So, Just What *Is* Torture? by perfessergee

As much as I'd assume were of like mind on the notion of US treatment of detainees, I can't see how your definition would really work. I wouldn't want my son or daughter imprisoned, handcuffed or interrogated at all but I wouldn't necessarily call such treatment torture.

Perhaps, if you'll allow me to rephrase your definition, you're suggesting that if the situation were reversed, if a foreign power takes American POW's, what kind of treatment would we be willing to tolerate?

This was the major concern of the top military JAG officers when the Bush administration first changed the directives on prisoner interrogation and tried to work around Geneva convention standards by reclassifying the prisoners. It's nasty business and likely to come back to haunt us.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:01 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Sarge, thanks for clarifying my imprecise language. You have identified exactly what I'm getting at - what if your child were a prisoner of war, subject to some enemy force? No one would willingly allow their child to be captured and imprisoned, but what if they were? From there, let's go with your language.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:40 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I'm glad you brought this back up in a new thread, perfessergee, because I think it gets at a really important point with regards to torture. And I think your restatement, Sarge, better gets at that point. That point is simply that when our troops are captured we want them treated a certain way. We want them to not be abused. The only information they need to supply is name, rank and serial number. If we're unwilling to extend those same protections to our prisoners then we're opening the door to not having a leg to stand on if our troops get the shaft.

I'm not quite sure how to phrase this. I understand why there is civilian control of the military. But it seems like this particular batch of civilians has run roughshod over the concerns voiced by our military a number of times. We have a bunch of amateurs who are attempting to implement a plan based on speculation (the PNAC plan - which is essentially a white paper and would've remained theoretical absent 9/11, at least in my opinion). And they are neglecting the advice and concerns of the professionals who they are ordering to carry out their ill thought out plan. Does that seem right to you? Somewhere in this rant is the difference between political goals and military goals and the problems in using a military force to achieve political goals. Eh. I'm rambling. I'm just generally frustrated with seeing a precision instrument in the hands of an unskilled laborer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 3:24 AM

G1223

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Perhaps, if you'll allow me to rephrase your definition, you're suggesting that if the situation were reversed, if a foreign power takes American POW's, what kind of treatment would we be willing to tolerate?

SergeantX

Well based on our history of what we allow.

During The Korean War we allowed beatings starvation and psychological torture of our POW's while not doing the same to the North Korean and Chinese POW's.

We did not have any control over those holding our people. We held the moral high ground and did nothing in response to the cruelty shown our troops.

The same happened in Veitnam and still nothing was done. Those beaten POW's during the gulf war were not beaten by their CO and fellow soldiers but by the Iraqi troops and interrogators.

So based on how we allow things to happen we have a lot of payback to dish out. I think we have not taken the prisoners as a whole and worked the half tyo death and then beaten on them as a finish to a day's fun in the Gitmo sun.

We have people who boo hoo when the nasty soldier asked questions in a harsh way. Let alone ask it with a implied level of violence for not answering. These same weeping sisters cry that sleep deparvation or messing with their bodies alarm clock is torture.

When it comes to getting answers the question is are you willing to allow 10,000 people to die because you will not ask a question of a person who might just be able to give the answer.

For me I think saving those lives is worth a lot more than a terrorist having his rights walked over.

Now if you are wanting to discuss the person actually being a terrorists then that is a debate worth having. That can be done by the courts but I do not want a teror suspect released because of technocalities but for actual innocence.

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 3:52 AM

I'm becoming convinced that nothing displays the lunacy of this administration's policies better than the childish rants of its supporters.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 3:52 AM

FIVVER

I'd like to ask the question a slightly different way. Your son or daughter has been captured by an enemy who likes to release videotapes of showing them sawing the heads off of their helpless captives. We have people in custody who may have information that would allow us to rescue your child. How far should we go to get that information?

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:01 AM

" "

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:06 AM

HARDWARE

You know, Bill O'Reily actually had the gall to tell John McCain that what was going on in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was not torture. I think Mr. McCain has a little better understanding of the definition of torture than some half-baked political pundit.

