Torture in today's world

Throughout history, torture has been used as a weapon and interrogation technique by a wide variety of individuals and nations. In this thread, we'll attempt to examine the use of torture in today's world.

1. How would you define torture?

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

Moderator's note: this is an issue which by its nature generates an emotional response. Please keep the discussion civil. We will be monitoring this thread closely (including deleting and / or editing posts), and failure to abide by the DoIMC rules will result in 14 day or longer suspensions from the DoIMC and / or warning points.

ETA: Also, no videos will be allowed in this thread. We'll remove any that are posted.

1. How would you define torture?

Causing physical harm to another human being for information purposes.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

Nazi-Germany. Stalinist Russia. Vietnam. There are others probably, but I'm to lazy to search for them. lol...

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

Yes. I would use it if I believed my nation was under imminent attack, or a plot to attack my nation(or it's forces) was in the works and I needed information and the subject were unwilling to give it freely.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

For the most part, yes. Like any interrogation, all data needs to be verified by other sources, but at least we could strengthen defenses with info gathered until there was firm confirmation. It's better to be proactive rather than reactive, in my opinion.


-Tibbetts

1. How would you define torture?

Causing overt non fatal physical or mental harm to an individual or group of people for information, amusement or punishment purposes



Causing physical harm to another human being for information purposes.
It doesn't have to be for information, nor does it have to be physical

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

Probably every nation in the entire world has practiced torture in some form so i'm not going to bother with examples

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

None really (which is rather hypocritical of me....). Torture really doesn't solve anything, unless you count for amusement and inducing fear and it certainly doesn't help you get informatoin because all someone will tell you is what they think you want to hear. for example

interrogator: tell us the truth, we know you did it!
prisoner (honestly):I know I didn't
(insert whatever torture method)
prisoner (trying to escape more torture):ok yes i did

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

See above and also, under stress, people don't tend to think straight so say if even if someone was telling the truth under torture, they would have an even greater tendency to accidentally mix up crucial details, or forget a few

1. How would you define torture?

Basically, punishment or intimidation based around causing physical distress or significant emotional or mental distress. I can't think of situations where it would be appropriate to cause physical harm to someone, even if it's relatively mild (such as hitting them). With mental and emotional harm, it's a little more difficult, because valid and appropriate interrogation and punishment techniques often do cause some mental distress, but at an appropriate level. I think it becomes torture once it crosses that line, and things are done that are demeaning, unnecessary, and have the possibility of causing serious harm to the person's well-being.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

The Soviet Union is one of the bigger examples I can think of in recent history. Some of the things prisoners and dissenters went through were horrible.

I do feel that the U.S. has crossed the line when it comes to what has been allowed to occur against detainees in recent years.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

This is a difficult question. People often bring up the hypothetical scenario that we could know that a bomb is going to go off in a few hours, and our only hope is to get answers from a captured terrorist. But in reality, that's probably not a situation that we're likely to encounter. More often, people are captured after the fact, and any information that's sought is based on suspicion or concern about the possibility of future events rather than any such "ticking time bomb" scenario. So as such, there are no circumstances that we generally encounter where I would condone torture in any way.

However, if such a hypothetical situation were to actually occur, it would be very difficult for me to make a judgment. Torture goes against my morals on a very fundamental level, and it's difficult to choose between your morals and the greater good.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

No. When torture is performed for the sake of interrogation, the torturers are going into it with the goal of getting a confession, regardless of whether or not the confession they want exists. People who are genuinely guilty might crack, but innocent people have also been known to lie because that's the only thing that will stop the suffering.

1. How would you define torture?

To me the main thing is if permanent damage is done be it physical or mental. If it's not lasting physical damge it's not torture. Mental damage is harder to judge especially in today's society where we feel the need to trace every mental problem back to someone or thing (usually our mother!).

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

Germany and Vietnam mainly come to mind.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

I'd like to say no but one thing life has taught me is never say never. Sometimes difficult questions are easier to answer if you put them on a personal basis. Say my child was kidnapped and hidden somewhere. I would probably use any means necessary to get there location out of the kidnapper including what might be considered torture.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

If experts are doing the questioning I believe many times the answers are reliable. They might ask 100 questions for the 5 they want the answers to. They already know the answers to most of them and can use it as a guage to if they are getting the truth.

Most interrogaters are professionals. There may be same saddists who enjoy it but most see it as performing a service. In a time of war or danger the majority provide a service that the rest of us wouldn't have the stomach for. "That which you endured, I was spared" comes to mind. In a normal time most interrogaters wouldn't think of causing harm to another person but because they are able to when needed, I can stay on my high horse and judge them.

It doesn't have to be for information, nor does it have to be physical

He asked what I believed it to be, and I answered. To me, that is what torture is.


-Tibbetts

He asked what I believed it to be, and I answered. To me, that is what torture is.


So you don't think that mental and emotional harm can be as significant? Mental scars can last much longer--and run much deeper--than physical ones.

1. How would you define torture?

I find this a tricky question - ultimately there is a legal definition and I'd go for the UN definition (UN COnvention on Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html)).

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

For conversational purposes I think V8's definition is pretty good - I couldn't think of anything more useful.

Causing overt non fatal physical or mental harm to an individual or group of people for information, amusement or punishment purposes


To weigh in on the current discussion, I don't think it depends on purpose - surely beating someone up just for the fun of it is, IMHO, also torture. I'd also include the sort of deliberate extreme humiliation which was documented by some of the Abu Ghraib pictures.



2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

I think most nation states cross the line now and then - but I think one has to see a difference between those states where such things occasionally happen because individuals overstep the line - and those states which are willing to actually condone torture as a matter of government policy.

Austria, for example, is bad enough - it has been cited a few times in ecent years for the awful way in which the police treated some prisoners - usually detained illegal immigrants. Some actually dies in custody, and not of natural causes. This is horrible enough and I am outraged that little has been done about it - but I am confiden t that this was at least not done on the basis of government instructions, and legal advice which said it was OK.

Seeing that we are discussing this because of current affairs, I have to say that yes, I think the US crossed the line pretty systematically in recent years. Abu Ghraib was perhaps the action of some wild cat individuals (as in my Austrian example above), but clearly, and shockingly, this went a lot further - what the CIA did to some detainees clearly was systematic and sanctioned from the top, or very high up in any case.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

No.
And this includes the 'ticking bomb' scenario, which I consider a bit of sophistry which doesn't convince me in the least. Reason: see below.


[quote]4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

No. I don't think so.
It makes no logical sense to me that people *would* be reliable in such a situation. Some tell the truth, some don't - I'd assume that the more desperate they are, the more they'd be likely just to blurt out whatever comes to their mind.

Rather than making things easier, it would, IMHO, make things messier: a lot more information, and ALL of it in need of proper verification.



So, I think torture is inhumane AND counterproductive - and therefore I can't envisage a case where it could be acceptable to me.
Something THAT dubious really isn't worth losing the moral high ground which is also very important for saving lives....

To me the main thing is if permanent damage is done be it physical or mental. If it's not lasting physical damge it's not torture.

That doesn't exclude applying electrodes to places they were never designed for.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

Nazi Germany, USSR, US, Israel, Egypt, Zimbabwe, apartheid South Africa, Kampuchea, China, Pinochet's Chile, pre- and post-invasion Iraq, pre- and post-revolution Iran, the list is nigh endless.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

A remote possibility if it was reliable. But as many professionals from law enforcement to intelligence to the military have attested in recent years it doesn't work.

To weigh in on the current discussion, I don't think it depends on purpose - surely beating someone up just for the fun of it is, IMHO, also torture. I'd also include the sort of deliberate extreme humiliation which was documented by some of the Abu Ghraib pictures.
Well, beating someone up i say is torture, but if someone is trying to protect themself in like self defense and is hurting someone, that shouldn't be considered torture

or at least it wouldn't be considered bad even if it was torture

Well, beating someone up i say is torture, but if someone is trying to protect themself in like self defense and is hurting someone, that shouldn't be considered torture

or at least it wouldn't be considered bad even if it was torture

No, that's a good point - I think it has to be deliberate and premedidated. Self defence, say in a situation where a prisoner attacks a prison guard, wouldn't be deliberate, and certainly not pemedidated.

But still, I think that it's torture whether it's going to be carried out to gain information, or just to hurt someone, or because someone thinks the other person is simply sub-human and 'deserves' it for some twisted reason, or in order to humiliate someone. That was my point. it's the nature of the action, rather than its purpose which defines it, IMHO. I can't think of an example where someone would hurt another person in a deliberate and premedidated way which would have an excuse.

Obviously we'd now have to discuss medical procedures which might cause pain in a premedidated and deliberate way even if they are well-intentioned (while the kind of 'medical' procedure some Nazi doctors engaged in was obviously extreme torture).... I guess this can be a point where the boundaries are blurred.

*shudders*

So you don't think that mental and emotional harm can be as significant?

Mental means the brain is damaged. Last time I checked, the brain was an organ in the body, yes? So what does that tell you?

Even then, I think torture can be justifiably used.


-Tibbetts

No, that's a good point - I think it has to be deliberate and premedidated. Self defence, say in a situation where a prisoner attacks a prison guard, wouldn't be deliberate, and certainly not pemedidated.

But still, I think that it's torture whether it's going to be carried out to gain information, or just to hurt someone, or because someone thinks the other person is simply sub-human and 'deserves' it for some twisted reason, or in order to humiliate someone. That was my point. it's the nature of the action, rather than its purpose which defines it, IMHO. I can't think of an example where someone would hurt another person in a deliberate and premedidated way which would have an excuse.

Obviously we'd now have to discuss medical procedures which might cause pain in a premedidated and deliberate way even if they are well-intentioned (while the kind of 'medical' procedure some Nazi doctors engaged in was obviously extreme torture).... I guess this can be a point where the boundaries are blurred.

*shudders*

well, causing pain in medical procedures is more the aftereffects nowadays. In the past before there was pain medication, even the most well intentioned procedures could be highly painful but now i guess it would only be if situation was desperate

and yeah, torture definitely has some fuzzy borders

By some of these definitions a police officer using a taser would be torture.

By some of these definitions a police officer using a taser would be torture.

Depending on how they used it, I would say it could be. If they used it to attempt to gain information or on a person who was not posing an immediate physical threat, then I would define that as torture.

Depending on how they used it, I would say it could be. If they used it to attempt to gain information or on a person who was not posing an immediate physical threat, then I would define that as torture.

So virtualy anything can be used (from caterpillers to tasers) and it's the why that makes it torture? The cop using a taser is supposedly doing it to prevent greater harm (as in shooting) and isn't that the same reason we use it ("torture") in war? It's okay to blow up a factory where they are making weapons, killing people (possibily innocent) in the process but to put a guy in a box with a caterpiller to try and find out who might be using those same weapons is wrong? There's something not right with that logic.

1. How would you define torture?

Any unnecessary (subjective I know) and inhumane actions inflicted upon another person whether it be psychological, physical, emotional etc.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?
Wab
Nazi Germany, USSR, US, Israel, Egypt, Zimbabwe, apartheid South Africa, Kampuchea, China, Pinochet's Chile, pre- and post-invasion Iraq, pre- and post-revolution Iran, the list is nigh endless.
I'd agree with this.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?
None. It may sound naive but I believe there is always another way.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?
Absolutely not. People will say anything in a sticky situation and people who are really devoted to their 'cause' will never admit to anything.

Depending on how they used it, I would say it could be. If they used it to attempt to gain information or on a person who was not posing an immediate physical threat, then I would define that as torture.

think I'll add that to my defnition no immediate threat but its still subjective

So virtualy anything can be used (from caterpillers to tasers) and it's the why that makes it torture? The cop using a taser is supposedly doing it to prevent greater harm (as in shooting) and isn't that the same reason we use it ("torture") in war? It's okay to blow up a factory where they are making weapons, killing people (possibily innocent) in the process but to put a guy in a box with a caterpiller to try and find out who might be using those same weapons is wrong? There's something not right with that logic.
From Amnesty International (http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202) which also has some video clips of people they believe were inappropriately tasered:
Since June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers. [Amnesty International says elsewhere that in only about 50 of those coroner reports is the use of the taser listed as causing the death of the individual] Most of those individuals were not carrying a weapon. Amnesty International is concerned that Tasers are being used as tools of routine force -- rather than as an alternative to firearms.
I think as a tool of routine force, it is unacceptable, and if they were to use it to a detainee locked in a room at Gitmo to attempt to gain information, I would find that unacceptable as well.
Story about a man tasered to death (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/22/taser.death/index.html) While I can agree that perhaps the first time he was tasered was necessary if he was actually fighting with police officers, tasering him once he was in handcuffs and didn't follow orders fast enough (after having already been tasered, which could have had something to do with not having a fast reaction time), tasering him while he was in the police car and then twice when he had stopped talking and moving and was possibly already dead, along with the five other times he was tasered were all unnecessary police brutality.

We are not supposed to use torture under any circumstances. Period. So as for reasons for using it...there are none.

While I wouldn't encourage blowing up a bomb factory where innocent people could be killed, I know that these actions must sometimes be taken. In that situation you must have evidence that the factory is actually making bombs. The guy with the caterpillar (which would be torture depending on the circumstances if he had an actual phobia relating to caterpillars and pretty much any situation in which he is put in a box would be inappropriate) is different because you have no idea whether this person has any information to tell you. We destroy a place to destroy their bomb supply and to set back their ability to make bombs, waterboarding someone does not destroy bombs. These men are already in prison, they do not have bombs on them nor are they making any bombs.

While I am sure that there are countless articles and reports that repeat these sentiments, this was an article from a few years back that i just happened to have pulled up in another tab: The Torture Myth (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html)
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.


An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

Ultimately I agree with the last sentiments of this op-ed:
Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.

I'm not ready to weigh in with a full-bore response to Chris' questions. Instead I thought I'd share Jack Balkin's immensely helpful work:


The Anti-Torture Memos Arranged by topic (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html)

By popular demand, here is a list of the essays grouped by topic. We've eliminated postings that are very short or that mostly quote newspaper articles. What follows is a compendium of substantive analyses on some of the key issues of the War on Terror by the authors here at Balkinization.

The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Civil Liberties, the War on Terror and Presidential Power

Part I-- Civil Liberties (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html#PartI)

Part II-- Presidential Power and Constitutional Structure (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html#PartII)

Part III-- Torture and the "Torture Memos" (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html#PartIII)

Part IV– The NSA Controversy and Government Surveillance (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html#PartIV)

Part V-- Hamdan (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html#PartV)

Part VI-- The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-torture-memos.html#PartVI)

Balkin, incidently, is a Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale University. Most of his contributors are also experts in Constitutional Law.

1. How would you define torture?
Causing pain and putting someone in a unhuman situation to harm them physically and mentally.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?
Guantanamo Bay by the USA is the first thing that comes in my mind.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?
None at all. Torture doesn't have any sense for me. It's inhuman and evil no matter what the reason for it is. I find that tasers are torture and should be forbidden. Means of torture gives other people power over other which they should NOT have. There are experiments that prove that people are torturing other people beyond any reason, just because other people tell them to. I try to find the link to an article.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?
No. Like pointed above people don't tell the truth when tortured. Many innocents were telling them what they wanted to hear so that they stop causing them pain.

Myself, I (almost always) draw a distinction between actions taken in the process of apprehending someone (when, by the nature of the act, the suspect is going from outside your control to inside your control) and actions taken once you already have a suspect. The discussion of actions taken while trying to place someone under arrest thus fall into the first category, where I give the apprehending authorities a bit more latitude to determine if their actions are to protect themselves or others. I'm also much more willing to go on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket statements when behavior while in the act of arresting someone is concerned.

To be honest, when I wrote the thread, hadn't thought about the issue of "torture while placing someone under arrest".

1. How would you define torture?

That's a difficult question, and depends, in my opinion, on the circumstances. Extreme physical pain, likely to cause death, permanent physical disability - anything which caused those I'd probably classify as torture.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

Every country on the face of the earth has tortured at one time or another.

And no - I don't think keeping someone up for long periods of time, exposing them to cold temperatures, or making them dance naked or staking them on top of other naked bodies is torture.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

Absolutely. If the person being tortured possesses information which might save lives, then torture away. Heck - if it'll save my kids lives I'll torture them myself.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

Yes and No. It's the Yes that makes it justifiable, in my opinion, under specific circumstances.

1. How would you define torture?

Punishing a person both mentally and physically.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Stalin in Russia.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

When the person/s have indulged in a crime that is so horrible. For example I would not mind if the Nazi leaders were tortured for information.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

They might not be always be reliable.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

No.

Wasn't this how they got people to confess to charges of witchcraft and whatnot, back during the Witch Hunts and the Inquisition?

1. How would you define torture?

Deliberately causing physical or psychological pain or distress to another person or animal.

For me, the crucial thing is that the pain or distress is one of the conscious purposes of the exercise, no matter what the underlying purpose is. E.g. if you shoot a man who's about to let a bomb off, the pain/injury/death you cause him is merely a side effect, so it's not torture - your only purpose was to stop him setting off the bomb. However, if you lock someone in a box with caterpillars or waterboard them, your immediate intention is to cause them pain and distress - you may have a deeper purpose (e.g. to get information which could potentially save lives), but deliberately causing pain and/or distress is an essential part of the exercise. That's why I think it's torture.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

I do think the US crossed the line with the Guanatanamo interrogation techniques (and the UK weren't any better - not using torture themselves, but happily accepting intelligence from other countries which they knew had been gathered from suspects who had been tortured).

