened. I have to wonder if the subject American soldiers on which "Lone Survivor" is based fought harder knowing how they'd be treated if captured? Would they have acted differently were they guaranteed the type of cushy, standard of living increasing treatment Gitmo prisoners get? Me? I'd have likely said, "guys, we are wicked surrounded, we best surrender." and they'd all be alive today.

 

[Frission]

But if even one fails to surrender and fights harder because he fears treatment in capture, NameHere still has a point. I don't doubt that it has happened. I have to wonder if the subject American soldiers on which "Lone Survivor" is based fought harder knowing how they'd be treated if captured? Would they have acted differently were they guaranteed the type of cushy, standard of living increasing treatment Gitmo prisoners get? Me? I'd have likely said, "guys, we are wicked surrounded, we best surrender." and they'd all be alive today.

Well normally having a more humane treatment of prisoners, especially prisoners of war is an incentive for people to surrender and co-operate instead of fighting to the death. The Americans shouldn't pat themselves on the back though, since 'having a slightly better treatment of prisoners than Al Qaeda" is not an accomplishment, it's a basic assumption and from current reports they don't treat them much better than that.

 

[gorfias]

'having a slightly better treatment of prisoners than Al Qaeda" is not an accomplishment, it's a basic assumption and from current reports they don't treat them much better than that.

Links?

I can't even post pics I've seen of burnt, mutilated American Prisoners that Al Queda captured. Al Queda's prisoners in Gitmo? They're putting on weight. They're pampered. Their standard of living improves as they move from crapulance to near civilization. About the worst I've heard about is someone laughing at one of their prisoner's penises. Hardly being subjected to mutilation and murder. Do you have links stating otherwise?

It's been suggested that the entire report about prisoner mistreatment is meant to distract from this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394584/jonathan-grubers-pants-inferno-jonah-goldberg

 

[Frission]

Links?

I can't even post pics I've seen of burnt, mutilated American Prisoners that Al Queda captured. Al Queda's prisoners in Gitmo? They're putting on weight. They're pampered. Their standard of living improves as they move from crapulance to near civilization. About the worst I've heard about is someone laughing at one of their prisoner's penises. Hardly being subjected to mutilation and murder. Do you have links stating otherwise?

It's been suggested that the entire report about prisoner mistreatment is meant to distract from this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394584/jonathan-grubers-pants-inferno-jonah-goldberg

Hopefully even from the way news is reported, these two different affairs can be kept prominent. Saying that the torture report is only for the benefit of 'covering' this, assumes that everyone concerned is solely focused on American Politics.

I already said it before, but I don't care about the internal affairs of Washington. Having this happening is a big mark on everyone involved.

As for links, well the report is the center of this thread, no? It's a pretty sweeping indictment on the treatment of all prisoners. Disregarding isolated cases such as Abu Ghraib (because hopefully it was due to the monstrosity of the people involved and not the overall hierarchy), there has been torture (including forcing a player to play Russian Roulette, sensory deprivation etc...), oral and anal rape, prolonged and arbitrary detainment without representation, and death from neglect (if you're not specific on Guantanamo). Not to mention that there's withholding proper food and water and even chances to exercise (maybe that's why they're getting fat), but with the things I've just mentioned those seem small. Then there's also prisoners under the Afghanistan and Iraqi government that were under the U.S who have been mistreated, but that's "off subject".

OT: Hence why I said 'barely better'. If the U.S government started showing the burned and disfigured corpses of enemy combatants and prisoners (instead of in isolated cases such as the American Soldiers videotaping themselves pissing on piles of corpses) then they'll be more barbaric then an actual terrorist group. The current level is not an accomplishment, but a bare minimum before officials should stand on their own Nuremberg trials.

It's a thin, thin line now. For th Geneva convention to have any effect, people should know that it won't be broken without consequences.

Just so I'm clear to everyone, Torturers are scum.

Sources: Amnesty International, UN and the U.S Gov.

 

[gorfias]

Hopefully even from the way news is reported, these two different affairs can be kept prominent.

Conservative media has tried to keep the story prominent. Part of what they're reporting is how other reporters are, ridiculously, saying Gruber is not news.