As we learned in Vietnam, people will break and spill their guts. There is a finite limit to the amount of pain a body can endure. Problem being it takes time to wear down a person's spirit. A bully can't do the job because they get a charge out of the power they have over someone else. A sadist can't do it because they get a thrill out of inflicting pain. You need a professional. Someone who can dish out small doses of pain on a regular basis. Someone who is willing to use discomfort over time.

The North Vietnamese had a very effective means of torure. They would force someone into a cage too small to even sit up straight. The person would be forced to sit curled over, or lie down in a ball. After a while it became agonizing to not be able to stretch out. Add to this the discomfort of having to live in your own filth and you can see how our airmen, marines and soldiers cracked.

Beating someone with billy clubs and rubber hoses until they die isn't the same sort of dispassionate torture. It is brutality and it can be and has been fatal. So, no, what has been going on at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib isn't torture. It is brutality and murder.

I am not willing to sacrifice eveything that made this country identifiably American just to be safe from terrorists. Someone earlier said that brutalizing a foreigner was better than losing 10,000 people in another attack. I say that person is a fear monger or a coward. Being willing to sacrifice concepts like justice and mercy is certainly a sign of weakness. And doing so is just as disrespectfull as shitting on the grave of everyone who died on 9/11.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:08 AM

G1223

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm becoming convinced that nothing displays the lunacy of this administration's policies better than the childish rants of its supporters.

SergeantX

Mean you can hear it over the same childish rant of your side? Wow nice to have selective hearing. I knowe you must have that as you asked about torture and I gave you a history lesson of how the world has treated our POW's.

I also expressed myself as to how the people holding us back from saving those lives are using everything to defend the guy who could if he was loose would kill them and their familes. Because he will send you to hell and he will get a dozen or so virgins in paradise.

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:19 AM

" "

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:24 AM

FIVVER

Wow! What a brilliant answer Sarge. I'm not defending anything. I'm asking YOU - what would YOU be willing to do to save the life of your child?

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:46 AM

You're confused again fivver. You've created a different situation, suggesting it is related to the original question. Either that or you're just intentionally trying to create another issue because you don't want to talk about our policies on torture.

Rather than thinking up diversions, why not focus on the actual question. What should our government advocate as its policy regarding torturing prisoners? If you can stay focused on the actual issue, you might be able to understand that our government, and by extension our society, will have to deal with the repurcussions of that policy.

To answer your unrelated, emotionally loaded question, I'd kill, maim, torture whatever the hell was necessary, to save my own kids. That's why we elect representatives to handle issues of foreign policy and not the parents of soldiers involved. It's why, despite her protests, Cindy Sheehan will not decide our foreign policy.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:47 AM

G1223 said:

"Well based on our history of what we allow.

During The Korean War we allowed beatings starvation and psychological torture of our POW's while not doing the same to the North Korean and Chinese POW's."

I've got a fundamental disagreement with what appears to be your definition of "allow".

For the record, I did not ALLOW it to rain last night, nor did I ALLOW the sun to rise this morning.

By definition, what you allow you have control over. If you can allow it, you can disallow it. The term implies a level of control

We have no control over how people treat members of our military who are held against their wills.
We'd BETTER take control of what our representatives do to those we are detaining, or we're gonna lose that fabled "high ground here, sweetcakes."

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 4:47 AM

*doh* double post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 5:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
I am not willing to sacrifice eveything that made this country identifiably American just to be safe from terrorists. Someone earlier said that brutalizing a foreigner was better than losing 10,000 people in another attack.

Well said, I think you should have stopped there and made your point. I disagree, but it was well said.

Democracy can't be preserved if everyone is dead. So instead of 10,000 perhaps we can start with all Americans. ALL of them, everywhere will die unless we get a piece of information from this well fed, humanely treated guy sitting in a detention cell in Gitmo. He aint talkin. Are the lives of all Americans worth his civil rights? Some people dislike America, so instead make it all people, everywhere. Are 6 billion lives more or less worth a temporay abridgement of this one person's civil rights. If not then celebrate your morals while the world ends, if yes then we've agreed in principal and now were just nailing down the specific number of death it will take to balance this guys rights. I think 10,000 is way too high. I'd start with 1. One inncent life, America or not, is worth more the the temporary abridgement of a terrorists right...and we'll throw in some honost contrition when we're done hurting him. Thats what we do. Bad things when we have to, yes, but we feel bad about it and that seperates us from the likes of terrorists who do bad things all the time and celebrate their doings.