Obviously, waterboarding isn't in the same league as the Iron Maiden or sewing live rats inside someone's stomach, and there are countless regimes today who use much, much worse forms of torture, but IMO it's still wrong.

And, IMO, any intelligence gains (if, indeed, there have been any) made through the use of torture have been far outweighed by the setbacks our condoning of torture has caused in the struggle to win hearts and minds.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

No.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

No.

Wasn't this how they got people to confess to charges of witchcraft and whatnot, back during the Witch Hunts and the Inquisition?

Yep. Sure was.

And it was just as wrong then as it was when the United States government performed torture on Muslim detainees for the express purpose of eliciting something that could be used to establish a link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html) between al Qaeda, which attacked us on September 11, 2001, and Saddam Hussein, who didn't attack us and had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks.

There are no persuasive arguments to justify sacrificing our own humanity by torturing another human being.

Every country on the face of the earth has tortured at one time or another.

This is the United States of America, the beacon of hope to the rest of the world, the moral leader of the free world. I'd have been quite happy not to see my country descend to the level of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and so many third world despots. This didn't have to be, nor should it have happened.

And no - I don't think keeping someone up for long periods of time, exposing them to cold temperatures, or making them dance naked or staking them on top of other naked bodies is torture.

I had to think about that one for a moment. In the end, though, I can't agree with you even after some reflection. If someone did any of those things to one of my sons, or my four grandsons, I would consider it torture and I'd want them prosecuted for it. I'm pretty sure you would, too, just as the mothers, wives and daughters of Bush's victims surely do.

This is the United States of America, the beacon of hope to the rest of the world, the moral leader of the free world. I'd have been quite happy not to see my country descend to the level of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and so many third world despots. This didn't have to be, nor should it have happened.

And I'd be thrilled beyond belief if every country on the face of the earth agreed to only use the tactics the US has to interrogate prisoners.

Perhaps a little perspective is needed - when US service men and women are captured by Al Qaeda and the like - their heads are chopped off. We keep known terrorists up for extended periods of time.

None of that is persuasive from where I sit, Mom. We've always held ourselves above that kind of thinking. In other places in the world, "water seeks its own level" might well apply in decisions over whether or not to engage in torture. In this country, it does not.

I'm not interested in seeking the lowest common denominator, nor am I willing to accept the child's argument that "everyone else is doing it!" I'm dead serious. I didn't let my kids get away with it and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure our government doesn't either. There just isn't any persuasive moral argument for doing it.

The only moral argument I could see is if the torture worked as in getting good info and saving innocent lives. Problem is it has been proven that people will give up false information in order to be left alone. It's human nature.

Morally it is just outright wrong imo as well. Is torture really worth it if all we are going to get is false info? Does that make us any safer? How about if the person turns out to be innocent? There are too many what if's imo.

To be honest, when I wrote the thread, hadn't thought about the issue of "torture while placing someone under arrest".

One distinction I see is that torture, in my view, is not generally a defensive act. It might be seen as such by the torturers, but the tortured person is not an immediate threat and is not trying to hurt the torturer's. Police are in a difficult position because by the nature of their jobs, they're regularly put in positions where their lives are at risk and they may need to use force to defend themselves and others. And they have to do it responsibly. I'm very concerned about police brutality, but I can see how it's possible to unintentionally go too far when defending yourself, which is what I think some cases are.

I do think it's very possible for police to torture a suspect, but I would be more likely to see it that way in a case where police were not reacting against a clear threat from the suspect (ie; if the suspect was being cooperative).


And no - I don't think keeping someone up for long periods of time, exposing them to cold temperatures, or making them dance naked or staking them on top of other naked bodies is torture.


Honestly, I think for a lot of people it would be easier to be killed than to be forced to do something degrading or that went against their morals. I know that the things you mention are not things I would ever wish on my worst enemy.

Perhaps a little perspective is needed - when US service men and women are captured by Al Qaeda and the like - their heads are chopped off. We keep known terrorists up for extended periods of time.

So this makes it okay for us to do immoral, painful, or degrading things to people? There's a difference between imprisoning a dangerous person and torturing them.

Perhaps a little perspective is needed - when US service men and women are captured by Al Qaeda and the like - their heads are chopped off. We keep known terrorists up for extended periods of time.
And thereby you subscribe to the philosophy of every terrorist: they were beastly to us so we'll be beastly back. Of course that justifies an unending cycle.

1. How would you define torture?

Any intentionallyand repeatedly inflicted discomfort, either physical, emotional, or both, placed upon one being by another for the purposes of pleasure, interrogation, punishment, or political gain.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

North Vietnamese/VC tying POWs to trees, and planting bamboo below their buttocks. Bamboo grows at a rate of 1-3 inches per day. YEOWCH!!!!

Spanish Inquisition using a variety of physical tortures to force confessions of witchcraft or heresy. Those that died before confessing were thought to have been telling the truth. Those that confessed were then burned at the stake...

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

I am conflicted about this. I have my prinicipals that all are entitled to their day in court, and have the right to remain silient. But, if lives are at stake, when should the principals be suspended.

Personally, I believe that we should practice what we preach. If we want the world to take us with credible insight then we must accept a certain amount of sacrifice. We should suspend physical torture techniques. I have no problem with waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and manipulation to gain information when lives are at stake, but electroshock, burnings, beatings, whippings, use of drugs, etc...are overboard.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

Waterboarding is perfectly acceptible in my eyes if it is to save lives. The intelligence community seems to think it works, while members of the general populous find it heinous and yielding only unreliable intel. I am inclined to side with the intelligence community who have used these techniques and believe they yield results over the common Joe who has no experience in these matters. I even disregard the opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists who claim the results are tainted, especially when they are not directly involved with the interrogations.

And thereby you subscribe to the philosophy of every terrorist: they were beastly to us so we'll be beastly back. Of course that justifies an unending cycle.

Good point and I agree. We must live by our principals which we have set forth to the world to be more righteous. As such those principals must be adhere to even if we don't find them convenient.

[ The intelligence community seems to think it works, while members of the general populous find it heinous and yielding only unreliable intel. I am inclined to side with the intelligence community who have used these techniques and believe they yield results over the common Joe who has no experience in these matters.
That isn't accurate. Trained interrogators, both military and FBI, have said that torture often yields unreliable information and hasn't been shown to get any information that couldn't be gained by conventional means. It's also been a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and related groups. The more important fact is that it's completely immoral.

Here's an editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html) by a military intelligence officer responsible for the interrogations that enabled the US to kill Zarqawi, the former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And here's (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21354) another one.

I am inclined to side with the intelligence community who have used these techniques and believe they yield results over the common Joe who has no experience in these matters.

I'm yet to hear of an independent member of the defence/intel community say that. Quite to the contrary, in fact.

Paul Comrie-Thomson: The press reports have said that water-boarding produces actionable intelligence, it gets people to speak the truth. Why don't we ask you, as a former interrogator and the author of the ADF interrogation manual, does torture really produce useful intelligence?

Neil James: It tends not to, for the simple reason that if you torture someone they'll tell you anything to stop being tortured. This is a principle long known in moral philosophy and indeed in the history of torture. If you go back and you look at the controls they had over the use of torture in Tudor and Stuart England, you found that one of the main objections to it was that you didn't actually get truthful information. This is the thing about intelligence. Intelligence, to be useful, has to be first of all accurate, and secondly it has to be timely, and here you get the problem and the arguments over the use of torture. Torture may help you in some cases produce something that's timely but in most cases it won't produce something that's accurate.

"Who is Neil James?" I hear you ask.

He literally wrote the book on military interrogations. Among other roles he's a former Australian Defence Force interrogator and he's also the author of the ADF interrogation manual.

Counterpoint (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2007/1881639.htm)

Obama's Intel Director says harsh tactics did work (http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_12199729?source=rss)

Sorry Wab, but this guy is sticking his neck out, even when Obama campaigned on issues against harsh tactics of interrogation.

Obama says US will no longer torture (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28574408/)

1. How would you define torture?
Harming an individual (or group of individuals) for purposes such as extraction of information, punishment, cruel entertainment etc.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?
Personally, I think torture of any kind is wrong, yet I doubt there are many places that haven't at least once used a form of torture, so...there are many examples.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?
No. I think torture is wrong, and we live in a world today where it is no longer right. Maybe in past times torture was seen as right, but today we seem to have a concrete definition of what is humane and what is not. Torture is never humane, and I would never condone it.

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?
No. Although torture may lead to some correct information, not everyone is going to take torture for extended periods of time and if those being tortured really do not know any information they may say anything that they think will stop the torture. So it may be reliable, it may not, but I don't think risks of that nature should be taken.

All that stuff about tasers remind me of something. Exactly what is the point of a taser? I can understand it as an alternative to guns because generally i guess they are less lethal, but after that to be used to make someone do someething, threat of gunshot wounds is still pretty convincing

Well, the electroshock torture to which I am referring has less to do with a tazer and more to do with a car battery and jumper cables...lol

Besides, some of these people would much rather die, so threatening them with a gun is ineffective. But, to repeatedly zap them in the nads with 600 cold cranking amps...? Even the toughest 72-virgin-seekers will give up eventually!

Obama's Intel Director says harsh tactics did work (http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_12199729?source=rss)

Sorry Wab, but this guy is sticking his neck out, even when Obama campaigned on issues against harsh tactics of interrogation.

Dennis Blair is a bureaucrat, not a professional intelligence officer.

Plus his action in Indonesia and conflict of interest (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1870985,00.html) in the F-22 issue are nothing to be proud of. Chas Freeman should have got the job.

The point is, Blair is defending a position that Obama would claim he is against. Call him a bureaucrat if you wish, but he is still the Intelligence Chief, and he is a military man. He is a Rear Admiral! It's not like he is some guy who used to be Secretary of Agriculture and is now Director of the CIA.

Dennis Blair is a bureaucrat, not a professional intelligence officer. Plus his action in Indonesia are nothing to be proud of.

What Dennis Blair really said:

Intelligence Chief Says Methods Hurt U.S. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104334.html?hpid=topnews)

Blair released a statement (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/dni-blair-sugge.html) in which he clearly stated that there is no way of knowing whether means, other than torture, would have obtained the same info. He also said, emphatically, that the damage done to the U.S. by using torture "far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

All that stuff about tasers remind me of something. Exactly what is the point of a taser? I can understand it as an alternative to guns because generally i guess they are less lethal, but after that to be used to make someone do someething, threat of gunshot wounds is still pretty convincing

I think, generally, they're meant to be used to incapacitate someone who's posing a threat, without actually shooting them. The problem with guns is that if you have to follow through with the threat, you could potentially cause death or serious injury. With tasers, there's certainly still a big risk, but when used properly it's not as risky.

However, it can be dangerous (and cruel) when tasers are used too quickly or too liberally. Aside from the aspect of causing someone unnecessary suffering, you can't know if a suspect has a health condition that would make tasering them particularly dangerous. It should still be a last resort, and police still need to be careful about using force.

Besides, some of these people would much rather die, so threatening them with a gun is ineffective. But, to repeatedly zap them in the nads with 600 cold cranking amps...? Even the toughest 72-virgin-seekers will give up eventually!

I don't think we really need to get so graphic in here. I don't know about everyone else, but personally, I could have done without that mental image.

I don't think we really need to get so graphic in here. I don't know about everyone else, but personally, I could have done without that mental image.

Agreed. Also, no videos please. Before anyone tries to post any.

I don't think we really need to get so graphic in here. I don't know about everyone else, but personally, I could have done without that mental image.

Also, some of us may have some personal ties to this issue, and may be sensitive.

I have a relative who was imprisoned and tortured when she lived in a communist country. I've never met her, but when I was a child, I managed to hear what happened to her, and it horrified me. I would rather not make light of what people go through.

Hey, you want to talk about how effective torture is, then, I am sorry, but to get the picture a graphic one must be painted. It is a torture technique used by many across the globe, and, frankly, I would give up my own mother if someone was going to use it on me.

If this is too much for you folks to handle, then I suggest closing this thread. There is no way we can debate the merits or drawbacks to torture if we only talk about the Sunday School versions. If we do that, then the only ones who will win this debate will be those opposed to torture, because they won't be faced with what really happens, and won't be forced to argue it.

I will not change my opinions on it, nor will iI sugar-coat the facts that torture like what I mentioned happen, nor that they are effective. The only way I will change my opinions is if the facts are laid out, they are debated, and I feel the opposing arguments win.

Fair enough. I am emphatically unwilling to brush this debate off as a mere "policy difference," to coin Karl Rove's phrase. This is no policy difference. This is an abomination.

I will not change my opinions on it, nor will iI sugar-coat the facts that torture like what I mentioned happen, nor that they are effective. The only way I will change my opinions is if the facts are laid out, they are debated, and I feel the opposing arguments win.
Personally I think the larger debate is whether torture is right or wrong, not if it's effective or not. Of course torturing information out of people has an effect, but it still doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Personally I think the larger debate is whether torture is right or wrong, not if it's effective or not. Of course torturing information out of people has an effect, but it still doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

And whether the information that comes out of it is any good.

And I don't believe it is. Nor will I believe that worse torture would produce better information. History has already shown us that people will give false testimonies just to make their own pain and suffering stop.

If this is too much for you folks to handle, then I suggest closing this thread. There is no way we can debate the merits or drawbacks to torture if we only talk about the Sunday School versions. If we do that, then the only ones who will win this debate will be those opposed to torture, because they won't be faced with what really happens, and won't be forced to argue it.

I'm not going to close this thread. The rules are clear, and any questions should be directed to mods privately via owl. We can have an intellectual conversation about this, and I've included restrictions which hurt people on both sides in part to allow the discussion to continue on an intellectual level.

Personally I think the larger debate is whether torture is right or wrong, not if it's effective or not. Of course torturing information out of people has an effect, but it still doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

well, its kind of a "For the Greater Good" kinda situation. I can't completely justify some things, but there is still justification. for example with the taser with someone who doesn't care about dying. If that person isn't afraid of a gun and just ends up trying to shoot a lot of people in the vicinity, taser, sure. I will never be able to fully agree with torture but i don't think that it can be completely unallowed

What do you folks think of the rising chatter about impeaching Judge Bybee? For those of you who don't know who Bybee is, or what I'm talking about, the man was one of three Bush administration officials who authored the so-called "torture memos" released a week or so ago. Bush nominated Bybee for a lifetime seat on the bench with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest appellate court in the country. The Senate confirmed him with a lot of questions unaddressed. He's still there.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bybee):

During Bybee's tenure, the Central Intelligence Agency requested legal advice on detainee interrogation. That request was routed to the OLC by then White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzalez. At issue were "the standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code ... in the context of the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States".[10] The OLC drafted a memo in response to the CIA request. That response has come to be known as the Bybee memo.

On March 2, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice publicly released a January 15, 2009, internal memorandum repudiating a number of legal memoranda which had been written by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2001 and 2003 regarding the war on terror.[11] Three of the rescinded memoranda were signed by Bybee, whose legal reasoning was harshly criticized by Acting Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury in the internal memorandum.[12]

On April 16, 2009, President Barack Obama released an internal memorandum signed by Bybee during his tenure at OLC addressed to CIA General Counsel John Rizzo and dated August 1, 2002. Among other things, this memorandum concluded that waterboarding did not meet the legal definition of torture under 18 U.S.C. §§2340–2340A.

There's a growing uproar on the left to impeach him based on those memos.

Podesta becomes one of the most prominent Democrats to push for Bybee’s impeachment. The former Clinton chief of staff runs the influential Center for American Progress, and is close to the Obama administration. Obama has left open the door to prosecutions of the authors of the memos that authorized harsh interrogation techniques, even as the president has tried to tamp down calls for a congressional commission to investigate the matter.

The move suggests that the administration sees this as a way to take a specific and concrete action without opening the door to either a truth commission or prosecution of former Bush officials. It's also a middle road that's unlikely to appease either side.

Conyers last week announced that he would hold hearings on the memo writers, and told Huffington Post that while some of the authors were engaged in honest analysis, others were law breakers. He did not specify names, but warned, "We're coming after these guys."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said last week that "the decent and honorable thing for him to do would be to resign," but didn't respond to follow-up question about impeaching Bybee. In his letter, Podesta said that Bybee "stonewalled" a Senate committee about his role in the terror memos during his confirmation hearing for the lifetime federal judgeship, and some Democrats say he wouldn't have been confirmed if the full story had been known.

Podesta letter: Impeach Bybee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Podesta_letter_Impeach_Bybee.html)

I'm not going to close this thread. The rules are clear, and any questions should be directed to mods privately via owl. We can have an intellectual conversation about this, and I've included restrictions which hurt people on both sides in part to allow the discussion to continue on an intellectual level.

Then you have just lost a skilled debater in this thread, who is able to see both sides to the argument. Sorry, but you have tied my hands by not allowing the populous to discuss all aspects of government endorsed torture.

Farewell.

You need not suspend me for 14 days. I am placing myself on self-imposed exile from this thread.

I've always been simultaneously annoyed and proud of my ability to see both sides of an argument since it gets confusing but this is one of I'd few topics hat I'm relatively one sided About this matter. In more actionous scenarios, like tasering someone instead of killing, sure, but in most circumstances, there are better alternatives

Just passing through...