People have an amazing capacity to block out news they do not want to hear.

OT: Hence why I said 'barely better'. If the U.S government started showing the burned and disfigured corpses of enemy combatants and prisoners (instead of in isolated cases such as the American Soldiers videotaping themselves pissing on piles of corpses) then they'll be more barbaric then an actual terrorist group. The current level is not an accomplishment, but a bare minimum before officials should stand on their own Nuremberg trials.

It's a thin, thin line now. For the Geneva convention to have any effect, people should know that it won't be broken without consequences.

Just so I'm clear to everyone, Torturers are scum.

Sources: Amnesty International, UN and the U.S Gov.

To my knowledge, Terrorist types are, as a matter of operation, doing things like slowing sawing civilians heads off. As a matter of operation (activities known of and authorized by their chain of command), the US has engaged in a few enhanced interrogations with medical staff ready to intervene if necessary. There's nothing "barely better" about US treatment of prisoners compared to how terrorists are treating our prisoners.

And it is that kind of inability to make value judgements that concerns me that we are a step away from being forbidden from so much as scowling at a terrorist without finding oneself hung for violating Geneva.

EDIT: On NRO, how the Democrats are fine at being the Mommy party but not the Daddy party:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395363/democrats-cant-be-dad-mona-charen

 

[Frission]

To my knowledge, Terrorist types are, as a matter of operation, doing things like slowing sawing civilians heads off. As a matter of operation (activities known of and authorized by their chain of command), the US has engaged in a few enhanced interrogations with medical staff ready to intervene if necessary. There's nothing "barely better" about US treatment of prisoners compared to how terrorists are treating our prisoners.

And it is that kind of inability to make value judgements that concerns me that we are a step away from being forbidden from so much as scowling at a terrorist without finding oneself hung for violating Geneva.

EDIT: On NRO, how the Democrats are fine at being the Mommy party but not the Daddy party:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395363/democrats-cant-be-dad-mona-charen

Normally that should be the case, but that doesn't absolve the U.S.

'Enhanced interrogation', what sanitized language! Do you think having medical personal made it okay? How convenient for you to cut out and not address what the U.S has actually done! Scowling at terrorists? If it was only that it would be okay, but how do you justify what the U.S has done? Do you think that they are above the law because of their power? No, even the U.S should be under the jurisdiction of international law, but seeing how they already ignored it when it came to Nicaragua, what can we expect?

I'm more concerned about the inability to make introspective value judgments and realize how far down the methods being used were. There's nothing more for me to say, the U.S doesn't have to act on this, they can keep blaming each other for what happened. It's just another black mark on their reputation.

EDIT: I wish there would be at least some general acknowledgment that torture is monstrous instead of attempts to backpedal, downplay or shift blame.

 

[Lightknight]

But if even one fails to surrender and fights harder because he fears treatment in capture, NameHere still has a point.

Not sure where you get this logic from. Why "if even one fights harder" would it suddenly make a point?

 

[gorfias]

But if even one fails to surrender and fights harder because he fears treatment in capture, NameHere still has a point.

Not sure where you get this logic from. Why "if even one fights harder" would it suddenly make a point?

My bad. If one fights harder, avoiding surrender because he fears treatment in captivity, that helps make NameHere's point.

 

[Lightknight]

But if even one fails to surrender and fights harder because he fears treatment in capture, NameHere still has a point.

Not sure where you get this logic from. Why "if even one fights harder" would it suddenly make a point?

My bad. If one fights harder, avoiding surrender because he fears treatment in captivity, that helps make NameHere's point.

I'm not sure why that would automatically make a point. Are you saying they're not already fighting hard or that one more dead terrorist combatant somehow outweighs any possible lives that are saved through interrogation? Couldn't I just as easily make the argument that if one innocent dies because we did not interrogate then I'd have a point?

 

[gorfias]

But if even one fails to surrender and fights harder because he fears treatment in capture, NameHere still has a point.

Not sure where you get this logic from. Why "if even one fights harder" would it suddenly make a point?

My bad. If one fights harder, avoiding surrender because he fears treatment in captivity, that helps make NameHere's point.