Quote:

I say that person is a fear monger or a coward.

Don't see the connection. I think the real coward is the one so unsure of their values that they refuse to compromise them during an emergency for fear they can never return to them when the crisis has passed. Its like those guys we see on TV braving a brush fire with a garden hose for fear of losing their house.

Quote:

Being willing to sacrifice concepts like justice and mercy is certainly a sign of weakness. And doing so is just as disrespectfull as shitting on the grave of everyone who died on 9/11.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

I like your dogs too.

I suggest that justice and mercy each have their place in this war. And that the two do not always need to go together.

And don't forget those who have died since 9/11. Seems to me a bit less mercy ten years ago could have prevented all this, but that's Clinton's legacy, aint it just?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Democracy can't be preserved if everyone is dead. So instead of 10,000 perhaps we can start with all Americans. ALL of them, everywhere will die unless we get a piece of information from this well fed, humanely treated guy sitting in a detention cell in Gitmo. He aint talkin. Are the lives of all Americans worth his civil rights? Some people dislike America, so instead make it all people, everywhere. Are 6 billion lives more or less worth a temporay abridgement of this one person's civil rights.

To argue from they hypothetical, it needs to at least be plausible. Otherwise whatever point it supposedly proves is highy questionable. The hypothetical you're proposing never happens.

Quote:
One innocent life, America or not, is worth more the the temporary abridgement of a terrorists right...

You're assuming another outrageous hypothetical. First, you're presuming that you know with absolute certainty the person you're torturing is a terrorist. Second, you're assuming that torturing this person or not, is directly connected to saving an innocent life. Maybe this has happened before, but are you really suggesting that's what was going on in Abu Ghraib? Or that every prisoner in Guantanamo represents a choice between sacrificing innocent life, or committing heinous acts of barbarism?

Quote:
Don't see the connection. I think the real coward is the one so unsure of their values that they refuse to compromise them during an emergency for fear they can never return to them when the crisis has passed. Its like those guys we see on TV braving a brush fire with a garden hose for fear of losing their house.

That's a good point, and I agree we should never give up our responsibility to weigh conflicting moral concerns in a crisis. The thing is, we're not in a crisis now. We were in a crisis for about six hours after 9/11. That's my biggest problem with the so-called GWOT. They want to convince us that we are in a state of perpetual crisis and that all bets are off until its over.

That's been the rallying cry for every fascist regime in history and something that ought to make all of us more than a little leery about using as a justification for torture.

Quote:
I suggest that justice and mercy each have their place in this war. And that the two do not always need to go together.

That, to me, is one of the biggest impediments to having a reasonable debate on this issue. It's not about feeling sorry for terrorists. Deciding that it is in our best interests to avoid the tactics of the brutal despot is not showing mercy for the enemy. It's showing respect for our own soldiers and general decency.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:38 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by G1223:
I also expressed myself as to how the people holding us back from saving those lives are using everything to defend the guy who could if he was loose would kill them and their familes. Because he will send you to hell and he will get a dozen or so virgins in paradise.

Its not exactly that simple is it...
Where is Ruxton when you need him?

But if you think that the best way to combat terroism is to become a terroist, force others to join your aforementioned Virgin loving firend, then good luck to you, you'll need it.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G1223:
When it comes to getting answers the question is are you willing to allow 10,000 people to die because you will not ask a question of a person who might just be able to give the answer.

For my money, this here is the core b.s. from which all other b.s. on the subject flows. Your understanding of causality is hopelessly skewed in several ways.

First of all the ticking time bomb scenario is so special a case as to render it irrelevant; that people take it seriously at all is merely the triumph of the possible over the plausible; the more fearful a person is, the less concerned with plausibility they become. It leads to Hero's notion that not torturing one man could lead to the death of every person in the United States. "Well it MIGHT!" shrieks the credulous fear-monger, "Are you willing to take the CHANCE?"