Couple of points I read earlier:

CIA Official: No Proof Harsh Techniques Stopped Terror Attacks (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/66895.html)

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.

CIA Reportedly Declined to Closely Evaluate Harsh Interrogations (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate26-2009apr26,0,5771981.story)

The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on imprisoned Al Qaeda suspects for nearly seven years without seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

"Nobody with expertise or experience in interrogation ever took a rigorous, systematic review of the various techniques - enhanced or otherwise - to see what resulted in the best information," said a senior U.S. intelligence official involved in overseeing the interrogation program.
As a result, there was never a determination of "what you could do without the use of enhanced techniques," said the official, who like others described internal discussions on condition of anonymity.

I don't believe a single person posting on this forum would go along with the torture like we saw in Germany or Vietnam. What we are debating is when does trying to obtain information from a person become torture. Some seem to believe causing the slightest discomfort is torture. Some seem to think the correctness of it depends on if good information is received. Some may want the government to have a free hand in doing about anything. I certainly don't trust our government to have a free hand in anything and that pertains to not only this topic but others going on as well. I also don't believe the correctness of the action depends on the result. That leaves the main problem as coming up with a definition of what is torture. Another question would be how do we obtain information? These guys aren't going to send us a monthly newsletter just to keep us informed of their plans to destroy America? We can take some high road until there's no road left to take. The last thing we need is some witch hunt, using hindsight, to obtain revenge on folks that are on our side.

We've long been a signator to "what constitutes torture." And we sat by idly in rankest partisanship and allowed the Bush-Cheney junta to blow that understanding all to hell and back. We don't need another Clinton-style parsing of words, although I'm willing to grant you that's precisely what the Bybee-Yoo-Bradberry memos have done.

Torture does terrible things to the person being tortured. It does terrible things to those who emply the tactics on others, as well. Witness John McCain:

"But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4969504.shtml)."

"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/26/mccain-mukasey-torture/) used by Pol Pot."

"We've got to move on (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4969504.shtml)."

The best quote from McCain's appearance on "Face the Nation" was this one:

Schieffer asked if Jay Bybee, one of the authors of the memos, should be impeached or asked to resign. Bybee is now a federal judge.

"Well, resignation would be a decision he would have to make on his own," McCain said. "But he falls into the same category as everybody else, as far as giving very bad advice and misinterpreting fundamentally what the United States is all about, much less things like the Geneva Conventions. Under President Reagan, we signed an agreement against torture. We were in violation of that." Emphasis mine.

And whether the information that comes out of it is any good.

And I don't believe it is. Nor will I believe that worse torture would produce better information. History has already shown us that people will give false testimonies just to make their own pain and suffering stop.

Exactly the point I wanted to make.
I also think it varies on the person - some people will give up the truth under moderate discomfort, other's have stronger wills. "Light" torture - or even simply discomfort, depending on your definition, I suppose - might actually get you real information, but strong torture is worthless, IMO.
The thing is, you don't know at which point you're getting truth and at which point you're just getting what you want to hear because the interrogated can't take it anymore. People have very varied pain thresholds.
The Witch trials of medieval times are a great example of the faux results torture can produce.

Actually, I wonder if the reverse environment wouldn't work better for getting information.
Give interogatees some kind of super happy drugs - make them so comfortable and happy, so full of love and puppies, they'd share anything they know with you, spill their guts. It becomes a reward system, in fact - the more they talk, the more the get to take the happy drugs and to feel good and talk more.
It bears research, anyway. One possible caveat - I'm sure causing addiction - and that's only if the drugs did that - some would still constitute "torture" to some people. Another caveat of addiction is the same as torture - interogatees might invent information just to get to take the drug again. So pretty clearly, it can't be addictive, or used to the point of addiction.

Besides that though, I just sorta doubt the people we have in gitmo - generally the worst of the worst of mankind - have anywhere near the level of "love" inside them to make this possible with ANY kind of drug..
But it's worth a shot.

Actually, I wonder if the reverse environment wouldn't work better for getting information.
Give interogatees some kind of super happy drugs - make them so comfortable and happy, so full of love and puppies, they'd share anything they know with you, spill their guts. It becomes a reward system, in fact - the more they talk, the more the get to take the happy drugs and to feel good and talk more.
It bears research, anyway. One possible caveat - I'm sure causing addiction - and that's only if the drugs did that - some would still constitute "torture" to some people. Another caveat of addiction is the same as torture - interogatees might invent information just to get to take the drug again. So pretty clearly, it can't be addictive, or used to the point of addiction.

An interesting idea, though it does remind me somewhat of JKR's description of how Harry felt under the Imperius Curse...

But still better than torture, IMO.

Exactly the point I wanted to make.
I also think it varies on the person - some people will give up the truth under moderate discomfort, other's have stronger wills. "Light" torture - or even simply discomfort, depending on your definition, I suppose - might actually get you real information, but strong torture is worthless, IMO.
The thing is, you don't know at which point you're getting truth and at which point you're just getting what you want to hear because the interrogated can't take it anymore. People have very varied pain thresholds.
The Witch trials of medieval times are a great example of the faux results torture can produce.
I completely agree. It's really a no win street with the people being tortured sometimes. If they speak the truth and its not what the interrogator wants to hear, they get tortured more. which by the way i find rather pointless. if the interrogator already knows that they think is true and false, they might as well go to the victim "Say blahblahblah and you won't get tortured". But continuing, if they say what the interrogator wants to hear and it gets proven false, they're still in trouble.

Actually, I wonder if the reverse environment wouldn't work better for getting information.
Give interogatees some kind of super happy drugs - make them so comfortable and happy, so full of love and puppies, they'd share anything they know with you, spill their guts. It becomes a reward system, in fact - the more they talk, the more the get to take the happy drugs and to feel good and talk more.
It bears research, anyway. One possible caveat - I'm sure causing addiction - and that's only if the drugs did that - some would still constitute "torture" to some people. Another caveat of addiction is the same as torture - interogatees might invent information just to get to take the drug again. So pretty clearly, it can't be addictive, or used to the point of addiction.

that's an interesting concept actually, but i see it as the same as bribing. Its like buying information really, but with happy drugs instead of cash. It still wouldn't get you legit information though, unless you were sure it acted as like a veritaserum type thing. But then again, we might be able to combat that with a lie detector, but its also possible that the overflowing happiness could fool the lie detector. but still slightly more morally sound than torture. I just have qualms with rewarding people for bad behavior :p

Besides that though, I just sorta doubt the people we have in gitmo - generally the worst of the worst of mankind - have anywhere near the level of "love" inside them to make this possible with ANY kind of drug..
But it's worth a shot.
Your idea gave me an idea actually. Human brains have different areas for like different thought processes. And in like brain scans you can figure out if someone's feeling happy, sad, angry, truthful, decietful, etc. Could it be possible to stimulate the brain to be more truthful with something like very light electrical impulses or something?


And just curious, but does anyone know if they use lie detectors to figure out the truthfulness of statements discovered through torture?

An interesting idea, though it does remind me somewhat of JKR's description of how Harry felt under the Imperius Curse...

But still better than torture, IMO.

I think using drugs - like Rowling's veritaserum - is a form of torture. Chemical torture, that is. Anything that would chemically alter an individual's right to refuse to incriminate himself is, and should be, considered as both illegal and a twisted form of psychological torture.

I also think this "debate over torture" is itself a form of torturing the truth. This is an issue in which there are no gray areas. Torture is always a case of either you did, or you didn't. Look at this:

"The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy."

Bush Calls Torture "an Affront to Human Dignity Everywhere", June 26, 2003 (http://italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2003_06/alia/A3062613.htm)

This begs the question of why Bush's standards shouldn't also apply to him, and to Dick Cheney, David Addington, Scooter Libby, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and so many others? They have tortured the very essence of democracy and shamed everything this country is supposed to stand for.

More comments to ponder:

Lynndie England (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103469796): "We didn't kill them. We didn't cut their heads off. We didn't shoot them. We didn't cut them and let them bleed to death. We just did what we were told to soften them up for interrogation, and we were told to do anything short of killing them."

Jonathon Fredman, the Senate Armed Services Committee report (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/if-the-detainee-diesl): "If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong."

John Yoo, speaking through his torture authorization memo that was approved by George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo#The_Bybee_Memo): "In order to qualify as illegal torture, physical pain must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Politico has a story about a conference call set by the Federalist Society (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Defending_the_Bush_lawyers.html?showall) today to strategize a defense for the Bush "torture lawyers." Andy McCarthy of National Review had one of the more bizarre gambits.

"As far as mental suffering is concerned that involves the creation on the part of the person the tactic is used on of a fear of imminent death. The few people that waterboarding was actually used on were actually told that they were not going to be killed by the tactic. Even if they didn’t tell you they weren’t going to kill you, after the first or second time you sort of get the point that there is not imminent death to be feared. That's not a prosecutable case."

I'm interpreting his point to be that, if the detainee did not think he was about to be killed, whatever they did to him wasn't torture. That's not going to fly in light of Geneva and the UN Convention on Torture, which President Ronald Reagan signed and championed (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/).

And just curious, but does anyone know if they use lie detectors to figure out the truthfulness of statements discovered through torture?
I'm not sure that would even work.

The most common lie detectors, like the polygraph & voice stress analysis, rely on physiological signals like heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rhythm -- things that would probably be set off by pain, fear or panic from the torture, regardless of whether the person was telling the truth.

I am trying to find a good source to quote - but I am unsure of which sources could be deemed reliable: this isn't my field, and there is a bewildering amount of stuff out there, surpassed only by the number of interested parties on both sides.

I just googled 'polygraph reliability' and I can find lots of links which suggest that polygraph testing isn't sufficiently reliable, and just a few (usually interested ones, such as companies offering polygraph services) which don't. Have a look - but I am not confident to say whether any of these links is academically and politically kosher.

In any case, - I have always thought that polygraph testing (lie detectors) aren't reliable enough to produce evidence admissible in court in most western countries. Which means that just as with torture, you have answers, and you can't tell whether they are true or not.


Anyway - lie detectors clearly aren't infallible, although they work sometimes.



But I do wonder, following from what V8 said, whether in future we will be able to tell whether someone is lying if you put them into an MRI scanner while you interrogate them.

If this isn't overdone in some perverse fashion, I'd say that could be an OK method which wouldn't qualify as torture?

And the sort of things they can already tell by looking at the brain scans - perhaps there'll be a chance. Although lying is presumably a very complex sort of activity, one of those which may trigger a bewildering set of activities in the brain. Still - wouldn't that be worth researching?


I bet someone somewhere is already at it!

i think any test can be "cheated" but it certainly MRI's would lessen the possibility of someone lying.

i've actually met a detective who has a license to do polygraph testing and he says that there are ways to cheat a lie detector but usually the interrogator can figure it out. but obviously it would be a bit twisted with torture

MRI's are supposed to be more conclusive, but again, i think any test can be cheated. The only way i can think of an MRI as torture is that it makes the victim uncomfortable or claustrophobic but we have to draw the line somewhere. I mean just interrogation, asking questions, could be considered slightly nerve racking

I think using drugs - like Rowling's veritaserum - is a form of torture. Chemical torture, that is. Anything that would chemically alter an individual's right to refuse to incriminate himself is, and should be, considered as both illegal and a twisted form of psychological torture.


I agree. While giving someone a drug that makes them feel good does not seem harmful on the surface, the idea of controlling a person's seems scary and 1984-ish to me. Our greatest freedom, the thing that sets us apart from other animals, is our capability to reason and have some independent thought and will. I'm not comfortable with robbing someone of their will, even if it's done in an apparently humane way. I think in some ways, use of drugs such as that would be more invasive than what we would typically think of as torture.

I also believe that people should have the right not to incriminate themselves.

There's also the question of reliability. As far as I'm aware, there are no true "truth serums" in existence today. Drugs that calm prisoners and make them more compliant (such as sodium pentathol) are just that--they don't force the prisoner to start telling the truth, they just make it harder to lie because the prisoner will be less guarded and more chatty.

The suggestion of doing brain scans to tell if a person is lying is interesting. I can see how that could be viable as a means of a lie-detector test, provided it be done safely and not in conjunction with torture.

i think any test can be "cheated" but it certainly MRI's would lessen the possibility of someone lying.
.....
MRI's are supposed to be more conclusive, but again, i think any test can be cheated. The only way i can think of an MRI as torture is that it makes the victim uncomfortable or claustrophobic but we have to draw the line somewhere. I mean just interrogation, asking questions, could be considered slightly nerve racking

I can't quite see how you can cheat an MRI scanner - well, it depends how good we are at reading the signals, and I don't know that. But whatever you do to cheat, the mental effort of cheating will leave a different trace from a normal response.

I can't imagine a way of stopping any additional brain activity created by simply producing the lie.


So, I'd say that lying definitely has to produce an MRI picture which is different from giving the same answer and telling the truth. I just have no idea whether there would be ever a chance to actually identify those differences accurately.



Concerning MRI scanners as torture - I think that 'a bit nerve racking' isn't torture. I wasn't thinking of something specific when I added the disclaimer - but I don't know.... keeping someone in there for hours or something could be pretty bad? I don't know. It was more or less just a disclaimer because I think that people could probably turn almost anything into torture, if they put their minds to it. :(

Last I heard, the fMRI scanner method was still at most only 90% accurate, and possibly only 76% accurate. And part of that is probably because everyone's brain is a little bit different. They've got to run irrelevant verifiable questions to get a baseline for each person before they can ask questions about what they really want to know.

Found some articles about it:
http://www.burneylawfirm.com/blog/2009/03/18/first-attempt-to-admit-mri-lie-detector-evidence-in-court/ (2009)
http://scienceline.org/2008/11/03/ask-intagliata-lie-detection-fmri-brain-scan/ (2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041130235442.htm (2004)

edit:

I wonder what kind of results they get for pathological liars, people with various mental disorders, and people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality? Or if they've even tested those scenarios yet...

76% is probably still a much higher percentage than whatever percentage accuracy torture has

Last I heard, the fMRI scanner method was still at most only 90% accurate, and possibly only 76% accurate. ....



Oh wow - thanks!
The whole thing just sort of occurred to me, but I assumed that someone would have thought of it a long time ago.

Thanks for the links. :)

One of the important things to understand about torture is why it was done. The greatest pressure for using torture came from the White House (not from agents on the ground, some of whom were opposed to using it) during to the run-up to the Iraq War. In the words of one medical professional involved in interrogation "We were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link… there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

This is a near-constant in the use of torture over history: it is not used to gain new information; it is used to verify conclusions that have already been drawn. In this case, it resulted in a false confession from al-Libi that Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members in using chemical weapons; this false information was then used a central point in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN regarding the invasion of Iraq.

The pressure to use torture did not come from interrogators: it began before there were any prisoners to interrogate (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-27/myth-and-reality-about-torture/full/):
The Bush administration went to great lengths to fabricate a narrative under which it agreed to demands from interrogators on the ground to allow the use of harsher methods, effectively “removing the shackles” on their interaction with prisoners. But the Senate Armed Services Committee report shows that the effort to introduce these techniques dates from 2001, before there were any prisoners.

Moreover, neither the writing of the torture memos or the pressure to authorize torture were undertaken in good faith; instead, dissenting opinions were hushed up.

[M]ilitary law experts and others repeatedly warned the Bush administration, and particularly its lawyers, that the techniques being introduced constituted torture and that torture was a federal crime, punishable with penalties up to capital punishment in cases in which death occurred (and it did).

In addition, a senior military lawyer tells me that he directly confronted one of the torture memo writers advising him that the techniques proposed would be viewed by most experts as criminal in nature. He insisted that the memo be rewritten to reflect this risk. But the memo writer refused, he states. Phillip Zelikow, a senior counselor to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, also described a memorandum he wrote warning of risks associated with the torture memoranda. He explained last week that an extraordinary effort was launched by the Bush White House to round up and destroy all copies of his memo. Prosecutors would probably characterize all of this as reflecting mens rea—a state of guilty mind—a realization by the torture memo writers that they were engaged in a criminal act.

A similar situation occurred with Matthew Alexander, a military interrogator responsible for gaining the information that led to the death of Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The military took strenuous action to suppress Alexander's views that torture was both ineffective and - through aiding terrorist recruitment - the primary cause of military deaths in Iraq, which led Alexander to write a book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151).

Finally, evidence suggests that torture wouldn't work even in a "ticking bomb" situation, given that KSM was waterboarded over 100 times over a period of months.

The foundation of my opposition to torture is that it is immoral and unChristian. Even if it could be proved to be of superior effectiveness to traditional techniques, which it has not been in any way, I would still oppose it; a core value of Christianity is that we must be willing to suffer evil done to ourselves rather than do evil to others. But given that these principles are insufficient for many, and given the widespread misinformation on torture, an understanding of the reasons torture was used - and who decided it should be used - is essential.

There need to be prosecutions of those who were responsible for authorizing torture. This is not a partisan matter - in fact, given that apparently senior Democrats were also involved in the torture program, it is deeply nonpartisan - it is a matter of whether we believe first, in decent standards of human conduct and second, in the rule of law. The United States has laws forbidding torture. A fundamental principle of democracy is that nobody is above the law. It is perverse to say that it is good, and a sign of strength, to apply the law to the common person, but that it is wrong and indicative of vengefulness to apply the law to the elite and powerful. And it states above all that Nixon was correct when he proclaimed the President - like the absolute monarch of medieval times - is above the law: "If the President does it, it's legal." No wonder the current President is quite content to let that idea stand.