I'm not sure why that would automatically make a point. Are you saying they're not already fighting hard or that one more dead terrorist combatant somehow outweighs any possible lives that are saved through interrogation? Couldn't I just as easily make the argument that if one innocent dies because we did not interrogate then I'd have a point?

NameHere's point was that if we torture, our enemies will fight harder to avoid capture. S/He has a point. It is not conclusive. I think, on balance, enhanced interrogation techniques will save lives. But s/he isn't completely wrong. I referenced, for example, the true life story on which "Lone Survivor" is based. Those guys fought against near impossible odds, to the last man. Had they known they were facing WW2 style American POW camps, they likely would have said, "guys, we're surrounded. War is over for us, throw down your guns and surrender" and under the UCMJ, that is NOT cowardice. It's showing good sense in such a situation.

I think they fought fearing a fate worse than death for reasons that go to NameHere's point.

 

[Olas]

You still haven't explained WHY. You're just reiterating that it's ridiculous, without supporting it. The fact that it's a made up scenario doesn't make it implausible, nor does the fact that it's been done in works of fiction.

You can't just dismiss a hypothetical scenario for being hypothetical. Strategists need to use hypothetical scenarios all the time, they're an important element of critical thought. Only when you can rationally or empirically show that a scenario is unlikely does it make sense to ignore it.

Same as what was said above and which I tried to explain. You're allowed to talk about hypotheticals, but with such timing for such a controversial issue, the other guy is allowed to call out the hypothetical scenarios for being potentially misleading, if not outright dishonest due to the way it muddies the discussion.

For starters, I want to apologize for how late this reply is. for some reason it didn't show up in my inbox and so I didn't realize I'd been quoted until today purely by accident while revisiting to this thread.

Anyway, I'd probably concede your point about stacking qualifiers if torture seemed like the kind of radical thing that only an outlandish amount of qualifiers could make reasonable. What irks me is that it doesn't, at least to me.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario where one might need to get information from an unwilling captive, whether it be a bomb threat, a missing persons investigation, a hostage situation, preparing for an attack, etc. And if I put myself into the shoes of said captive, I certainly can't say I would never give up the information if I was threatened with enough pain.

So the notion that torture is some insane practice that we've simply stacked the deck in order to justify seems itself dishonest.

I think OP was largely responding to the fact that the use of torture has been demonized virtually to the point of seeming inherently wrong, regardless of context or circumstances. Whereas it makes more sense to me to evaluate it based on one's projections of the consequences of it's use or non-use. Like killing, torture is wrong in a vacuum, but we would never say killing is never justified, only that it takes extreme circumstances to justify.

The strong argument against torture seems to be that it "doesn't work". However, this is hardly a priori, there's no inherent reason to suggest torture shouldn't work, only anecdotal evidence from people involved who say it hasn't worked. Of course I'm not going to disregard this anecdotal evidence, but I can't treat it like an airtight repudiation either. For starters it's hardly coming from an unbiased source, the people forced to witness or perform it are likely going to be disgusted by the act, and the sample of cases are hardly wide and varied.

And perhaps torture really does fail to yield results 99.98% of the time, but now this has become a matter of practicality, not morality. If torture (almost) never works then of course there's no reason to do it.

Also, I know that the position I'm taking here might seem uncomfortably close to being defensive of sadism. Please note that I'm not TRYING to justify torture, or show that it's justifiable. I don't have any strong objective here. Torture is clearly a horrendous thing, which I would never want to be on any side of. I just feel that the discussion on it needs to be rational and open minded, not clouded by personal feelings.

 

[Lightknight]

NameHere's point was that if we torture, our enemies will fight harder to avoid capture. S/He has a point.

These are people who are already fighting for their lives with no automatic given that they'll have an opportunity to put up their hands. If "NameHere" thinks they aren't already fighting for their lives then NameHere doesn't understand battle very well. This would be like saying that you'd fight a bear harder if you knew that the bear also had razor claws that cause cancer.

Fight longer? Maybe. Retreat also isn't getting captured. Maybe it will make them retreat sooner?

I think they fought fearing a fate worse than death for reasons that go to NameHere's point.