Nonsense. As an investigative tool, torture has only ever been, and will never become anything other than a form of coercion. It can make a person do things. It cannot make a person honest. It cannot reliably ascertain the truth. There is no way to know if it will work until it has "proven" to have worked in hindsight.

One of the greatest tools used by the Right Wing that I have seen on this board is the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc; if something happens after something else, then there must be a causal relationship, e.g.: The Berlin Wall came down after Ronald Reagan became president, ergo Reagan brought the wall down; just like the king in The Little Prince cammanded the sun to rise every morning. Even when causality can be established, you cannot argue that it is necessary causality; there may very well have been other means to bring about the same end, e.g.: the war with Japan may have come to an end in the pursuing months without bombing Hiroshima. History's winners always point to circumstances and explain how they came about to suit themselves; I can think of no clearer "winner" and "loser" than a torturer and his victim.

Even when torture "works" its practicality remains dubious. You can desecrate a person's body, get whatever information you wished for, and still not catch any bad guys. From what I've studied of this, torture as a means of gaining information is most effective when you already have the lion's share of the information you're after anyway; torture in these cases only serves to confirm key points. The vast majority of your information in any investigation is going to come without torture. So why torture people if it's so unreliable and tangential to your investigation?

Because the main purpose of torture is, has been, and always will be to inflict pain and humiliation on the victim; usually, but not necessarily, as a means to exact revenge for some perceived wrong. Really, as a form of torture, torture has a 100% success rate.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:12 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Don't see the connection. I think the real coward is the one so unsure of their values that they refuse to compromise them during an emergency for fear they can never return to them when the crisis has passed. Its like those guys we see on TV braving a brush fire with a garden hose for fear of losing their house.

I have to say that this is the one of the most silly things I've ever heard anyone say in my life, and I can't believe, after all I've read him post, that SargeX would agree with it. You're actually saying that someone who stands strong by their values and doesn't compromise them, ever, is a coward? That we should only be honest or caring or merciful when it suits us, because we can, ya'know, always go back? That line of thinking is so amazingly idiotic that it's almost surreal, Hero.

What is torture? Going above and beyond what we consider to be a fair and just treatment of an American prisoner just because someone is "the enemy" is torture. Statistics have shown that violent means of extracting information do not work, because an innocent man will tell you anything to make it stop while a guilty man willing to trade his life for a cause won't tell you a damn thing. We have a moral obligation to treat others fairly and with dignity, and according to our constitutional principles. I see a lot of you saying, "well, we should beat them until they talk, hurt them in any way necessary, kill them if possible," then turning right around and saying that when they do it the same way, it's bad. Then you can't figure out why someone might think you are evil or a moral relativist. You guys are Grade A Class 1 Mental Gymnasts, lemme tell ya.

As far as 1 man vs. 1000, I ask you all this: How many lives is your brother worth? Your parents? Your children? Should one innocent man sacrifice himself so that others may be safe? Perhaps, but should he be forced to be sacrificed against his will? Never. I laugh my ass off every time I hear people say that, "well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette." I would LOVE to see what you'd say if I picked up one of your children in a crime sweep, who got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and told you I was going to execute him with the rest because, well, in getting criminals off the streets, 1 innocent life is worth x number of safe people. I'd bet the farm you'd have an entirely different take on it then.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I have to say that this is the one of the most silly things I've ever heard anyone say in my life, and I can't believe, after all I've read him post, that SargeX would agree with it. You're actually saying that someone who stands strong by their values and doesn't compromise them, ever, is a coward? That we should only be honest or caring or merciful when it suits us, because we can, ya'know, always go back? That line of thinking is so amazingly idiotic that it's almost surreal, Hero.

Did someone mention my name?

My point was that locking yourself into rigid set of values that you'll never, ever, consider compromising isn't a good idea. It assumes that your original values were infallible to begin with and that they'll be good for all possible situations. No human being can live their life this way.

Obviously I'm agreeing with your overall characterization of the current debate. I'm not arguing for moral relativism in general, but you have to recognize that preconceived notions of right and wrong aren't completely infallible and when applied too rigidly, or too universally, can lead to unintended consequences.