No wonder the current President is quite content to let that idea stand.

That's a bit of a stretch. Content he is not. The concern is, I think, that the shockingly unrepentent right-wing would use the torture commissions and trials to derail an agenda the country desperately needs. Defending against torture trials is a fight the right is willing to undertake. If that fight means health care and the rest of Obama's agenda get short shrift, all the better for them.

Throughout history, torture has been used as a weapon and interrogation technique by a wide variety of individuals and nations. In this thread, we'll attempt to examine the use of torture in today's world.

I will add that what many have defined as "torture" has been used in military and police situations to quell violence and end stand-off as well as to facilitate apprehension of enemy/criminal elements.

1. How would you define torture?

Inappropriate use of force or intimidation/threats in the interogation, apprehension or detention of a person. This is based on "reasonable" being defined in accordance with circumstance and environment.

2. What are some examples that you can think of where a nation-state crossed the line?

All nations have examples of crossing the line.


3. Are there any circumstances under which you would condone torture? If so, what are they?

I wouldn't condone torture. I do believe that the over-use of the word torture is common at current. Some techniques and actions are being called "torture" when they are in fact not, IMO. There seems to be an anxiousness to attach the term on the part of some and an aversion on the part of others. I personally have used physical force and what some have termed torture to force a cease of fire and to facilitate apprehension and do not believe that it was either immoral or torture.


I believe the blanket attachment of the term is inappropriate and definitely negates the mitigating circumstances that may accompany some actions. I also believe that the standard is too loose in other ways. I have had duty cycles of longer than 90 hours where I did not sleep in the line of my duty. Was that torture?

4. Do you think that confessions made under extreme duress and / or torture are reliable?

Confessions aren't, nor are they of any real value if they were. Information of pending actions, locations and units strengths are generally confirmable, repeatable and eventually reliable, but this technique doesn't translate to civilian use. The point is, duress and/or discomfort are not necessarily torture in any environment, but they are only applicable in a larger intelligence gathering efforts, not in police activities. Undue or excessive application of these without immediate goal of eliminating threat or minimizing iminent risk is on the other hand torture by my definition. Controlled environment and minimal discomfort/duress can be sucessful in interogation by military operators but should not be used in the civil arena. Its use by military operators should only be in conjunction with wartime operations and limited to detained persons of importance, IMO.

I agree. While giving someone a drug that makes them feel good does not seem harmful on the surface, the idea of controlling a person's seems scary and 1984-ish to me. Our greatest freedom, the thing that sets us apart from other animals, is our capability to reason and have some independent thought and will. I'm not comfortable with robbing someone of their will, even if it's done in an apparently humane way. I think in some ways, use of drugs such as that would be more invasive than what we would typically think of as torture.


Well, if the government captured a terrorist who they knew had information on an upcoming terrorist attack like the date or where or people involved, would you rather invade their thoughts and will or have a few people, to a hundred and possibly a thousand people die? Maybe another 9-11 or a nuclear bomb attack or just a regular attack could be avoided. I think torture is unnecessary since it wouldn't gain reliable information but i don't think a real life truth serum in the future would be bad.

I agree. While giving someone a drug that makes them feel good does not seem harmful on the surface, the idea of controlling a person's seems scary and 1984-ish to me. Our greatest freedom, the thing that sets us apart from other animals, is our capability to reason and have some independent thought and will. I'm not comfortable with robbing someone of their will, even if it's done in an apparently humane way. I think in some ways, use of drugs such as that would be more invasive than what we would typically think of as torture.



I don't.
This is confusing torture with coercion. They're two different things, though related. "Torture" is getting way too wide of a definition here. Is everything "torture" now? Coercing someone to talk by making them feel good is not torture (whatever it's effectiveness) unless it causes addition.
At this rate, a 3rd grader calling another schoolmate a "doo-doo head" is going to be defined legally soon as "torture" due to emotional distress, as will fraternity pranks, etc..

As to not incriminating one's self, that's certainly a right accorded to citizens of the US in a civil criminal trial ( and other nations, as they see fit); but in a military/intelligence/war context, it's not the same. On top of that, terrorists have never signed or abided by the Geneva convention themselves. Why should they get all the benefit of it with none of the responsibility? Why should we get saddled with all the responsibility of it and none of the benefit? That was supposed to be a mutual agreement.
Additionally, those people have already been brainwashed and indoctrinated - they've already cast off any semblance of reason and rational thought long ago, if they're engaging in terrorism.

They say an ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Well, intelligence is the prevention. There really is no cure to speak of, people killed in a terrorist attack stay dead no matter what you do.

i think the argument there is that they're still human

I'll just say that while i think torture is wrong and pointless, there's still a dark part of me that thinks that some people deserve it

76% is probably still a much higher percentage than whatever percentage accuracy torture has

You sure about that? How about something to back that up......

That's a bit of a stretch. Content he is not. The concern is, I think, that the shockingly unrepentent right-wing would use the torture commissions and trials to derail an agenda the country desperately needs. Defending against torture trials is a fight the right is willing to undertake. If that fight means health care and the rest of Obama's agenda get short shrift, all the better for them.
I don't think so; his determined defense of a very expansive (even more so than Bushs') idea of state secrets power suggests he thinks otherwise about executive power.

If ensuring the basic principle of the rule of law makes it harder to pass health care legislation, so be it.

I personally have used physical force and what some have termed torture to force a cease of fire and to facilitate apprehension and do not believe that it was either immoral or torture.
There is a clear and obvious difference between things that are done while someone is free in order to capture them, and what is done after they are in custody. If someone is shot in the leg during a firefight while they are being apprehended, that does not mean it is all right to shoot them when they are imprisoned and handcuffed. It is the difference between combatants - who are considered to pose an immediate threat - and noncombatants, who are not. Even if someone has valuable information, once captured they are a noncombatant. It is not legitimate to torture them for information, any more than it would be so for enemies of the US to torture captured American soldiers who had knowledge of an impending air strike.

I have had duty cycles of longer than 90 hours where I did not sleep in the line of my duty. Was that torture?
No. You're free and signed up for it and not in enemy hands. I have willingly gone without food for 30 hours as part of a fundraiser; when done to captives that qualifies as mistreatment.

Undue or excessive application of these without immediate goal of eliminating threat or minimizing iminent risk is on the other hand torture by my definition.
By your definition, the US government has used torture. It has employed those methods in non-battlefield situations without knowledge that the captives had information relevant to imminent risk.

You sure about that? How about something to back that up......

well, for one, look at the Salem Witch Trials. Maybe some of them really believed they were witches and possibly some really were witches, but really, all those people being prosecuted as real life witches worthy of burning?

I can't remember the exact Supreme Court Case but i distinctly remember learning in class that a Mexican man immediately confessed to the police of something he did (i forgot whether or not it was false0 in fear of beating because the Mexican police were very harsh. Does anyone know what i'm talking about?

And i can't dig up any statistics about false confessions because all i keep finding is stuff about mental disorders and that kind of thing of torture victims....

http://gripernews.blogspot.com/2009/03/zubaida-torture-resulted-in-false.html

this is at least a story, but again, i can't find specific statistics

There is a clear and obvious difference between things that are done while someone is free in order to capture them, and what is done after they are in custody. If someone is shot in the leg during a firefight while they are being apprehended, that does not mean it is all right to shoot them when they are imprisoned and handcuffed.

I am speaking of placing a gun to the head of a captive to inspire his fellows to cease fire. I am also speaking of the threat of death or wounding to encourage the pleading for his fellows to cease fire and surrender or flee. Posibly even the physical injuring of a captive to inspire the required result. The policy of the U.S. military is to capture and safeguard captured combatants immediately. While that is the policy, it is definitely unrealistic to expect me to watch my out-numbered team get killed off when the possession of this one asset can and will save us and stop the cross-fire. Is my not safeguarding that man torture? Is my threatening to injure or kill him torture? Is my scaring him into ordering the enemy firing to cease torture? If it is, then I have to admit there is serious merit to that use of torture.


It is the difference between combatants - who are considered to pose an immediate threat - and noncombatants, who are not. Even if someone has valuable information, once captured they are a noncombatant. It is not legitimate to torture them for information, any more than it would be so for enemies of the US to torture captured American soldiers who had knowledge of an impending air strike.

Enemies of the U.S. routinely use torture, the difference is, no one seems to care that they do. If a person has valuable enough information or influence, then the methods can be more concentrated and aggressive without there being a moral issue, especially if they are representative of a group or nation that has already used torture and death as interogation techniques against the U.S. If the assertion is "If you use it on others, they can use it on you", why can't the use against us be covered in that assertion?


No. You're free and signed up for it and not in enemy hands. I have willingly gone without food for 30 hours as part of a fundraiser; when done to captives that qualifies as mistreatment.

In your opinion, it qualifies. No one signs up for 90 consecuative hours of duty, so that is a specious assertion. It is an unexpected, but demanded obligation. As for it being mistreatment because they didn't "sign up" for it, what would we consider being a combatant in a war?
This idea that we owe comfort and ease to captured enemies is something I don't agree with at all. Basic provision, yes, but some discomfort is not mistreatment, especially when it is still a higher standard than either our field troops or our captured can expect. On the contrary, our captured can expect to come home in two pieces.


By your definition, the US government has used torture. It has employed those methods in non-battlefield situations without knowledge that the captives had information relevant to imminent risk.

By my definition, every nation has used torture and every nation that the U.S. has fought in the last century has used it against us in heavy measure. The only nation thus far that seems to be under any scrutiny for it is the U.S., though. The indignation, IMO, is therefore a bit mitigated by the lack of it for any other nation, most of whom use execution through torture routinely, when in armed conflict with the U.S.
The day the Vietnamese, Korean, former Iraqi, Cuban, Soviet and Somali, to name a few, and other torturers are prosecuted and punished, by all means use whatever resources and indignation internationally to single the U.S. out. Until all entities are subjected to the same pressure and prosecution, I would submit that it is simply hypocritical for anyone to point a single finger at the U.S. and ignore the rest of the world.

I can't prevent countries or groups that are our enemies from using torture - although their use of it is regularly condemned by the US and others. That does not mean that I should or will tolerate it from my country or our allies.

I can't prevent countries or groups that are our enemies from using torture - although their use of it is regularly condemned by the US and others. That does not mean that I should or will tolerate it from my country or our allies.

I am not saying we should. I was saying the specific reference to the U.S. was inappropriate as the U.S. isn't singularly the source of torture. Nor, for that matter do I believe that much of what is being deemed torture that the U.S. is being crucified for was either ineffective or in fact worthy of the denunciations that have come. Some instances probably are, but many of the oft sited instances (sleep deprivation, use of music and some physical force) have been well inside the line of interogation and have brought forth important and useful fruit. Some of the intelligence is reported to have been instrimental in preventing domestic attacks.

The blanket use of the term, coupled with the singular point of aggresive anger being the U.S. is completely uncalled for, IMO. To insinuate that conditions we regularly are forced to apply to our armed forces are somehow inhumane if simulated with detained combatants seems more than a bit illogical to me. To say that soldiers somehow volunteered so it is O.K., but because the detained are not held voluntarily it is torture strains reason for me.

I am not saying we should. I was saying the specific reference to the U.S. was inappropriate as the U.S. isn't singularly the source of torture.

I don't think anyone is implying that it is. I suspect that the particular focus is on the US in this discussion precisely because whether the US used "torture" or not is open to debate, and thus a far more fruitful topic of discussion. As the methods used by the Soviet Union, Somalia and the other countries you cited are inarguably inhumane, there's little point engaging in discussion over them.

Plus, of course, if you claim to be wearing the white hat, you open yourself to more intense scrutiny.

I am not saying we should. I was saying the specific reference to the U.S. was inappropriate as the U.S. isn't singularly the source of torture. Nor, for that matter do I believe that much of what is being deemed torture that the U.S. is being crucified for was either ineffective or in fact worthy of the denunciations that have come. Some instances probably are, but many of the oft sited instances (sleep deprivation, use of music and some physical force) have been well inside the line of interrogation and have brought forth important and useful fruit. Some of the intelligence is reported to have been instrumental in preventing domestic attacks.

The blanket use of the term, coupled with the singular point of aggressive anger being the U.S. is completely uncalled for, IMO. To insinuate that conditions we regularly are forced to apply to our armed forces are somehow inhumane if simulated with detained combatants seems more than a bit illogical to me. To say that soldiers somehow volunteered so it is O.K., but because the detained are not held voluntarily it is torture strains reason for me.

Yet again, I'm with you Lupin.

To insinuate that conditions we regularly are forced to apply to our armed forces are somehow inhumane if simulated with detained combatants seems more than a bit illogical to me.

Not to me. To give a different example, sometimes a particular mission requires that armed forces face sub-zero temperatures, but forcing a detainee to live in freezing conditions, merely to punish or scare them, would clearly be inhumane.

For me, the key thing is whether the person is put in those conditions with the conscious purpose of causing them discomfort and/or distress. I'm assuming that you weren't sent on these 90-hours-without-sleep missions merely because your commanders wanted to punish you or toughen you up a bit? Because if you were, then, yes, I'd say that was torture, too.

many of the oft sited instances (sleep deprivation, use of music and some physical force) have been well inside the line of interogation and have brought forth important and useful fruit. Some of the intelligence is reported to have been instrimental in preventing domestic attacks.

It depends who you ask. Some military and intelligence operatives have emphatically refuted this.

Besides which, I think you also have to consider the wider effects. As I see it, news about the use of these techniques by the US and her allies acts as free recruitment propaganda for Al Qaeda.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html

I don't think so; his determined defense of a very expansive (even more so than Bushs') idea of state secrets power suggests he thinks otherwise about executive power.

I don't see retaining executive power as necessarily being one and the same with torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal detentions, and warrantless wiretapping. Not every powerful president is George Bush or Richard Nixon. History tells us that much.

I think there will be some kind of disclosure and accounting of all the things that were done relative to detentions, rendition, and torture. There may even be prosecutions. Lord knows I hope there will be a price paid for what was done to so many innocent men whose only "crime" was being Muslim. I don't believe this process will be run out of the White House, though. There are some highly capable committee chairs on Capitol Hill. There is also the special prosecutor route.

This country has never been good at self-examination and reflection, or in owning up to her mistakes. Therefore we've never been particularly skilled at fixing the messes we've made of other people's lives. Look at the arguments mounted by the Bush apologists, that to demand accountability is akin to "criminalizing policy differences."

If only...

Besides which, I think you also have to consider the wider effects. As I see it, news about the use of these techniques by the US and her allies acts as free recruitment propaganda for Al Qaeda.

I agree. The gleeful hand wringing and extraneous, in my opinion, use of the word torture to define what most consider aggressive interrogation techniques, have served as recruiting tools for those who wish to cause us harm. It will likely cause the loss a number of American lives.

And when that hand wringing comes by those who were briefed on the issue at the time and chose to say nothing, well I consider them below contempt.

And when that hand wringing comes by those who were briefed on the issue at the time and chose to say nothing, well I consider them below contempt.


That is an issue I have too. I am vehemently against torture but when news starts trickling out that they were aware of what was going on, I really don't know what makes me feel worse.

Who is "they?" Are we talking Congress in general?

I think there will be some kind of disclosure and accounting of all the things that were done relative to detentions, rendition, and torture. There may even be prosecutions. Lord knows I hope there will be a price paid for what was done to so many innocent men whose only "crime" was being Muslim. I don't believe this process will be run out of the White House, though. There are some highly capable committee chairs on Capitol Hill. There is also the special prosecutor route.
If they do anything, it should definitely be by special prosecutor. A congressional groups is vulnerable to partisanship and accusations of partisanship, and given that we don't know exactly who had knowledge of the torture program it would involve a lot of backside-covering. The only honest way is to have someone independent looking into things - simply as an investigation at first. If it's found that laws were broken, then there will clearly need to be prosecutions.

I agree. The gleeful hand wringing and extraneous, in my opinion, use of the word torture to define what most consider aggressive interrogation techniques, have served as recruiting tools for those who wish to cause us harm. It will likely cause the loss a number of American lives.

Well, actually, that wasn't what I meant - IMO, as Matthew Alexander said, the fact that the US and her allies have used techniques like waterboarding, hooding, the stress position etc (regardless of whether journalists call these "torture" or not) has given those who are attempting to radicalise young Muslims evidence to back up their arguments against the West.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...1-1674396.htm (http:///www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...1-1674396.htm)
"The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology"

If you think it's not torture, I'm assuming you'd be perfectly happy to see an enemy power using these techniques on US troops?

I don't.
This is confusing torture with coercion. They're two different things, though related. "Torture" is getting way too wide of a definition here. Is everything "torture" now? Coercing someone to talk by making them feel good is not torture (whatever it's effectiveness) unless it causes addition.
At this rate, a 3rd grader calling another schoolmate a "doo-doo head" is going to be defined legally soon as "torture" due to emotional distress, as will fraternity pranks, etc..

The use of drugs is coercion, yes, but I don't think coercion and torture are mutually exclusive by any means. Torture is an extreme, threatening form of coercion. If drugs are used as a threat or to coerce people to do things that they deem horrible, then I think it can be seen as torturous.