Let me be very clear about this, if they think they're about to face a fate worse than death then they're merely misinformed. Their quality of life should skyrocket with the exception of about a week of questioning.

 

[Frission]

You still haven't explained WHY. You're just reiterating that it's ridiculous, without supporting it. The fact that it's a made up scenario doesn't make it implausible, nor does the fact that it's been done in works of fiction.

You can't just dismiss a hypothetical scenario for being hypothetical. Strategists need to use hypothetical scenarios all the time, they're an important element of critical thought. Only when you can rationally or empirically show that a scenario is unlikely does it make sense to ignore it.

Same as what was said above and which I tried to explain. You're allowed to talk about hypotheticals, but with such timing for such a controversial issue, the other guy is allowed to call out the hypothetical scenarios for being potentially misleading, if not outright dishonest due to the way it muddies the discussion.

For starters, I want to apologize for how late this reply is. for some reason it didn't show up in my inbox and so I didn't realize I'd been quoted until today purely by accident while revisiting to this thread.

Anyway, I'd probably concede your point about stacking qualifiers if torture seemed like the kind of radical thing that only an outlandish amount of qualifiers could make reasonable. What irks me is that it doesn't, at least to me.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario where one might need to get information from an unwilling captive, whether it be a bomb threat, a missing persons investigation, a hostage situation, preparing for an attack, etc. And if I put myself into the shoes of said captive, I certainly can't say I would never give up the information if I was threatened with enough pain.

So the notion that torture is some insane practice that we've simply stacked the deck in order to justify seems itself dishonest.

I think OP was largely responding to the fact that the use of torture has been demonized virtually to the point of seeming inherently wrong, regardless of context or circumstances. Whereas it makes more sense to me to evaluate it based on one's projections of the consequences of it's use or non-use. Like killing, torture is wrong in a vacuum, but we would never say killing is never justified, only that it takes extreme circumstances to justify.

The strong argument against torture seems to be that it "doesn't work". However, this is hardly a priori, there's no inherent reason to suggest torture shouldn't work, only anecdotal evidence from people involved who say it hasn't worked. Of course I'm not going to disregard this anecdotal evidence, but I can't treat it like an airtight repudiation either. For starters it's hardly coming from an unbiased source, the people forced to witness or perform it are likely going to be disgusted by the act, and the sample of cases are hardly wide and varied.

And perhaps torture really does fail to yield results 99.98% of the time, but now this has become a matter of practicality, not morality. If torture (almost) never works then of course there's no reason to do it.

Also, I know that the position I'm taking here might seem uncomfortably close to being defensive of sadism. Please note that I'm not TRYING to justify torture, or show that it's justifiable. I don't have any strong objective here. Torture is clearly a horrendous thing, which I would never want to be on any side of. I just feel that the discussion on it needs to be rational and open minded, not clouded by personal feelings.

Fair enough, fair enough.

I oppose torture not out of pragmatic reasons, but because I personally believe it to be morally vicious. It's a tool, but one which I think should not be resorted to and I do think that you need an unreasonable amount of qualifiers to ever make it worthwhile, but that's down to personal perceptions right? Nothing wrong with that.

What I find wrong and why I'm tired of arguing on this issue is that I sense a deep break with some people here on not only morality, but on what torture actually is. To hear some of the armchair generals speak of it, they make it sound like it's a vacation, when you have had:

Disregarding isolated cases such as Abu Ghraib (because hopefully it was due to the monstrosity of the people involved and not the overall hierarchy), there has been torture (including forcing a player to play Russian Roulette, sensory deprivation etc...), oral and anal rape, prolonged and arbitrary detainment without representation, and death from neglect (if you're not specific on Guantanamo). Not to mention that there's withholding proper food and water and even chances to exercise (maybe that's why they're getting fat), but with the things I've just mentioned those seem small. Then there's also prisoners under the Afghanistan and Iraqi government that were under the U.S who have been mistreated, but that's "off subject".

Sources: Amnesty International, UN and the U.S Gov.