I'd also qualify my comments by saying I definitely don't agree with Hero's related point, that you can give up moral convictions in a crisis and then easily return to them afterwards - especially in situations that set precedent, like government policy.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:52 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Sorry Sarge, I believe I misinterpreted your meaning, and I do agree that absolute rigidity in your values can be a bad thing. BUT, being flexible in your values and giving them up in a crisis are two entirely different things. You use your values to guide you through difficult situations, as best they can when you encounter new situations; you don't just abandon them entirely and "come back to them." Compromising your values and being flexible are two very different things.

You don't say, "I value humane treatment of prisoners," then when war comes change your mind to "beat them to death" because you feel the need to get revenge. You say instead, "we need to find a way to mesh humane treatment of prisoners with still keeping our people safe." Otherwise, we become just like them.

It just confuses me a might bit, is all I'm sayin', because I don't see the difference between them killing one of our hostages/soldiers by beating him to death and us killing one of theirs by beating them to death. How is the first torture and the second not? Why don't you friggin' hypocrites want to be better than "they" are? I know I do.

It reminds me of the old saw, "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man but once." I'm not scared of death, it's gonna happen to me one day eventually anyway. But I am scared to live in a world without mercy, honesty, and freedom. All of you that are willing to sacrifice your humanity and freedoms for a little security are dying inside just a little bit each time, which is why I think you find it easier and easier to justify morally reprehensible behavior.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G1223:
Because he will send you to hell and he will get a dozen or so virgins in paradise.

I'm not one to make judgements on people's souls, and I won't say "You're a bad person" based on some posts. And maybe I haven't read all the posts at this site, but I will say this:
The posts on THIS thread by G1223 are THE stupidist

I've ever read here.

Disconcerted Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 11:44 AM

Torture is anything that leaves lasting physical or psychological effects.

But more importantly, it is a way of telling your enemy that there will be an extra fee for pissing us off. As if they would care.

In days past, prisoners would be tortured to death just in case they had any important information; these days it's just for fun.
Either way, it's sick.

And anyone advocating the torture of ANYONE is in need of serious therapy.

Chrisisall, who tortures colds with vitamin C

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Bad things when we have to, yes, but we feel bad about it and that seperates us from the likes of terrorists who do bad things all the time and celebrate their doings.

Hero, I feel that I simply must steal your new Mustang, is that okay?
I pwomise to feel bad about it.....

later...

Makin' the point Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 12:02 PM

G1223

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
I'm not one to make judgements on people's souls, and I won't say "You're a bad person" based on some posts. And maybe I haven't read all the posts at this site, but I will say this:
The posts on THIS thread by G1223 are THE stupidist I've ever read here.

Disconcerted Chrisisall

The enemy you are terrorist has been told time and again that by killing the non believer or dying in the attempt he will get to go to heaven. This is what the news is reporting. This is what we have been told the last twenty years.

So while you are trying to hold his hand and talk to him of peace the terrorist and his supporters are trying to kill the soldier and civilians of this country.

Why are you trying to act like you can treat him any better than he is willing to treat you.

As to how you feel about the post I have made I can only say "Bite me"

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 12:10 PM

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G1223:
As to how you feel about the post I have made I can only say "Bite me"

Sorry, I was a little not-nice there, I understand that now.

Next time you post here, can you get Mommy and Daddy's permission first?

I forget who has access to computers Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 12:21 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Sigh. That makes two of us.

On the same wall as you, brother.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Sigh. That makes two of us.
On the same wall as you, brother.

Is there room for me?

(Ow.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 1:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'd like to ask the question a slightly different way. Your son or daughter has been captured by an enemy who likes to release videotapes of showing them sawing the heads off of their helpless captives. We have people in custody who may have information that would allow us to rescue your child. How far should we go to get that information?

This is one of those made-for-TV movie plots where you've captured one of the "hostage takers" who knows where the hostages are but won't tell. This is really stupid. If I were a hostage-taker and part of my group was captured, I'd move, making anything that my compatriots knew irrelevant.

Quote:
Well based on our history of what we allow....we have a lot of payback to dish out.

So, really, it's not about finding out information it's about payback. What do you hope to accomplish with that? I'm serious.