As for torture having a broad definition, torture by itself is a broad concept because it relies both on the intent of the torturer and the effect on the tortured.

Some fraternity hazing does start going into the realm of what could be considered torture.

On top of that, terrorists have never signed or abided by the Geneva convention themselves. Why should they get all the benefit of it with none of the responsibility? Why should we get saddled with all the responsibility of it and none of the benefit? That was supposed to be a mutual agreement.

Who said that doing the right thing is always the easiest thing, or always results in direct compensation? If this is so important, why bother donating money to charity or getting involved in charitable causes?

The fact is, we are meant to abide by the Geneva convention. What do we get for abiding by it? Our moral integrity as a country, which is no small thing.

Well, if the government captured a terrorist who they knew had information on an upcoming terrorist attack like the date or where or people involved, would you rather invade their thoughts and will or have a few people, to a hundred and possibly a thousand people die? Maybe another 9-11 or a nuclear bomb attack or just a regular attack could be avoided. I think torture is unnecessary since it wouldn't gain reliable information but i don't think a real life truth serum in the future would be bad.

Eh, now you're getting into the "ticking time bomb" scenario, and really, I haven't seen much evidence that these types of scenarios actually occur very often outside of movies. Intelligence tends to be iffy at best. We might have evidence to suggest that there might be something planned, but that doesn't mean we'll necessarily have enough information to warrant violating people's free will. If we can say without a doubt that something is going to happen and precisely who is involved, then the chances of needing such interrogation techniques goes down, anyway.

And, again, there's the unreliability aspect. Drugs are not necessarily going to be that much more reliable than torture. You can't guarantee that the person actually has the information, or the correct information, and you can't guarantee that their placated state will definitely result in them giving you the information you need.


In your opinion, it qualifies. No one signs up for 90 consecuative hours of duty, so that is a specious assertion. It is an unexpected, but demanded obligation. As for it being mistreatment because they didn't "sign up" for it, what would we consider being a combatant in a war?

When you join the military, you should realize that there can be harsh conditions and expectations that go beyond your initial, stated duties. It's part of the job.

Furthermore, it is in the best interest of the military to take care of servicemen and women. The military may be required to put these people in difficult conditions, but they will not do so for the sake of causing pain and misery, and I think the military does try to take care of people. The same cannot be said for a torturer who is causing someone pain and suffering for the sake of causing those feelings.

The indignation, IMO, is therefore a bit mitigated by the lack of it for any other nation, most of whom use execution through torture routinely, when in armed conflict with the U.S.


I think the outrage is because many of us would like to think that the U.S. is above that. Unfortunately, we've come to expect human rights violations from some countries.

The U.S. is also the only country directly within our control. I'm very outraged at how people are treated in some countries, but neither I nor any other American can force those countries to change their policies. But I cannot abide by my own country doing things that I feel are immoral and grossly inappropriate.

most of whom use execution through torture routinely, when in armed conflict with the U.S.

I trust you can provide reliable links which name which nations (and remember, you said "most" meaning a large majority) routinely torture US servicemen to death.

If they do anything, it should definitely be by special prosecutor. A congressional groups is vulnerable to partisanship and accusations of partisanship, and given that we don't know exactly who had knowledge of the torture program it would involve a lot of backside-covering. The only honest way is to have someone independent looking into things - simply as an investigation at first. If it's found that laws were broken, then there will clearly need to be prosecutions.

I agree.

I cannot abide by my own country doing things that I feel are immoral and grossly inappropriate

Neither can I. It's shameful.

Some fraternity hazing does start going into the realm of what could be considered torture.

Assault, at least. However, at least in the jurisdiction in which I shuffle, assault has to be involuntary so hazing, if the subject willingly submits, defies the definition.

Back on topic though. This (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/churchill-vs-cheney.html#more) is worth reading as it reveals why Britain's top WWII interrogator, at a time when it was suffering a weekly 9/11 courtesy of the Blitz and was actually under threat of destruction, refused to resort to torture.

“Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”

Back on topic though. This (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/churchill-vs-cheney.html#more) is worth reading as it reveals why Britain's top WWII interrogator, at a time when it was suffering a weekly 9/11 courtesy of the Blitz and was actually under threat of destruction, refused to resort to torture.

“Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”
Colonel Stephens changed his position after the war when running the Bad Nenndorf internment camp in Germany - there was a scandal when it was discovered what he had been up to. The treatment of internees would have been described as torture by any normal person.

Not to me. To give a different example, sometimes a particular mission requires that armed forces face sub-zero temperatures, but forcing a detainee to live in freezing conditions, merely to punish or scare them, would clearly be inhumane.

Why would it be inhumane? If we were detaining them in Alaska and provided them with clothing to protect them, how is that torture? Similarly, if I scare them with the threat of something to inspire cooperation on to coerce them into being passive during detention, how is that inhumane either? What gives them either the right of comfort or impunity? They can not be deliberately and seriously physically harmed, or placed in intentional danger, but I do not believe they are entitled to more than basic safety and minimal comfort.

For me, the key thing is whether the person is put in those conditions with the conscious purpose of causing them discomfort and/or distress. I'm assuming that you weren't sent on these 90-hours-without-sleep missions merely because your commanders wanted to punish you or toughen you up a bit? Because if you were, then, yes, I'd say that was torture, too.

My 90 hours were spent in real and present danger of loss of life or limb, not just a percieved threat of it. It was indeed for a real world and important purpose as the sleep deprivation in interogation serves an equally real world and important purpose. Again, discomfort and stress are not inhumane and are often involved with any aspect of war. To make capture a sudden exemption seems to me a bit unnecessary and somewhat enticing. If knowing that you will be treated very well if captured is supposed to be a deterent, then I am not sure in what way it is supposed to work. Knowing you may face discomfort and stress on the other hand is indeed a deterent.

It depends who you ask. Some military and intelligence operatives have emphatically refuted this.

I don't think that includes the ones who were able to prevent a domestic attack via this type of interogation. There will always be dissenting opinions, but the actual fruits of aggresive interogation, at least in one instance we know of, were very important and sucessful.


Besides which, I think you also have to consider the wider effects. As I see it, news about the use of these techniques by the US and her allies acts as free recruitment propaganda for Al Qaeda.

That is a misnomer, based partially on statements from people who have very clear motive to make that assertion and partially based on niave assumption by others, IMO. First of all, there is no indignation over these tactics among the insurgency or its likely recruits. If there were, they wouldn't have used techniques severely worse as standard procedure up to and including public execution and beheading.

It is almost a running joke for some that they can inspire indignation with some of the lesser discomforts that are being called "torture", yet when they overtly accuse, people believe them? Why? Don't they have every reason to lie and say this? Don't they have every insentive to make those types of comments as oposed to siting hate doctrine for their rationale when they are trying to seem sympathetic to a mass population that is predisposed to being lenient of "victims"?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html


Ah, yes, the unnamed and uncredentialed interogator again. This might be my favorite faith based belief system, the "He must be who he says, because I like what he is saying". I could make equal claim and say just the oposite and at least in my case I would know I have at least partcipated in intelligence gathering for the U.S. Again, I don't buy for one second that "abuses at Abu-Graib and Gitmo" inspired any of these killers or detainees. The simple fact is that they had years to wage attacks against the previous secular King and didn't, had every oportunity to address Somolia, yet didn't and made no effort to.

In this they further had no incidents that were even remotely outragous acts compared to what is the norm in armed conflict in the region historically in any of this yet it inspired this recruitment? The basis for this contention is completely vacant and somewhat obsurd, IMO.

That those who want to believe it do, is no surprise, but that a basicly unnamed and uncredentialed source is being given such protection and credibility, especially when other names are being free-floated all over the place makes me believe that this is completely invalid and more a philosophical op-ed than actual credible intelligence.

I trust you can provide reliable links which name which nations (and remember, you said "most" meaning a large majority) routinely torture US servicemen to death.

O.K., which nations would you like links for? Germany? Japan? Korea? Vietnam? or simply the groups who we are currently fighting? I was under the impression that most here were aware of simple military history, but as these constitute almost everyone the U.S. has wared against in the last 100 years, I would think that it would validate my statement. That is of course unless the contention is still that none of these used physical torture that routinely lead to death, in which case I will substantiate that through links, it just seems a waist of time unless someone is contending that any of these didn't don't qualify or that they don't constitute most.

I saw a Pew poll (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156) today that just made me feel physically ill. How on earth could 54% of those who attend church "at least once a week" believe that the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" okay?

On the other hand, 42% of those who are not regular church attendees feel the opposite. Rod Dreher of BeliefNet couldn't quite get his mind around the idea (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/christians-and-torture-shocker.html) that evangelical Christians are far more likely to support torture than any other segment of the American people. "What are these Christians hearing at church?" he asks.

I sure would like to know the answer to that one myself!

Allahpundit at the conservative blog Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/30/pew-poll-support-for-torture-highest-among-most-devoutly-religious/) also seems uncomfortable with the finding, and asks if "the more interesting question may be not whether the Bible’s driving Christians to torture but why Christians are ignoring the Bible when thinking politically about this issue."

Isn't that the same argument we hear about Muslims? That Islam is about peace and living together in mutual respect - as Christianity is supposed to be practiced? I honestly don't recognize the kind of Christianity that would lead someone to hold such beliefs.

I saw that poll, too, and my instinct is that it's one of those things were statistics can show you a correlation, but it doesn't necessarily prove that one caused the other. Reading too much into data or a poll is a very real problem at times.

I saw a Pew poll (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156) today that just made me feel physically ill. How on earth could 54% of those who attend church "at least once a week" believe that the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" okay?

On the other hand, 42% of those who are not regular church attendees feel the opposite. Rod Dreher of BeliefNet couldn't quite get his mind around the idea (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/christians-and-torture-shocker.html) that evangelical Christians are far more likely to support torture than any other segment of the American people. "What are these Christians hearing at church?" he asks.

I sure would like to know the answer to that one myself!

Allahpundit at the conservative blog Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/30/pew-poll-support-for-torture-highest-among-most-devoutly-religious/) also seems uncomfortable with the finding, and asks if "the more interesting question may be not whether the Bible’s driving Christians to torture but why Christians are ignoring the Bible when thinking politically about this issue."

Isn't that the same argument we hear about Muslims? That Islam is about peace and living together in mutual respect - as Christianity is supposed to be practiced? I honestly don't recognize the kind of Christianity that would lead someone to hold such beliefs.

I think that this has to do more with the fact that a lot of these people are conservative and have actually read descriptions of "torture" that describe some pretty minor and somewhat soft actions that don't offend most. The fact that many are identical to fraternity initiations and cause no serious or lasting damage mitigates the idea that they are being either intollerant or brutal. There is no scripture that prohibits many of the acts being called torture and to be honest, the broad range of instances does minimize what instances there are of actually unlawful or inappropriate tactics.

I saw a Pew poll (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156) today that just made me feel physically ill. How on earth could 54% of those who attend church "at least once a week" believe that the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" okay?

On the other hand, 42% of those who are not regular church attendees feel the opposite. Rod Dreher of BeliefNet couldn't quite get his mind around the idea (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/christians-and-torture-shocker.html) that evangelical Christians are far more likely to support torture than any other segment of the American people. "What are these Christians hearing at church?" he asks.

I sure would like to know the answer to that one myself!

Allahpundit at the conservative blog Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/30/pew-poll-support-for-torture-highest-among-most-devoutly-religious/) also seems uncomfortable with the finding, and asks if "the more interesting question may be not whether the Bible’s driving Christians to torture but why Christians are ignoring the Bible when thinking politically about this issue."

Isn't that the same argument we hear about Muslims? That Islam is about peace and living together in mutual respect - as Christianity is supposed to be practiced? I honestly don't recognize the kind of Christianity that would lead someone to hold such beliefs.

I don't have anything against any individual following a religion even if im not a big fan of religion myself, but isn't that the opposite of what christianity teaches? I mean, what happened to turning the other cheek or whatever?

My 90 hours were spent in real and present danger of loss of life or limb, not just a percieved threat of it. It was indeed for a real world and important purpose as the sleep deprivation in interogation serves an equally real world and important purpose. Again, discomfort and stress are not inhumane and are often involved with any aspect of war. To make capture a sudden exemption seems to me a bit unnecessary and somewhat enticing. If knowing that you will be treated very well if captured is supposed to be a deterent, then I am not sure in what way it is supposed to work. Knowing you may face discomfort and stress on the other hand is indeed a deterent. Wouldn't it be in our interests if lots of the people on the other side of the war decided they'd rather be captured than continue to fight us? :hmm:

Why would it be inhumane? If we were detaining them in Alaska and provided them with clothing to protect them, how is that torture? Similarly, if I scare them with the threat of something to inspire cooperation on to coerce them into being passive during detention, how is that inhumane either? What gives them either the right of comfort or impunity? They can not be deliberately and seriously physically harmed, or placed in intentional danger, but I do not believe they are entitled to more than basic safety and minimal comfort. ..

For me, it comes down to the fact that I would not like UK POWs to be treated this way, so I do not want my country or its allies to treat our captured enemy that way. (And I know that our POWs are, in fact, often treated much worse, but that's irrelevant to my point. It's the "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" argument I'm pursuing here). I'm not arguing that they should be sent to the Ritz, but there's a difference between modest accommodation and comfort which has been deliberately minimalised in an attempt to intimidate, distress and humiliate.

You seem to be implying that you would be happy to see US POWs treated like this and would feel it reasonable if you yourself were treated this way when in enemy custody, which seems like an honourable argument to me.

My 90 hours were spent in real and present danger of loss of life or limb, not just a percieved threat of it. It was indeed for a real world and important purpose as the sleep deprivation in interogation serves an equally real world and important purpose.

For me, there's a clear difference between expecting your troops to face incidental distress and discomfort in the course of their duties, and deliberately imposing conditions where the distress and discomfort is the main point, whether there is an underlying utilitarian purpose or not.

Again, discomfort and stress are not inhumane and are often involved with any aspect of war. To make capture a sudden exemption seems to me a bit unnecessary and somewhat enticing. If knowing that you will be treated very well if captured is supposed to be a deterent, then I am not sure in what way it is supposed to work. Knowing you may face discomfort and stress on the other hand is indeed a deterent.

Surely that is an argument in itself that discomfort and stress is counter-productive? By following your arguemnt to its logical conclusion, our enemies would be more likely to surrender to us and easier for us to capture if they knew they would be treated well.

I don't think that includes the ones who were able to prevent a domestic attack via this type of interogation. There will always be dissenting opinions, but the actual fruits of aggresive interogation, at least in one instance we know of, were very important and sucessful

There is no way of knowing whether that information could have been gathered another way.

I also still think that the negative aspects of using dubious techniques (what it does to our reputation overseas, the fact that it takes away our white hat and makes it easier for our enemies to whip up propaganada against us in their recruitment drive, the danger of gaining false information from people who just want the sleep deprivation/hooding/whatever to stop) outweight his.

That is a misnomer, based partially on statements from people who have very clear motive to make that assertion and partially based on niave assumption by others, IMO. First of all, there is no indignation over these tactics among the insurgency or its likely recruits.

I beg to differ, having talked to numerous young British Muslims on this topic. There is real anger amongst many very westernised Muslims that the US and UK governments, while claiming to be the good guys, are using cruel and humiliating techniques on POWs. I don't think I've met a Muslim who isn't furious about it. For many, it is causing them to question their loyalty to the values of a country which up until recently they always thought of as their own. For a tiny minority of those, this may make them vulnerable to radicalisation.

I agree that whether the US and her allies use aggressive and/or humiliating tactics on POWs or not will make no difference whatsoever to Al Qaeda's leaders' perception of the West. But I think it does have an impact on naive, disaffected Muslim youths/young inmates in prisons and young offenders' institutions who are the kinds of people that Islamist terror groups seek out and manipulate to be their foot soldiers.

Unlike the 9/11 bombers, the 7/7 London bombers were not angry foreigners intent on attacking a foreign culture they had always hated - they were British-born, previously well-assimilated, westernised Muslims (and one was an adult convert). Something must have happened to allow those who radicalised them to convince them that their country of birth was "the enemy", and (while I'd agree it wasn't the sole reason) I don't think our and our allies' use of waterboarding, hooding, sexual humiliation of prisoners etc helped endear the UK to them.

If there were, they wouldn't have used techniques severely worse as standard procedure up to and including public execution and beheading.

Again, it is for the most part not the potential recruits at the bottom of the food chain who use these techniques. Often they are lied to and persuaded that the captives deserved it.

It is almost a running joke for some that they can inspire indignation with some of the lesser discomforts that are being called "torture", yet when they overtly accuse, people believe them? Why? Don't they have every reason to lie and say this? Don't they have every insentive to make those types of comments as oposed to siting hate doctrine for their rationale when they are trying to seem sympathetic to a mass population that is predisposed to being lenient of "victims"?

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture also call many of the practices at Guantanamo "torture". Those guys are hardly "naive" or ill-informed (they work on a daily basis with torture victims who have escaped from some of the world's most despicable regimes), nor do they have any political axe to grind - they have spoken out about torture in countries of many of our political opponents.

Many of these practices would also be illegal under European law. It is not true that everybody who thinks these techniques are "torture" is a liar, a propagandist with a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of the interrogation practices or a naive bleeding heart with no knowledge of military procedure.