This has to be acknowledged.
Torturers are scum, whether they're 'useful' or not and I won't side with a government who uses that. That is what I believe, but if anyone wants to do the grotesque moral calculation of whether it's worth it, they should at least know what Torture IS.

 

[gorfias]

NameHere's point was that if we torture, our enemies will fight harder to avoid capture. S/He has a point.

These are people who are already fighting for their lives with no automatic given that they'll have an opportunity to put up their hands. If "NameHere" thinks they aren't already fighting for their lives then NameHere doesn't understand battle very well. This would be like saying that you'd fight a bear harder if you knew that the bear also had razor claws that cause cancer.

Fight longer? Maybe. Retreat also isn't getting captured. Maybe it will make them retreat sooner?

People do surrender rather than continue to fight. That's why we have POW camps.

I think they fought fearing a fate worse than death for reasons that go to NameHere's point.

Let me be very clear about this, if they think they're about to face a fate worse than death then they're merely misinformed. Their quality of life should skyrocket with the exception of about a week of questioning.

Who is "they?". Terrorists? I agree with you. They know, even with a very small number of them facing enhanced interrogation, their standard of living will likely go way, way up as prisoners. Our guys? I think they know they face an unfathomable hell if captured. So again, I think it is as I wrote above regarding "Lone Survivor."

 

[Lightknight]

NameHere's point was that if we torture, our enemies will fight harder to avoid capture. S/He has a point.

These are people who are already fighting for their lives with no automatic given that they'll have an opportunity to put up their hands. If "NameHere" thinks they aren't already fighting for their lives then NameHere doesn't understand battle very well. This would be like saying that you'd fight a bear harder if you knew that the bear also had razor claws that cause cancer.

Fight longer? Maybe. Retreat also isn't getting captured. Maybe it will make them retreat sooner?

People do surrender rather than continue to fight. That's why we have POW camps.

People also retreat before getting surrounded. That's why our POW camps aren't as flooded.

Again, what if this has no impact on fighting harder/longer and instead spreads a propensity for running out early? Why did our troops still surrender to the Japanese forces even when we knew how bad their camps were? "NameHere" just doesn't have the logic or history on his/her side here.

Let me be very clear about this, if they think they're about to face a fate worse than death then they're merely misinformed. Their quality of life should skyrocket with the exception of about a week of questioning.

Who is "they?". Terrorists? I agree with you. They know, even with a very small number of them facing enhanced interrogation, their standard of living will likely go way, way up as prisoners. Our guys? I think they know they face an unfathomable hell if captured. So again, I think it is as I wrote above regarding "Lone Survivor."

Our troops surrender too. Just pointing that out. Even knowing how badly our soldiers are treated they will choose anything but death.

As for Lone Survivor. You're reading into things. Reinterpreting the past through specifically colored lenses. Maybe they would have fought exactly the same way?

Unless the terrorists' superior officers are spreading propaganda then they have no reason to believe that American capture is a fate worse than death like capture under them is. If they are getting propaganda, then that'd happen even if all we did was keep them on big plush pillows with a flat screen TV and all the video games they could ever want. What's hilarious is, if we made their lives awesome here and re-released some we could potentially strike a significant blow to the ideologies of their movement. Were I up in the ranks, that's the sort of things I'd posit. "Oh man, make it awesome for them. Lots of food, good but religiously sensitive entertainment. Get them to see that American life isn't something to hate but to be jealous of and to try to enact in your own countries." You know? Releasing them may have interesting consequences regarding "propaganda". If they are honest about their experience then that's something that could see their fellow soldiers walking up and surrendering.

 

[gorfias]

Fight longer? Maybe. Retreat also isn't getting captured. Maybe it will make them retreat sooner?

Sure. But I think that concedes the point: How a prisoner expects to be treated in capture effects their battlefield conduct.

Why did our troops still surrender to the Japanese forces even when we knew how bad their camps were?

As bad as they were, I don't think people were getting their heads slowly sawed off.

As for Lone Survivor. You're reading into things. Reinterpreting the past through specifically colored lenses. Maybe they would have fought exactly the same way?

No way to prove it. I'm simply reviewing how they did act under all circumstances, which was, with incredible desperation (and bravery... I do not mean to diminish their courage). You use what you know to make a hypothesis. Mine is that they were fighting capture as much as death for good reason.