BTW, if were absolutely vital to find something out, you could use lie detectors. There are also certain individuals who know EXACTLY when someone is telling a lie. There are tricks (showing fake TV news etc.). I should add sodium pentothal to the list of possibilities although in general it doesn't work very well. They guys who vote for torture do it because they like torture, not because it's useful to extract good information.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 5:37 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

ALL ABOUT TORTURE

I'm guessing the majority of people here have never been tortured, and have never committed torture. So we're all just arm-chair warriors on this issue. But anyway, I'll chime in with things I *think* I know about torture.

1) Effectiveness of torture: The average person, when confronted with a sufficient amount of discomfort for a sufficient length of time, will tell you what you want to know (or, at least, what you want to hear.) There will be people at both extremes. There will be those who will never talk, and there will be those who talk even with little or no torture. I don't buy into the commonly held belief by the anti-torture crowd that torture isn't effective at gaining cooperation. If you drive a corkscrew into my privates, I'll probably tell you anything you want to know. I'll probably feel guilty about it. Later.

2) Usefulness of torture: So, you can eventually break someone. Yippee. How useful is that? Well, my understanding is that soldiers are actually told that they can 'break' under interrogation after a few days have passed. Why? Because once you've been confirmed captured, any knowledge you have will be quickly made useless. Plans will be re-drawn. Pending operations will be completed or changed. There is very little spectacular knowledge that the average soldier holds in a war. What little spectacular knowledge he has, will likely expire quickly. Intelligence goes sour faster than milk.

So, given these two factors, would I torture? Not usually. I would have to believe that someone had some unlikely spectacular knowledge for me to go ahead and torture them. I mean, it would have to be like an episode of "24" where I need to know where the nuke is and I need to know now. This isn't common. It's not even particularly likely. Therefore, torture should be so rare that we never hear of it. When it happens, it should be part of a secret operation of doom and the person who was tortured should probably not ever see the light of day. I mean, if it's not THAT serious, then why are you torturing them at all? If it is THAT serious, why am I hearing about it? Ought to be classified and concealed up the yin yang.

Finally, my definition of torture: Discomfort applied to a subject in an effort to obtain a desired result.

This makes the schoolyard bully, who twists your arm in order to get you to cough up your lunch money, a torturer.
It also makes a wrestler a torturer.

The schoolyard bully is a criminal torturer. He inflicts torture on an innocent victim for his own pleasure or benefit.

The wrestler is a sportsman torturer. His opponent and he agreed to enter into a friendly game of mutual torture to see who could torture whom to the greatest effect.

So, what is the soldier who tortures another soldier for information? It depends on the unlikely presence of a ticking nuke somewhere.

And that's really how I see things.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:20 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Hero, I feel that I simply must steal your new Mustang, is that okay?
I pwomise to feel bad about it.....

If a life depended on it the government would be well within its rights to confiscate your vehicle.

Like on TV shows when Roscoe confiscates the guys bicycle after wrecking his police car...

As for my Mustang, if you feel you must you must, I however feel that your threat warrants preemptive action on my part...the bombing starts in five minutes.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:03 AM

PERFESSERGEE

Folks, it's been very interesting reading the posts on this thread, but the original question remains largely unanswered. SergeantX did a better job than me of phrasing it, but in case it really wasn't clear before, let me try again: "What kind of treatment of prisoners under your control is acceptable according to your ethical values?". My point was that if it's treatment that you would object to if it were applied to your own child in a comparable situation, then it's torture, and you're a hypocrite if you would approve of it being applied to anyone else.

I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the question, most particularly from those who've repeatedly claimed (not just in this thread, but in many others on the RWED boards) that the way we have treated Afghani and Iraqi prisoners is not a matter of ethical concern. There have been several new scenarios raised in this thread that are irrelevant to the question, which makes me think that some respondents are dancing around the issue, and are trying to rationalize behavior that Americans should rightly be ashamed of. Do you think that Americans ought to have the same moral standards as thugs, tyrants and terrorists, or do you think that we should have a higher standard for ourselves? Personally, I'm voting for the latter.

perfessergee

EDIT to add: Claiming that someone else is doing worse things than you are is in no way a valid argument that your own actions are morally acceptable. Think about it for a moment or two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
again: "What kind of treatment of prisoners under your control is acceptable according to your ethical values?".
Do you think that Americans ought to have the same moral standards as thugs, tyrants and terrorists, or do you think that we should have a higher standard for ourselves?