From the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture website

'Torture lite' refers to 'stress and distress techniques' including hooding, restraints, noise bombardment, prolonged sleep deprivation, death threats, and temperature extremes.

The calculated combination of such techniques may not physically scar but can cause lasting, profound psychological damage. Under the terms of the European Court on Human Rights, the combined effect of stress and distress techniques when used over a protracted period of time would amount to torture given the severity and degree of pain and suffering inflicted.

http://www.torturecare.org.uk/quicklinks/1097#stress

Ah, yes, the unnamed and uncredentialed interogator again. This might be my favorite faith based belief system, the "He must be who he says, because I like what he is saying".

That is a fair point - there is no evidence that he is who he says he is and I shouldn't believe everything I read.

Having said that, is that "faith based belief system" such a stretch from "he must be a terrorist and thus deserve whatever they're doing to him, because the US authorities wouldn't have put him in Guantanamo otherwise, even though he's never been tried and no evidence against him ever made public."?

If you think it's not torture, I'm assuming you'd be perfectly happy to see an enemy power using these techniques on US troops?

Naturally we would not be "happy" to see them use these techniques (or any) on US troops; but I would most definitely prefer they use these techniques (if any) as opposed to the ones they actually use, which are far worse and definitely fit the definition of classical torture.

The use of drugs is coercion, yes, but I don't think coercion and torture are mutually exclusive by any means. Torture is an extreme, threatening form of coercion.
Granted, but then I never said they were mutually exclusive, in fact, I said they were related. - just not the same thing.


If drugs are used as a threat or to coerce people to do things that they deem horrible, then I think it can be seen as torturous.

I don't know. That just kind of sounds like an automatic "drugs are bad" kind of stigma.
If they aren't causing pain, discomfort, or damage, it isn't torture. You may not agree with doing that to people, which is fine, as it's your opinion, but it isn't definable as torture just to trick someone into saying something they wanted kept secret.


The fact is, we are meant to abide by the Geneva convention. What do we get for abiding by it? Our moral integrity as a country, which is no small thing.

While I admit I've not actually read the entire Geneva convention treatise (and seriously, who among us here has?) the gist I got from the thing is that it was an agreement between the countries, nations, and parties who signed it, not a simple blanket pledge that applied to all scenarios, nations, or individuals on the Earth.
Nonetheless, I don't support outright torture, and certainly not to innocents.
But I question that we violated the Geneva convention, based on the limited terms we agreed to.


Eh, now you're getting into the "ticking time bomb" scenario, and really, I haven't seen much evidence that these types of scenarios actually occur very often outside of movies. Intelligence tends to be iffy at best. We might have evidence to suggest that there might be something planned, but that doesn't mean we'll necessarily have enough information to warrant violating people's free will.

I know this wasn't in response to me, but I had to ask: What do you mean you "haven't seen much evidence"? I'll bet you haven't seen any. How would you even know? You and I are not in any kind of position to know such classified information. None of us are, unless you're in the intelligence community.
How would you know "intelligence is iffy" at best? What is this statement based on? From what I've heard, we've got a great deal of intelligence over the past few years,and attacks have already been thwarted, more than once.
I'm really trying not to be unpleasant or anything, but it sounds like you're creating some rather presumptuous suppositions there.

V8, are you saying we should turn the other cheek and just let evil be evil? Pretty much we'd be saying that our opponents can do whatever they want because we're doing the Christian thing of turning the other cheek.

I know you didn't literally mean we should turn the other cheek. You were just pointing out how torture isn't Christian. I honestly cannot say how I feel about this torture. We just can't let our opposition get away with terrorizing us, but is this necessary? I don't know.

What I do want to know is Obama' s intentions for letting this into out now. I want to believe he had good intentions, but part of me believes heliterallyjust wants to find one more thing to make Bush look bad.

In fairness to Obama, I think that a large part of it was imposed on him by the timing of the ACLU lawsuit. However, I won't judge whether he was too selective in releasing things, because this isn't "his" thread and I also haven't read the unreleased memos (naturally).

V8, are you saying we should turn the other cheek and just let evil be evil? Pretty much we'd be saying that our opponents can do whatever they want because we're doing the Christian thing of turning the other cheek.

I know you didn't literally mean we should turn the other cheek. You were just pointing out how torture isn't Christian. I honestly cannot say how I feel about this torture. We just can't let our opposition get away with terrorizing us, but is this necessary? I don't know.

What I do want to know is Obama' s intentions for letting this into out now. I want to believe he had good intentions, but part of me believes heliterallyjust wants to find one more thing to make Bush look bad.

i was just asking. Im not christian so i don't know the scriptures but from what i know, christianity is about sacrifice and being peaceful and good etc, so i dont see how so many can actually agree with torture. I think that we need to control terrorists in a manner that actually helps them become productive people in this world, or at least not trying to kill opposing countries and torture just isn't the way to do it, it only proves to them that we are as bad as they are. i dont have any sources to back this up, but i'm relatively certain that these terrorists dont think of themselves as the "bad guys". That's the US, to them anyways, and they probably think of us as people that need to be stopped, or something similar to that. So we shouldn't just torture them.

I know you didn't literally mean we should turn the other cheek. You were just pointing out how torture isn't Christian. I honestly cannot say how I feel about this torture. We just can't let our opposition get away with terrorizing us, but is this necessary? I don't know.


My post isn't a direct response to the above, or to Leah personally - but this made me think about a few underlying principles....

Well, looking at this as a practicing Christian, there shouldn't be a question about condoning torture.

I think from a Christian point of view, it is better to endure suffering than to let oneself be goaded into commiting acts which are so blatantly against anything Christianity stands for (not least because Christians should always be aware that Christ himself was effectively tortured to death).

To me that would be an obvious conclusion from the New Testament, both in word ('turn the other cheek') and in spirit.


'The ends justify the means' is not a part of Christian teaching, in fact, it is a deeply un-Christian position.


I do understand that realpolitik might not always admit the strict adherence to any religion's teachings - but for politicians who openly appeal to Christians, and define many of their policies by Christian values (e.g. stance on gay marriage or abortion), I don't see how they could possibly overlook the deeply un-Christian nature of torture.

If politicans accept on Christian principles that not using stem cell research may cost many people suffering, or even cost lives - how can the same politicians put their Christian principles aside and argue that torture is OK because it saves lives? Therefore, being against stem cell reseach for Christian reasons but also being for torture 'in order to save lives' seem two entirely irreconcilable positions to me. Either one puts Christian principle above saving lives or one doesn't. IMHO.

i guess people react to war more strongly than disease, but it is rather hypocritical

Naturally we would not be "happy" to see them use these techniques (or any) on US troops; but I would most definitely prefer they use these techniques (if any) as opposed to the ones they actually use, which are far worse and definitely fit the definition of classical torture.

I think this is kind of like saying, "Well, I wouldn't like to get in a mild car accident and have whiplash, but it's better than getting in a serious accident and being paralyzed for the rest of my life." Obviously the former option is preferable if you have no way of avoiding an accident. That doesn't mean that the former option is a good thing in itself.

If someone is going to be tortured, then yes, mild is probably better. That doesn't excuse the use of torture, or make the torture a good thing.

If they aren't causing pain, discomfort, or damage, it isn't torture. You may not agree with doing that to people, which is fine, as it's your opinion, but it isn't definable as torture just to trick someone into saying something they wanted kept secret.

My point is that it could cause discomfort. If someone is told that they're going to be drugged with something that will take away their free will, then that could be very distressing for many, and it could be mentally damaging depending on how it is carried out and what happens.

But I question that we violated the Geneva convention, based on the limited terms we agreed to.

Should that be the end-all, though? If something doesn't violate the Geneva convention, does that automatically make it all right to do?

I know this wasn't in response to me, but I had to ask: What do you mean you "haven't seen much evidence"? I'll bet you haven't seen any. How would you even know? You and I are not in any kind of position to know such classified information. None of us are, unless you're in the intelligence community.

Far enough. There's no way to know for sure if things have been averted. But then, look at the attacks that have occurred. If we could have prevented 9/11, I'm sure we would have.

How would you know "intelligence is iffy" at best? What is this statement based on? From what I've heard, we've got a great deal of intelligence over the past few years,and attacks have already been thwarted, more than once.


For one thing, it's hard to get a hold of the people who have major roles in the planning of terrorist events. The people who are more likely to be caught are the ones who may not know anything at all.

For another thing, how are we supposed to evaluate evidence we find? There's a reason why the police need a significant reason before they'll be granted a search or arrest warrant--you can't just arrest someone or invade their privacy because you kinda have some clues that might indicate that the person could have been around the scene of a crime. There has to be a valid reason to believe that they're guilty.

Intelligence agencies have a lot more leeway, but there's the same issue. If you have a lot of concrete details, you can act without concern, but you also may not need to interrogate people as much. You've got your evidence. You don't need to pick up those above-mentioned people who are low on the ladder, and try to get them to tell you who's in charge and what's going on. You should already have evidence to justify detaining people, closing down areas that are targeted, etc.

If all you have, on the other hand, are some snippets of conversation that are alarming but still very lacking, then what are you supposed to do? How do you balance the need to protect people from a possible threat with the importance of protecting human rights by not dragging in and hurting people whom you don't honestly know are guilty?

That's why it's iffy. If there's a shadow of doubt, you have to acknowledge that.

And even if there is no doubt, I can't condone torture.

In fairness to Obama, I think that a large part of it was imposed on him by the timing of the ACLU lawsuit. However, I won't judge whether he was too selective in releasing things, because this isn't "his" thread and I also haven't read the unreleased memos (naturally).

Ah, the ACLU lawsuit. I didn't think of that. Thanks.

i was just asking. Im not christian so i don't know the scriptures but from what i know, christianity is about sacrifice and being peaceful and good etc, so i dont see how so many can actually agree with torture. I think that we need to control terrorists in a manner that actually helps them become productive people in this world, or at least not trying to kill opposing countries and torture just isn't the way to do it, it only proves to them that we are as bad as they are. i dont have any sources to back this up, but i'm relatively certain that these terrorists dont think of themselves as the "bad guys". That's the US, to them anyways, and they probably think of us as people that need to be stopped, or something similar to that. So we shouldn't just torture them.


I'm sorry if I came off as rude or anything. The "bad guys" don't see themselves as bad guys and they probably think the same as us. We don't see us as bad guys, but they think we are. I'm not saying we should torture them, I just don't know how I feel about what we've done. I don't know if it was necessary, if it was productive, if it was good punishment or what. I don't know.

My post isn't a direct response to the above, or to Leah personally - but this made me think about a few underlying principles....

Well, looking at this as a practicing Christian, there shouldn't be a question about condoning torture.

I think from a Christian point of view, it is better to endure suffering than to let oneself be goaded into commiting acts which are so blatantly against anything Christianity stands for (not least because Christians should always be aware that Christ himself was effectively tortured to death).

To me that would be an obvious conclusion from the New Testament, both in word ('turn the other cheek') and in spirit.


'The ends justify the means' is not a part of Christian teaching, in fact, it is a deeply un-Christian position.


I do understand that realpolitik might not always admit the strict adherence to any religion's teachings - but for politicians who openly appeal to Christians, and define many of their policies by Christian values (e.g. stance on gay marriage or abortion), I don't see how they could possibly overlook the deeply un-Christian nature of torture.

If politicans accept on Christian principles that not using stem cell research may cost many people suffering, or even cost lives - how can the same politicians put their Christian principles aside and argue that torture is OK because it saves lives? Therefore, being against stem cell reseach for Christian reasons but also being for torture 'in order to save lives' seem two entirely irreconcilable positions to me. Either one puts Christian principle above saving lives or one doesn't. IMHO.Great post. I don't know. I'm not trying to stick up for Bush or anything like that, I want everyone to know. I know that torture is wrong. It's really not our place to punish people. But, it's like what I said in my post to V8, we have to do something so that other countries don't take advantage of us. Is torture the answer? Most likely not. But something is.

Not to Klio or anyone, just a thought on something I don't like. I don't like it when people say that since you're a Christian you doing something bad is worse than anyone else doing it. We all make mistakes. We all sin. Whether you're a Christian or not, the sin equal. [/off topic rant]

I honestly cannot say how I feel about this torture.

See, with the exception of water boarding, which is nebulous from my perspective, NONE of what was described in the so called "torture memos" was torture, in my opinion. Aggressive? Absolutely. But torture? Nah. And jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth and screaming and yelling about something which, in my opinion isn't torture, unnecessarily jeopardizes American lives to score political points.

If not torture then surely these techniques should be applicable to US civil juridiction. If not, why not? For the average American is far more at risk of life and limb from domestic crims than foreigners who are suspected of terrorism (not that all the detainees were/are terrorist suspects.

See, with the exception of water boarding, which is nebulous from my perspective, NONE of what was described in the so called "torture memos" was torture, in my opinion. Aggressive? Absolutely. But torture? Nah. And jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth and screaming and yelling about something which, in my opinion isn't torture, unnecessarily jeopardizes American lives to score political points.
Stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding to name a few are methods the US has condemned as torture when used by other nations.

Stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding to name a few are methods the US has condemned as torture when used by other nations.

There you go.

We participated in the drawing up of documents that define torture. We signed our agreement not to use those tactics on prisoners. Then we broke our word to the world. I am frustrated with those who now want to redefine a standard that has been in place for half a century. I am even more ticked at Christians who think torture's okay if the "good guys" do it.

It isn't okay. Ever.

Jesus Christ was tortured and died a gruesome death so his followers could be saved. Are we to mimic the Romans and render his sacrifice meaningless?

From where I sit, we've rendered ourselves meaningless insofar as the moral high ground is concerned. We made ourselves no better than the terrorists themselves. Zubaydah was no more guilty of terrorism than Danny Pearl; yet both were captured and tortured. What's the difference?

The thought that comes to mind: "Jesus wept."

Stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding to name a few are methods the US has condemned as torture when used by other nations.

That reminds me of something i've forgotten to say.

In the end, torture is all about mentally breaking someone, adding up the pain and suffering and sleep deprivation and whatever torture there is all adds to a person who is more prone to giving out information, or at least that's the theory. It's more about drawing the line at how much mental torture can be inflicted. (and yes, physical torture all just adds up to mental torture)

It sure does.

Case in point: Jose Padilla (http://dailydish.typepad.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/padilla.html). He is an American citizen. They drove him quite mad. Video of how badly they treated him disappeared.

Sullivan has a picture (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/they-made-them.html) of the "lengths to which Padilla's guards went to maintain his total sensory deprivation. The goggles and earmuffs block out all sound and light, and he is manacled hand and foot, while being taken to have a tooth fixed. He is no security threat, but he is treated like an animal."

That reminds me of something i've forgotten to say.

In the end, torture is all about mentally breaking someone, adding up the pain and suffering and sleep deprivation and whatever torture there is all adds to a person who is more prone to giving out information, or at least that's the theory. It's more about drawing the line at how much mental torture can be inflicted. (and yes, physical torture all just adds up to mental torture)

This is very relevant. Also, it's important to remember that torture doesn't necessarily need to cause a huge risk of death or severe physical injury. If the objective is information, then it's in the torturer's best interest to keep the suspect alive and responsive, making a lot of the more "famous" techniques unwise. And if the torturer's do not want the actions to come to light, it's "safer" to use mental techniques that are less likely to result in suspicious medical or death reports.

Opponents of enhanced interrogation say that the only valid techniques are those found in the Army Field Manual, which, among other things, prohibits yelling at or criticizing detainees.

What this means is that when I was a child my parents tortured me.

O.K., which nations would you like links for? Germany? Japan? Korea? Vietnam? or simply the groups who we are currently fighting? I
What time are you talking about? Sounds like you mean WWII and other wars from centuries ago. So yeah then it for sure happened, but I thought we're talking about "today's world" and I don't remember that I heared of any case where US soldiers were tortured by Germans in the past years. So link please.

And more to the point you said "use execution through torture routinely", routinely meaning as a "a regular or unvarying series of actions or way of doing things" whereas they didn't.

Opponents of enhanced interrogation say that the only valid techniques are those found in the Army Field Manual, which, among other things, prohibits yelling at or criticizing detainees.

What this means is that when I was a child my parents tortured me.

thta makes just about every parent a torturer :lol:

Wab, you might be interested in Jake Weisberg's All the President's Accomplices - How the country acquiesced to Bush's torture policy. (http://www.slate.com/id/2217359/?from=rss)

It's enough to make one puke.

Unlike the Japanese internment, water-boarding was ordered and served up in secret. But it, too, was America's policy, not just Dick Cheney's. Congress was informed about what was happening and raised no objection. The public knew, too. By 2003, if you didn't understand that the United States was inflicting torture on those deemed enemy combatants, you weren't paying much attention. This is part of what makes applying a criminal justice model to those most directly responsible such a bad idea. The issue we need to come to terms with is not just who in the Bush administration did what but how we were collectively complicit in their decisions.

It's a compelling point. We are just as a guilty as those who put this travesty into practice. Even now, faced with incontrovertible proof to the contrary, we're trying to justify waterboarding as a swimming lesson conducted by the YMCA. We knew about Jose Padilla's torture in that Navy brig. We sat by idly and as the Bush administration moved him into the criminal court system rather than risk a Supreme Court review of what they'd done to that man.