Lot of poetic license taken in "The Hurt Locker" but I buy the scene where they work to desperately rescue a fallen commerade. I can't recall if there is any discussion of fear of how he will be treated but my perception was that, this was a huge concern for them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Fight longer? Maybe. Retreat also isn't getting captured. Maybe it will make them retreat sooner?

Sure. But I think that concedes the point: How a prisoner expects to be treated in capture effects their battlefield conduct.

Why did our troops still surrender to the Japanese forces even when we knew how bad their camps were?

As bad as they were, I don't think people were getting their heads slowly sawed off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Admittedly, relatively few Allied prisoners ended up there, but the Japanese did like cutting people's heads off, or using them for bayonet practice, among various other forms of mutilation or torture.

 

[gorfias]

As bad as they were, I don't think people were getting their heads slowly sawed off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Admittedly, relatively few Allied prisoners ended up there, but the Japanese did like cutting people's heads off, or using them for bayonet practice, among various other forms of mutilation or torture.

Playing the odds. It was unlikely an American prisoner of the Japanese would face this particular fate. And how much did the Average allied soldier know of this?

Today it is different. A westerner has no expectation of an existence less than Hellish among the terrorists. Heck, they have an expectation that it WILL be hellish.

 

[Lightknight]

Fight longer? Maybe. Retreat also isn't getting captured. Maybe it will make them retreat sooner?

Sure. But I think that concedes the point: How a prisoner expects to be treated in capture effects their battlefield conduct.

Sure, but the topic was specifically on our own torture practices. Intense questioning for a week followed by three square meals a day, a stable living environment with entertainment, and air conditioning? Surely you can understand that this wouldn't really bear any weight on them, right? They aren't getting their toes smashed or getting raped. If the torture they face is temporary and not particularly brutal (sorry, water boarding is rough but at the end of the day you're still alive and no longer in pain, not even bruised). Sleep deprivation? Cry me a river. You know? We are bleeding hearts, that's all there is to it. We have the most mundane and sterile interrogation techniques I've ever heard of. If I were ever captured with sensitive information that the enemy wants to get out of me I would sure as heck hope that the techniques they tried were the ones Americans use.

Why did our troops still surrender to the Japanese forces even when we knew how bad their camps were?

As bad as they were, I don't think people were getting their heads slowly sawed off.

What? You actually couldn't be any more wrong about anything. If society were to really weigh what the Nazi's did compared to what the Japanese forces did during WWII Hitler would be toppled from his position at top-evil by whichever Japanese official lands at the top of control during that time. They are basically the pinnacle of evil where it comes to how they treated POWs and even civilians under their control. Cutting someone's head off slowly? That's child's play compared to the vivisection and amputations were performed on POWs in anesthesia. Vivi - fucking -section. Without anesthesia. Seems like thaluikhain brought up Unit 731 who did this. They'd remove a stomach and hook the esophagus directly up to the intestines. They're probably responsible for the most wide-scale and evil treatment of POWs in history. They were responsible for around 3,000 deaths by themselves.

To put Japan's POW treatment in comparison with the Nazi's, if you were a POW in a Nazi POW camp you only had a 4% chance of not surviving the war. In Japan's POW camp, there was a 30% chance you'd die.

They committed widespread torture against prisoners and those that were tortured were often then executed. From what I've heard and read, the form of torture they used was particularly brutal too.

They committed cannibalism against the POWs. Sometimes they'd cut flesh off of them while they were still alive and toss their still breathing bodies in a ditch while dining on said flesh.

They instituted fairly brutal forced labor. More than 100,000 civilians and POWs died just in the construction of the Burma-Siam railway.

They buried people alive. Which would you prefer? Slow decapitation or live burial? It's a close one if nothing else.

They tested biological weapons on POWs.

Yeah, Japan was shitty to everyone and the world knew it. Perhaps the most brutal treatment of POWs in history that we know of. They even managed to murder more people in the name of genocide than the Germans did. And that's saying something.

And yet, our soldiers still surrendered because that was better than guaranteed death.