Acceptable treatment:
*Feed them food - it doesn't have to taste great.
*Shelter them - behind bars, of course, but they should have blankets and beds of some kind, etc.
*Restrain them - if they try to escape or attack a guard.
*Give medical attention to wounded
*Torture them - if there is a ticking nuke, and they know it's shut down code OTHERWISE TORTURE IS ABSOLUTLY UNNACCEPTABLE! No 'humiliation', no rubber hoses, no nude photos; all of these actions point toward sickness.
NO MATTER WHAT 'they' do, we must have a vision of ourselves that precludes living down to the level of mad beasts. POW's are humans first, if we lose sight of that, if policy allows for that, then evil has crept into the system, and evil deserves to be defeated.

My U.S. is better than that Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:35 AM

I think it's of interest to peruse bits of the document we're circumventing over there--

Article 3

. . .

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

. . .

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Let's not get into the whole "who is and who isn't a POW" thing. The "Detaining Power" is us, no matter where we do the detaining.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

And we just love that whole "intimidation" thing. Anyone seen the photos with the dogs?

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. . . .

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

I guess the ones cowering from the unmuzzled dogs didn't want to give their names, huh?

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Article 21

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

Ever been chained in a hot room in the fetal position for your health? I thought not.

Article 30

. . . Prisoners of war suffering from serious disease, or whose condition necessitates special treatment, a surgical operation or hospital care, must be admitted to any military or civilian medical unit where such treatment can be given, even if their repatriation is contemplated in the near future. . . .

Prisoners of war shall have the attention, preferably, of medical personnel of the Power on which they depend and, if possible, of their nationality.

Prisoners of war may not be prevented from presenting themselves to the medical authorities for examination.

See anything in there about being stitched up by an untrained reservist?

Chapter VI

DISCIPLINE

Article 39

Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application.

Sorry, I can't find that bit about it being "only a few bad apples."

I could go on and on. Perhaps before we all agree that we're gonna dispense with the provisions of an agreement that also governs the treatment of our own sons and daughters when they become captives, we should read the fool thing.

You can check it all out here: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

I said it before: Fear for your sons.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:18 AM

Wow R1Z, them is a WHOLE lot of words there for policy-makers to ignore.
Luckily, there's only a few bad apples in the Pentagon, and Langly, and the White House, and Abu-whatzis etc.

Disgusted Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the question, most particularly from those who've repeatedly claimed (not just in this thread, but in many others on the RWED boards) that the way we have treated Afghani and Iraqi prisoners is not a matter of ethical concern. There have been several new scenarios raised in this thread that are irrelevant to the question, which makes me think that some respondents are dancing around the issue, and are trying to rationalize behavior that Americans should rightly be ashamed of. Do you think that Americans ought to have the same moral standards as thugs, tyrants and terrorists, or do you think that we should have a higher standard for ourselves? Personally, I'm voting for the latter.

perfessergee

EDIT to add: Claiming that someone else is doing worse things than you are is in no way a valid argument that your own actions are morally acceptable. Think about it for a moment or two.

Hey, Perfesser. I asked a similar question in my thread, "How Would They Do It?" I asked how Radical Islam would win this so-called war we're in and I got a lot of thoughtful posts from lefties and moderates, but nothing but a few snarky quips from the likes of Hero, et al.

You see, Perfesser, it's all a lot of b.s. There is no need to justify torture when you want people tortured. There is no need to justify war when you want to destroy a country. These people simply have it in them to do these things. As G1223 put it, "...we have a lot of payback to dish out." That's why the neo-cons got their think tank lawyers dreaming up loopholes in the geneva conventions. They want to do these things and they want to get away with it. And a ton of people in this country want to help in any way they can. A lot of Americans simply want to brutalize another people. The fact that they can't come right out and say it most of the time is prolly because they have at least an ounce of humanity left in 'em.

"Make somethin' up. Don't tell 'em what I did."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
As G1223 put it, "...we have a lot of payback to dish out."
A lot of Americans simply want to brutalize another people.