We bought into the dismissal of the horrors at Abu Graib as the work of "a few bad apples," when common sense should have told us otherwise. We knew what was going on as far back as 2001, yet 62 milion of us voted George Bush into a second term. If the idea is to go all the way to the top, don't those voters represent the ultimate decision-makers?

The other school of thought is expressed by Gary Kamiya (http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/05/01/torture_investigations/) at Slate. Kamiya says that blame cannot be assessed to the citizenry for "the illegal or immoral actions planned, authorized and carried out by government officials, even if they elected those officials."

I'm not convinced.

It's a interesting point, but not a legally relevant one. If government officials broke the law, they need to be brought to trial for doing so; that's what "the rule of law" means. What the public thought of it does not change the fact that torture is illegal. Waterboarding in particular is irrefutably so - one of the things Bybee should have noted in his memo if he had a shred of intellectual honesty is that a Texas sheriff who used waterboarding was tried and convicted of using torture some years ago. That's based on US domestic law, aside from any international treaties.

On the theme of torture it may be interesting to see what kind of individuals and with what mindset are instrumental in the legal justification of torture.

The most striking, quasy-psychopathic, line i've heard that came from the mouth of such an individual (attorney John Yoo--former official in the US department of justice) is the following:

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame (http://209.85.229.132/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame) professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."


John Yoo worked from 2001 to 2003 in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (http://209.85.229.132/wiki/Office_of_Legal_Counsel) under the George W. Bush Administration (http://209.85.229.132/wiki/George_W._Bush_Administration).

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame (http://209.85.229.132/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame) professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

Why does that sound so much like Richard Nixon's: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal?"

Eowyn, you've known me long enough to realize I've been furious with the Republican Party for more than four decades. While they heartily deserve what has happened to them lately, I wouldn't be unhappy to see them finally embrace some intellectual honesty and give up the things they have done to hurt this country - and a large body of her people - so badly. I can't say more without getting myself in trouble, so I'll just end with this: Ideology is not the same thing as love of country.

Why does that sound so much like Richard Nixon's: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal?"
Somewhat. It sounds like a defense of the "unitary executive" ideology, which argues that Presidential powers are unlimited so long as they are justified on the grounds of national security.

Montesquieu would not approve.

Montesquieu would not approve.

No, I don't think he would. This old gal doesn't either.

Why does that sound so much like Richard Nixon's: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal?"

Eowyn, you've known me long enough to realize I've been furious with the Republican Party for more than four decades. While they heartily deserve what has happened to them lately, I wouldn't be unhappy to see them finally embrace some intellectual honesty and give up the things they have done to hurt this country - and a large body of her people - so badly. I can't say more without getting myself in trouble, so I'll just end with this: Ideology is not the same thing as love of country.

Last time I checked no one in the Bush Administration had crushed anyone's testicles or claimed that doing so was appropriate.

But if some whacked out jihadist group was plotting to set of a dirty bomb in my neighborhood and the authorities caught one of the *******s before they set the bomb off, I'd crush their testicles myself to save my family.

Last time I checked no one in the Bush Administration had crushed anyone's testicles or claimed that doing so was appropriate.

But if some whacked out jihadist group was plotting to set of a dirty bomb in my neighborhood and the authorities caught one of the *******s before they set the bomb off, I'd crush their testicles myself to save my family.

I know how you feel, Mom. I'd do the same. In my mind, it's do what it takes to protect the family. :agree:


-Tibbetts

But it won't as has been proved time and again. And anyone who sanctions such actions, IMO, occupies a moral sewer with the usual crew of despots who are regularly trotted out when trying to define evil.

Last time I checked no one in the Bush Administration had crushed anyone's testicles or claimed that doing so was appropriate.

Did I say that? :no:

I would posit that we don't know all of what they did. We may never know the full story. Judging from the video evidence that was destroyed - even when they were under court order to produce it - they didn't intend for that story to ever become public knowledge.

108 detainees died in U.S. custody as of June 18, 2008. 27 of those deaths were ruled as homicides. At least 8 of those 27 homicides involved a detainee being tortured to death.

Hundreds of Detainees Died in U.S. Custody; At Least 25 Murdered (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/ex-state-dept-official-hundreds-of-detainees-died-in-us-custody-at-least-25-murdered/)

I urge you all to sit down and read the findings of McClatchy News' 8-month investigation of the Bush detention system at Guantanamo and elsewhere in the black sites used by the CIA. McClatchy found that "the U.S. imprisoned innocent men" with impunity, "subjected them to abuse," stripped them of even the most basic of legal rights and "allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo into a school for jihad."

Here's the link: Guantanamo: Beyond the Law (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/guantanamo/)

Opponents of enhanced interrogation say that the only valid techniques are those found in the Army Field Manual, which, among other things, prohibits yelling at or criticizing detainees.

What this means is that when I was a child my parents tortured me.

Well, it has been shown that too much yelling and criticizing from parents can be abusive and cause long-term harm to parent-child relationships, so I would hardly call yelling harmless, regardless of whether it's torture.

As for whether not people would be willing to torture to save their family, I'm sure many people would be. The thing is, the things we do for our families are based on strong emotion, which can be dangerous in law enforcement. I would hope that our military and police are able to stay clear-headed and use reason.

And I would hope that my family would not torture someone on my behalf. I would hope that I'd be brave enough to die rather than see my morals compromised so heinously.

Why does that sound so much like Richard Nixon's: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal?"


This sounds even more like it:

Condaleeza Rice: "By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=1

I read something about Rice's comments during that appearance. I'm getting pretty fed up with Bush operatives using the unitary executive theory as a gold card.

There were a number of legislative initiatives passed to curb executive power after Nixon abused the office so brazenly. The election of 2000 gave them a kind of perfect storm - majorities in both Houses of Congress and control of the White House - to trample those reforms and effect a power grab well beyond what Nixon was able to accomplish.

And we're paying a heavy price for it.

I would posit that we don't know all of what they did. We may never know the full story. Judging from the video evidence that was destroyed - even when they were under court order to produce it - they didn't intend for that story to ever become public knowledge.

108 detainees died in U.S. custody as of June 18, 2008. 27 of those deaths were ruled as homicides. At least 8 of those 27 homicides involved a detainee being tortured to death.

Hundreds of Detainees Died in U.S. Custody; At Least 25 Murdered (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/ex-state-dept-official-hundreds-of-detainees-died-in-us-custody-at-least-25-murdered/)

You'll need to find a somewhat vaguely reliable source if you want to make those claims with any degree of certainty. The lefts nasty habit of repeating spurious commentary without doing one iota of research to attempt to verify or refute the accuracy of the source story is beyond ridiculous, and when it comes to accusing the US of doing reprehensible things, borders on insanity.

Because if ANY of what you've accused the US of doing were half true, the Conservatives who post here would be standing up against it along with you. But what you're accusing the US of is not true and blowing smoke and foaming at the mouth and making all sorts of unsubstantiated accusations doesn't make it so.

The interrogation techniques the US used were keeping suspected terrorists up for long hours, keeping them cold, asking them questions over and over again, smacking them in the face with an open hand a set distance below the eye, away from the nose and above the mouth. Some of those suspected terrorists were American's. None were Prisoners of War. All were known or suspected plotting acts of mass murder.

Boo freaking hoo.

I encourage each and every one of you to watch the unedited Nick Berg beheading tapes

STAFF EDIT: Read about Nick Berg's execution at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg).

This is what the jihadists do when they capture Americans. And they don't do it to prevent terrorist attacks - they do it to terrorize the rest of the world. What do we do when we capture suspected terrorists? We keep them up at night. We make them listen to Barney or AC DC. We make them uncomfortable. They slice the heads off of innocent Americans they catch walking down the street and broadcast the beheading to the world.

The US does not and did not torture anyone.

Some of those suspected terrorists were American's.

There were no Americans. The one American rounded up (John Lindh) was promptly tried in the US because even the Bush administration recognised that the proposed tribunal system failed to meet minimum standards of a fair trial like conditions in their gulag.


The US does not and did not torture anyone.

A flat out lie.

The US convicted Japanese (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html) for the crime of torture because they employed waterboarding on captured US servicemen. So, waterboarding is torture. The US has admitted to employing waterboarding. So, the US has employed torture.

Let's not get into too much of a source war, folks. These things never end well. Along with accusing others of lying.

Myself, I like to think that my government doesn't stoop to the level of the terrorists.

The way I see it, we've got a fundamental disagreement about whether the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used are torture.

This is what the jihadists do when they capture Americans. And they don't do it to prevent terrorist attacks - they do it to terrorize the rest of the world. What do we do when we capture suspected terrorists? We keep them up at night. We make them listen to Barney or AC DC. We make them uncomfortable. They slice the heads off of innocent Americans they catch walking down the street and broadcast the beheading to the world.


That's like me saying that there's no problem with me going out and shoplifting stuff, because other people steal cars and rob banks. The severity of someone else's actions do not automatically excuse our own.

And to me, it doesn't matter one bit if the person being tortured is a suspected terrorist or a sweet old nun. It's still wrong.

I encourage each and every one of you to watch the unedited Nick Berg beheading tapes

Discussing torture is one thing, but posting links to videos of beheadings on here is not what I want to see on CoS please. I've removed your link and replaced it with the wikipedia article on Nick Berg's execution.


1. CoS Forums is a family friendly forum. Anything we deem inappropriate will be removed, this includes posts, signatures, usernames, images etc. The offending member will be warned. This also extends to websites which contain inappropriate material and the discussion of slash.

Because if ANY of what you've accused the US of doing were half true, the Conservatives who post here would be standing up against it along with you. But what you're accusing the US of is not true and blowing smoke and foaming at the mouth and making all sorts of unsubstantiated accusations doesn't make it so.

Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/index.asp)

Executive Summary (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/exec-sum.asp)

Full Report (http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf)

Press Release (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2006_alerts/etn_0222_dic.htm)

Washington Post Editorial: Homicide Unpunished (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701320.html)

It is true. Every bit of what I posted. I have photographs, in some cases, of the dead bodies of detainees who were murdered while in U.S. custody. As we are forbidden to post images in this thread, I can't share them.

The left has been way ahead on the topic of torture. I don't really understand the cocoonish environment that prevents some people from seeing reality when it's staring you in the face. This link - Autopsy reports reveal homicides of detainees in U.S. custody, released 10.24.2005 (http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/) - tells a real world horror story. It's been available on the web for nearly four years. Conservatives won't have read it - and may still refuse to do so - because it was published by the ACLU.

Andrew Sullivan is another great source of information on just how deeply the U.S. has sunk on the torture front, and never more so than in this story for the London Times: Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article2602564.ece).

The whole world is aware of what the U.S. has done and has denounced it to the point that quite a few Bush administration officials had better plan on not traveling abroad.

ETA:

Words to think about:

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

I cannot believe anyone compares this to the Nazis. That's utterly ridiculous and I think it insults anyone who was in the Holocaust or had family members in the Holocaust.

Andrew Sullivan is another great source of information on just how deeply the U.S. has sunk on the torture front, and never more so than in this story for the London Times: Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article2602564.ece).
Reading that article, I have to say that that is very disturbing. I mean, seriously, the same arguments and terminology?! O_o

Reading that article, I have to say that that is very disturbing. I mean, seriously, the same arguments and terminology?! O_o

Yeah. It's always the same, the world over. There are no extenuating circumstances that make it any different whenever it crops up. We'd like to think "this isn't like that," but we're just deluding ourselves. The right-wing blogs are tripping over themselves with one justification or rationalization after another, but the facts are what they are. John Kennedy once wrote a book called "Why England Slept." I guarantee you someone will write a similar account of this dreadful period in American history.

Well, I'd say the difference with the Nazis is (firstly) in the numbers affected, and (secondly) in the number of essential rules broken (on which more below).

The crucial problem is that the most important step towards cruelty is the first one - when the threshold of torture is transgresssed, especially when iut doesn't happen because one nutter does it, but when the government deliberately decides that it is OK under certain circumstances - that's the BIG step. Everything that follows is a matter of degree.... one person ... and another.... and ten others.... one method.... others added....

One can see that something like this started happening when someone is waterborded on average six times a day during a longer period (as one of the Guantanamo people was, apparently) (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6130165.ece)).

That's the sort of excess that happens once that first step is done.



Of course, a comparison with the Nazis is still not sound, because they overstepped many such thresholds of unacceptability. But then, once ONE threshold is crossed - I think it might be less difficult to use similar excuses to break other rules as well.... Yes. I really do think that slippery slopes are sometimes a relevant factor to consider. Especially when the first step is SO much bigger by degrees than the others that follow (even if the road is still long). The US certainly did that first step, and several more besides, I suppose, in the last few years.

Thus, I don't think that the Nazis are a direct comparison, but thinking of the Nazis as a reminder what happens when a government starts to condone the breaking the rules of essential humanity under *any* circumstances - yes, I think that's not an inappropriate reminder.

And I mean *any* circumstances. I don't think torture of prisoners is OK in war, either. It just isn't OK. full stop.

The interrogation techniques the US used were keeping suspected terrorists up for long hours, keeping them cold, asking them questions over and over again, smacking them in the face with an open hand a set distance below the eye, away from the nose and above the mouth. Some of those suspected terrorists were American's. None were Prisoners of War. All were known or suspected plotting acts of mass murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation

Sleep deprivation can do really bad things to your body. I remember one time when i got like 3-4 hours of sleep for just 2 nights in a row and i fell severely ill for a week, as in high fever (which can become fatal), diarrhea (which can also be fatal), severe coughing (i was pretty scared of getting pnemonia), not to mention other side effects such as being really dizzy, a feeling of my entire body being prickled with pins, really bad headache, etc. Sleep deprivation is ok in minor quantities but if you overdo it, like having someone not sleep for like 3 days or something, i would call it torture.


I encourage each and every one of you to watch the unedited Nick Berg beheading tapes

STAFF EDIT: Read about Nick Berg's execution at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg).

This is what the jihadists do when they capture Americans. And they don't do it to prevent terrorist attacks - they do it to terrorize the rest of the world. What do we do when we capture suspected terrorists? We keep them up at night. We make them listen to Barney or AC DC. We make them uncomfortable. They slice the heads off of innocent Americans they catch walking down the street and broadcast the beheading to the world.

The US does not and did not torture anyone.

im still searching for the tape, but would it be within the rules to owl it to me since i'm not having too much luck so far?

im still searching for the tape, but would it be within the rules to owl it to me since i'm not having too much luck so far?

I'll leave that up to monster_mom. Members are free to exchange owls to one another regarding more mature content (as long as it is legal). BUT, whilst I don't wish to prejudice against you, being a younger member of CoS Forums, you must understand that the video is graphic and distressing. Would your parents allow you to see such a thing? It's precisely for that reason that I removed it.

i grew up on chinese war movies and also chinese "detective" movies that usually end up with a decapitation :lol: that my parents literally tell me to watch (though then again they aren't real) :lol:. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any problems with it :)

i grew up on chinese war movies and also chinese "detective" movies that usually end up with a decapitation that my parents literally tell me to watch (though then again they aren't real) . I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any problems with it

Fair enough but watching someone die, who existed very much in this reality, is a different stroke to watching a movie. Distinguishing between the two helps to remember that there are real people who fall victim to horrific and disgusting acts of human violence every day. I'm not angry that the link was posted, just that CoS Forums has a limit because young people such as yourself may not be quite as desensitized to it.

This debate is as much about that as it is anything else. The general public don't want to get too close to the darker side of democracy because it doesn't really look that different to other systems of government. The real tragedy for many people is not in what the USA may have done. It's that Joe Public had to be made aware of it and then attempt to deal with it, all the while wishing it would just go away. There's a reason all the movies show torture being carried out in damp, squalid environments with little to no natural light. Torture is and always should be kept in the dark, just like Joe Public.

i know, i was just making the point that it wouldn't be the gore that would bother me. Im more curious about why this video in particular is so famous since while awful, beheading isn't exactly too uncommon and its one of those things that you have to see to really get an understanding of. Anyone can hear about the awful thigns that happen during torture or war or being deathly ill but nothing REALLY hits home when you've experienced it firsthand and to a lesser degree, seen it. There was one time in American History class when our teacher was telling us about Emmett Till and just a few weeks ago i just happeend across it onlineand it really makes me think that some people really are ignorant if they can think of history as boring or unimportant

Torture is and always should be kept in the dark.
While I agree that pics and videos of tortured people shouldn't be available to some audience, do I have to disagree on this statement. Torture shouldn't be kept in the dark. We need to be aware that it happens, even if some don't want or can understand the full nature of it. To "keep something in the dark" makes people only close the eyes and be in denial. I am sure that it's not the way you mean it, but that's how it sounds.

This debate is as much about that as it is anything else. The general public don't want to get too close to the darker side of democracy because it doesn't really look that different to other systems of government. The real tragedy for many people is not in what the USA may have done. It's that Joe Public had to be made aware of it and then attempt to deal with it, all the while wishing it would just go away. There's a reason all the movies show torture being carried out in damp, squalid environments with little to no natural light. Torture is and always should be kept in the dark, just like Joe Public.

In a way, democracy is kind of darker, since you think that we have all these checks and balances, so many leaders making decisions, all elected by the public and yet these atrocities are still happening and be considered somewhat ok by more than half of the legislative bodies if voted on. If a dictator kills millions of people, its bad for a similar reason, that the the majority of people haven't tried or can't stop him/her but its kind of worse for democracy still.

Andrew Sullivan is another great source of information on just how deeply the U.S. has sunk on the torture front, and never more so than in this story for the London Times: Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article2602564.ece).

I think I found the Norway war crimes trial that Sullivan was referring to when he compared the Bush Administration's use & defense of "enhanced interrogation" to the Nazis' use & defense of "verschärfte Vernehmung".

Here's a page about that trial, from the University of the West of England: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/bruns.htm

While I agree that pics and videos of tortured people shouldn't be available to some audience, do I have to disagree on this statement. Torture shouldn't be kept in the dark. We need to be aware that it happens, even if some don't want or can understand the full nature of it. To "keep something in the dark" makes people only close the eyes and be in denial. I am sure that it's not the way you mean it, but that's how it sounds.

I think what Morgoth was trying to say was more that the public should be aware but sometimes it can get a bit much, but i'm not Morgoth so don't listen to me :lol:. but anwyays, i really think that people need to see these photos and videos for it to hit home, like i said above. Like with World War 2. People had heard of what bad things were happening in Europe at the time but without it being close to home and without seeing exactly what was happening, and only stories, people tend to try to file them away as a rumor, or an exaggeration. I dont have a source, but i'd bet anything thta it was after seeing pictures of concentration camps and the torture the Jews had to go through that americans started really seeing that Hitler had to be brought down.

Personally the message that a hostage is beheaded, usually shown just before it happens (those infamous videos) is enough for me. It hits home, at least for me. Stories and accounts about torture can be just as graphic as videos. Because you visualize it almost automatically in your head.

Indeed.

And I am not entirely sure what that video has to do with anything.

This is what the jihadists do when they capture Americans. And they don't do it to prevent terrorist attacks - they do it to terrorize the rest of the world. What do we do when we capture suspected terrorists? We keep them up at night. We make them listen to Barney or AC DC. We make them uncomfortable. They slice the heads off of innocent Americans they catch walking down the street and broadcast the beheading to the world.


I don't quite see why appalling behaviour of *other people* (whose actions would also count as crime in their own countries, I would guess, however likely or unlikely a conviction might be), has any bearing on the legality of torture in any other country, especially any country which thinks of itself as a western democracy.


I am not getting this..... 'they have behave badly. which means it is OK for us to behave badly, too' (or even 'we are obliged to behave just as badly') doesn't strike me as a very reasonable line of argument. And that's how I understand the context in which this video was linked originally, in the post quoted above.

Why should we let the mode of our actions be determined by people whose actions we despise? I think that this is a logical fallacy (let alone a moral one). We should let our actions guided by people we admire, not people we ought to despise for their actions.

To me this looks like jostling for positions on the moral 'low ground' - and I honestly don't see the point of that, although this is indeed what seems to have happened in recent years.

And I am not entirely sure what that video has to do with anything. [...]

I am not getting this..... 'they have behave badly. which means it is OK for us to behave badly, too' (or even 'we are obliged to behave just as badly') doesn't strike me as a very reasonably line of argument. And that's how I understand the context in which this video was linked originally, in the post quoted above.

It's supposed to justify the use of torture by the United States, I think, by saying that these people are so foul they don't deserve decent treatment in captivity. There are other arguments on the right, not least among them the meme that the detainees are not members of an army; therefore the Geneva Accords - and our own laws - shouldn't apply to them.

To me this looks like jostling for positions on the moral 'low ground' - and I honestly don't see the point of that, although this is indeed what seems to have happened in recent years.

You're right. This explains why pundits on the right smear the president's trip to Europe last month as the "Apology Tour (http://mediamatters.org/research/200904100035)." That's off-topic for this thread. The reason I mentioned it is because torture is one of the many chasms between the United States and the rest of the free world. Unfortunately there is an awful lot that needs, not so much an apology, as an attempt to rebuild bridges broken over the past few years.

The CIA knew perfectly well (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss) that what they were doing was torture. What else can explain the fact, given in the linked article, that their top lawyer called the White House to complain about a routine statement marking the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture?

For me, it comes down to the fact that I would not like UK POWs to be treated this way, so I do not want my country or its allies to treat our captured enemy that way. (And I know that our POWs are, in fact, often treated much worse, but that's irrelevant to my point. It's the "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" argument I'm pursuing here). I'm not arguing that they should be sent to the Ritz, but there's a difference between modest accommodation and comfort which has been deliberately minimalised in an attempt to intimidate, distress and humiliate.

Creating intimidation and distress as well as humiliation does indeed hinder the enemy will to fight and the desire to be recruited for those targeted. The idea that the worst thing that could happen isn't all that bad does nothing to either demoralize or break the moral of enemy fighters, nor does it in any way increase the odds they will surrender. Surrender is forced not by conditions of detention, but by military necessity. No one will surrender simply because the conditions during detention aren't bad unless they were unwilling to fight in the first place. Of course they would surrender even if conditions aren't pleasant once the will or means to fight is taken from them.


You seem to be implying that you would be happy to see US POWs treated like this and would feel it reasonable if you yourself were treated this way when in enemy custody, which seems like an honourable argument to me.

The use of discomfort and the imposition of stress are to be expected when captured and interogation is absolute. If our forces were indeed subjected only to the conditions our prisoners are currently subjected to, I would have no qualms and it would be a drastic improvement over what they currently face. Provision of three meals, enclosure from elements and medical attention are standard and safegarding is also consistent. We do not use the captured as human shields or to sweep mined areas and such.



For me, there's a clear difference between expecting your troops to face incidental distress and discomfort in the course of their duties, and deliberately imposing conditions where the distress and discomfort is the main point, whether there is an underlying utilitarian purpose or not.

What difference is that? Does anyone think that the motive matters in the end in any way except philosophical ideology? Both sets have volunteered to be in combat, both are engaged in war and niether has any entitlement or right to expect to be immune to those types of conditions. To be accurate, interogation and not simply creating the conditions is the main point and that is an important yet oft missed distinction. There are plenty of times I would have traded a detainee in my career, but I am certain they would not have taken the trade.


Surely that is an argument in itself that discomfort and stress is counter-productive? By following your arguemnt to its logical conclusion, our enemies would be more likely to surrender to us and easier for us to capture if they knew they would be treated well.

This is like saying, if prison was nicer, criminals would surrender after crimes. It doesn't work that way. They don't set out to be captured and won't volunteer for it no mater how "nice" the prison conditions are. Only when surrender is forced does anyone surrender. This is a flawed assumption as it doesn't account for why the people are there and captured in the first place.


There is no way of knowing whether that information could have been gathered another way.

Reasonable contention, except that standard techniques failed to garner intelligence that aggresive techniques worked to obtain. I think that somewhat supports the aggresive techniques being a part of the solution.


I also still think that the negative aspects of using dubious techniques (what it does to our reputation overseas, the fact that it takes away our white hat and makes it easier for our enemies to whip up propaganada against us in their recruitment drive, the danger of gaining false information from people who just want the sleep deprivation/hooding/whatever to stop) outweight his.

Again, this is based on two niave or false premices. One that anyone who would be recruited has ever seen the west as "Wearing the white hat" and two that any of these acts are even shocking in the perception of the people claiming to be offended. The only thing that makes them at issue is who did them. The acts themselves are relatively tame compared to standard treatment of detained hostiles anywhere in that theater that can be recruited and pales massively to the devices used by those who are recruited, so the incredible hypocracy in their having made those statements alone stinks to high heaven, let alone the idea that they are sincere. If brutality is the source of recruitment coalition forces would be sieged by outraged citizens clammering to be allowed to fight.


I beg to differ, having talked to numerous young British Muslims on this topic. There is real anger amongst many very westernised Muslims that the US and UK governments, while claiming to be the good guys, are using cruel and humiliating techniques on POWs. I don't think I've met a Muslim who isn't furious about it.

Really, then where was the indigantion at the beheadings and beatings and dismemberments earlier in this conflict? If they are furious about naked pyramids and music being piped in, they must be incensed over the actual brutaility, right? The real anger belongs with the real brutality in my opinion and they are well within their rights to be upset at either, but the hypocritical nature of the indignation just doesn't impress me at all.

For many, it is causing them to question their loyalty to the values of a country which up until recently they always thought of as their own. For a tiny minority of those, this may make them vulnerable to radicalisation.

Is this for real? Who exactly is their loyalty going to shift to, radical Islam? Based on the "torture" allogations? Given the track record of radical Islam, I will have to call that the most inane and downright dishonest thing I have ever heard. I can't be loyal to a country that would pipe Barney music into cells, so I will join the group that cuts off heads? That would be funny, if it weren't so sad.


I agree that whether the US and her allies use aggressive and/or humiliating tactics on POWs or not will make no difference whatsoever to Al Qaeda's leaders' perception of the West. But I think it does have an impact on naive, disaffected Muslim youths/young inmates in prisons and young offenders' institutions who are the kinds of people that Islamist terror groups seek out and manipulate to be their foot soldiers.

If they are more offended by the "torture" accused than by the brutailty of the radicals then they are good candidates for being killers to start with. This idea that somehow these minimal by comparison acts are a tipping point lacks reason or logic and is downright scapegoating, IMO.


Unlike the 9/11 bombers, the 7/7 London bombers were not angry foreigners intent on attacking a foreign culture they had always hated - they were British-born, previously well-assimilated, westernised Muslims (and one was an adult convert). Something must have happened to allow those who radicalised them to convince them that their country of birth was "the enemy", and (while I'd agree it wasn't the sole reason) I don't think our and our allies' use of waterboarding, hooding, sexual humiliation of prisoners etc helped endear the UK to them.

If it was anything close to a reason, let alone a compelling reason then they are certifiably insane. To suggest that someone could rationalize those acts with the acts documented is completely off the scale of reason.



Again, it is for the most part not the potential recruits at the bottom of the food chain who use these techniques. Often they are lied to and persuaded that the captives deserved it.

If the reason for outrage is that "no one deserves torture" then how does that wash with the "they deserved it" philosophy? They are persuaded that brutality is allowed, that it is right and morally acceptable because in that society it absolutely is. That they then fane offense is just ploy and propaganda, which works because of the self-loathing need in the west to blame themselves for things. I can say with solid confidnece that in many quarters the western reaction to this is something of a punchline and a way to embolden other fighters.



The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture also call many of the practices at Guantanamo "torture". Those guys are hardly "naive" or ill-informed (they work on a daily basis with torture victims who have escaped from some of the world's most despicable regimes), nor do they have any political axe to grind - they have spoken out about torture in countries of many of our political opponents.

Which practices are being called "many" and by what definition are they making this claim? The practice of three meals a day? The practice of medical care being provided? The practice of allowing free expression of religon up to and including providing a sealed copy of the Koran?

Many of these practices would also be illegal under European law. It is not true that everybody who thinks these techniques are "torture" is a liar, a propagandist with a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of the interrogation practices or a naive bleeding heart with no knowledge of military procedure.

I never said any of that, did I? I said the detainees being interviewed had every reason to make claims and they do and that is a fact. Consider the source when comparing the "interviewees" and the documented facts supported by more than heresay, which wouldn't be allowed in an American courtas proof of guilt. Of course we don't do criminal procedings for battlefield detatinees for a plethera of reason, many of which I have repeatedly given. In short is completely impractical and unworkable.




That is a fair point - there is no evidence that he is who he says he is and I shouldn't believe everything I read.

Having said that, is that "faith based belief system" such a stretch from "he must be a terrorist and thus deserve whatever they're doing to him, because the US authorities wouldn't have put him in Guantanamo otherwise, even though he's never been tried and no evidence against him ever made public."?

Again, those aren't my words and I'm not making those claims. I am giving my position on this issue. As for evidence being presented, how would that work exactly? Publicly expose intelligence information, informants and operators to present it?
This idea that a battlefield scenario is like civil law enforcement is inaccurate. The investigation and detention process is very different for several good reasons, not the least of which being the nature of apprehension and circumstances.

What time are you talking about? Sounds like you mean WWII and other wars from centuries ago. So yeah then it for sure happened, but I thought we're talking about "today's world" and I don't remember that I heared of any case where US soldiers were tortured by Germans in the past years. So link please.

None are older than a century, the majority are less than 50 years ago. We haven't fought Germany since 1945, which is less than 100 years ago, but have fought in all the cited cases from then until now. Which is the counter-example?

And more to the point you said "use execution through torture routinely", routinely meaning as a "a regular or unvarying series of actions or way of doing things" whereas they didn't.

Korea, Vietnam, Germany and the current radicals all have indeed used torture to kill routinely. Gemany as well as Korea through public execution and deprivation methods, Vietnam through similar, yet usually more prolonged methods and the current enemies through decapitation and dismemberment. Is the contention that they any of these haven't used these methods as part of their routine detentions? That these were either isolated or prosecuted as misconduct?

It's a interesting point, but not a legally relevant one. If government officials broke the law, they need to be brought to trial for doing so; that's what "the rule of law" means. What the public thought of it does not change the fact that torture is illegal. Waterboarding in particular is irrefutably so - one of the things Bybee should have noted in his memo if he had a shred of intellectual honesty is that a Texas sheriff who used waterboarding was tried and convicted of using torture some years ago. That's based on US domestic law, aside from any international treaties.

You mean like if a government official lied under oath and commited perjury? That is a serious felony, right? I mean if public sentament isn't an issue, why is Bush's predecessor walking around unconvicted? I think in the end that fiasco was a lesson learned.

Personally the message that a hostage is beheaded, usually shown just before it happens (those infamous videos) is enough for me. It hits home, at least for me. Stories and accounts about torture can be just as graphic as videos. Because you visualize it almost automatically in your head.

So I ask, how can the substantiated reports even come close to being a recruiting tool for the groups who do this?

the hypocritical nature of the indignation just doesn't impress me at all.

The real hypocrisy comes from those who refuse to hold their politicians to what has always been the American standard. Rather than admit to the obvious and take even the slightest bit of responsibility for what happened on the watch of a Republican president, they insist on spinning Guantanamo into some bizarre kind of resort and, when that argument falls apart - as it surely must - they revert to blaming everyone but themselves and their own.

This phony "debate" is just one of the reasons the GOP is bleeding supporters.

I don't have anything against any individual following a religion even if im not a big fan of religion myself, but isn't that the opposite of what christianity teaches? I mean, what happened to turning the other cheek or whatever?

Not to drift too much offtopic, but to quickly address this: if you know anything of the history of Christendom, you have your answer. Ever since it became Rome's official religion in the 4th century, it's been used by nations, clans, and warriors as a call to battle, to slay the heathens and pagans and all other groups who don't convert or believe; and even for war amongst themselves, especially during the Reformation. It's got a very bloody and violent history.
But then, all the Abrahamic faiths have extreme violence and bloodshed somewhere in their history, and I think it's a bit unfair that Christendom is often singularly pointed out (Crusades, Inquisition, etc..) when Jews and Muslims have their fair share too.

Right here in the title:

Torture in today's world


it shows that we should focus on recent history. The sins of various religious groups in the distant past have often been apologized for many times over, and thus have been disavowed by any leaders of these religions. I think that we'd be hard-pressed to find any reputable leaders of any major religion who condone torture, so that suggests to me that any members of said religions who practice torture are not following the guidelines set forth by their own leaders.

So, focus on today's world, and please separate the teachings of various religions from the practices of those who twist the teachings to fit their own preconcieved beliefs.

please separate the teachings of various religions from the practices of those who twist the teachings to fit their own preconcieved beliefs.

Kinda hard to do when we have polling showing us that evangelical Christians and Catholics are more likely to support torture (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/04/30/poll-most-evangelicals-and-catholics-condone-torture-in-some-instances.html) than any other American demographic - including mainstream Protestants.

I think we can drop religious believes as motivation behind supporting torture altogether thank you.

The real hypocrisy comes from those who refuse to hold their politicians to what has always been the American standard. Rather than admit to the obvious and take even the slightest bit of responsibility for what happened on the watch of a Republican president, they insist on spinning Guantanamo into some bizarre kind of resort and, when that argument falls apart - as it surely must - they revert to blaming everyone but themselves and their own.

Please show me where any Conservative/Republican has EVER thought of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center as a ruddy "resort"? As for the rest in that paragraph, "Hello Pot. I'm Kettle."

This phony "debate" is just one of the reasons the GOP is bleeding supporters.

Why is it that Obama supporters believe any debate - where the GOP disagrees with the great and wonderful Obama - is "phony"? Is this the venerable "tolerance" from the Left I keep hearing about? Must be.

Talk about dogma and ideology. Sheesh! What happens in Guantanamo Bay is rather tame compared to the rest of the world, and you know what? The techniques actually WORK. I don't believe we should chop folks heads off, or pump electricity through their bodies until they fry, but discomfort goes a long way in convincing individuals to cooperate. To give up info to make it stop. So they can sleep, if nothing else.

The namby-pambiness in today's society is amazingly sad. Must be all that politically correct bull I see spreading around.

Most likely this will be deleted, oh well. I had my say, at least.


-Tibbetts

Okay, on that note I'm giving this thread a break. Come on guys, it doesn't need to be trench warfare here.

In the meantime, whilst we wait, I've channeled Jerry Lewis to give us a live performance of his famous typewriter.

Sometimes I look at this and wonder if it's a CoS member replying to something, going slowly more insane with every DoIMC post that comes out... or maybe that's how I look as I write this.

Enjoy!

gWJBfvWjlk0