This mentality usually comes from being abused as a child, dad pounds on you, bullys pick on you, thugs mug you...therein grows the need for Uber-justice, ie, payback.
I personally skipped the mental bs and learned martial arts as a child, not only eliminating my fear of the bully, but a political neurosis (hawk-tendancies) later in life.

People that advocate torture? Mr. T put it well:
"I pity da fool!"

BA Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Idi Amin had two prisoners - a husband and wife - brought naked in from of him and said - have sex with each other and if it pleases me nothing will happen to you. So they did.

US troops had naked Iraqi men brought in front of them and said - masturbate each other and we won't beat you. So they did.

To all those who say it's only pranks, tell me - what's the difference?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:09 PM

CHRISISALL wrote:

"Wow R1Z, them is a WHOLE lot of words there for policy-makers to ignore.
Luckily, there's only a few bad apples in the Pentagon, and Langly, and the White House, and Abu-whatzis etc."

I believe the phrases OUR policy makers used were, "quaint" and "irrelevant".

Remember that when your sons and daughters come home from the next war scarred and minus their toenails.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:39 PM

They make psychologists get psychoanalyzed, but the ones who make policy on torture don't have to get tortured, that seem right to you?
They ought to get cut on...

Not all's fair...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

How hard can this be? the U.N. Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (in force as of June 26, 1987) says:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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.

So now all you gotta do is figure out what "severe" means, and what "lawful sanctions" are. Well...maybe it's not so easy.

Let's see. Physical pain. Some folks pass out getting a flu shot. Others practice piercing and scarification as a hobby, or S&M as sex play. How do you tell what's severe physical pain to any particular individual?

Mental suffering. For some folk, just being alive is torture, hence suicides. Others are more toughminded. Again, one size does not fit all.

And there's still the situational ethic from the potential torturer's side. What would you do to one person to save a thousand? Does the fact that you torture the one and save the thousand reduce the badness compared with torturing the one to find out how to kill a thousand?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:53 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Idi Amin had two prisoners - a husband and wife - brought naked in from of him and said - have sex with each other and if it pleases me nothing will happen to you. So they did.

US troops had naked Iraqi men brought in front of them and said - masturbate each other and we won't beat you. So they did.

To all those who say it's only pranks, tell me - what's the difference?

Amin got to keep being ruler of Uganda for quite a while longer, while committing many other more severe atrocities, including cannibalism, while the US troops went to jail? Seems like a pretty big difference, that our system works. People do wrong, they go to jail, not dine on long pig.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer, you missed the point, on purpose, as usual. Was what Idi Amin did torture? Was what the US soldiers did mere pranks? THAT was the question.

And your answer is ... ?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Remember that when your sons and daughters come home from the next war scarred and minus their toenails.

My sons won't be going unless I'm right there with them. And that will only happen if it's actually to defend our country.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "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 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.

I dunno Geezer, seems pretty clear to me.

And your desperate focus on the term torture completely misses all the other things that are expressly forbidden, like degrading treatment.

Your excuse for ALL those things is ... ?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:26 PM

Geez, man, wtf? You posted the answer to all your questions right here:

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...the term "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.

Torture exists in a very well defined context. It's not just any pain, any misery, but pain and misery inflicted for the reasons underlined above.

Quote:
Let's see. Physical pain. Some folks pass out getting a flu shot. Others practice piercing and scarification as a hobby, or S&M as sex play. How do you tell what's severe physical pain to any particular individual?

Total red herring. It's not the level of pain, but the purpose and agency of its infliction that determines an act of torture.

Quote:
Mental suffering. For some folk, just being alive is torture, hence suicides. Others are more toughminded. Again, one size does not fit all.

There's no one torturing these people! Hence: not torture. You and Anthony enjoy disconnecting torture from its real context and refit it to some PG-rated, everyday passtime. What, you been dipping into the Foucault again?

Quote:
And there's still the situational ethic from the potential torturer's side. What would you do to one person to save a thousand? Does the fact that you torture the one and save the thousand reduce the badness compared with torturing the one to find out how to kill a thousand?

Yes, and how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin? Your hypothetical is absurd. No such circumstance has ever existed, nor is it ever likely to exist. You just get your jollies imagining this kind of crap.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:33 PM