Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
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:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Most of the misbehavior for which American forces have been charged and convicted was not just for the jollies of beating someone up. It was in relation to interrogations, either during, or prior to soften up the subject. I'd suspect that these interrogations were to find the location of insurgent forces or materials, with the clear purpose of taking them out, theeby saving American and Iraqi lives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Is making someone sit in a straight chair for several hours "severe" physical suffering? How about standing for hours? Sleeping on a bare concrete floor? Squatting in a confined space? Hosing with cold water? A "wedgie"? A slap? A twisted arm with no damage? Loud noise? Etc. etc. etc. Where is the line drawn?

And how about mental suffering? Is being cursed at "severe" mental suffering? Insults? Sexual innuendo? Religious blasphamy? defiling bibles, torahs, korans? Threat of death?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Geezer, you usually seem pretty reasonable, even when I disagree with your positions. But this just seems like rationalizing on the thinnest of justifications. The pictures clearly showed these soldiers taking perverse joy in the humiliation of people under their control. If this is the way our country thinks we should behave, I'll renounce my citizenship right now. But I don't think it is, despite your attempts to explain it away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I am completly unsure of you point here.
All those things can be torture given the right context. Loud noise can be torture, thats what they're using right now in Guantanamo...
...So what is your point here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Some American troops have committed acts of "torture"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, are you completely discounting the changed directives concerning torture? This IS a matter of policy. It seems a no-brainer to revert to the standards of decency that existed be for the Bush administration changed them. I can only assume you've ignored my repeated comments to this effect. Is this just another example of Bush's inability to admit a mistake and correct it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Some American troops have committed acts of "torture"

---

Was it more than one incident? Was it more than two? Three? Four?
Was in more than one location?

It would seem 'some' is a rather conservative word to use...

A lot is more like it Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
In any case, I doubt that it's as widespread as you think.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
up where I work, a notice is posted about sexual harrasment; I find it hard to believe torture and even mild abuse can occur in a military chain-of-command environment!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
[BOkay. You're making some assumptions here.

1. As I recall, the directives were for changes in interrogation procedures. Strange as to how this suddenly jumps to approval of torture. Must be that post hoc ergo propter hoc thing again. If the goverment approves of torture, why are we putting people in jail for various illegal acts? Huh?

---

Quote:

---

The memorandums provide the most complete record to date of how uniformed military lawyers were frequently the chief dissenters as government officials formulated interrogation policies. "These military lawyers were clearly disturbed by the proposed techniques that were deviations from past practices that were being advocated by the Justice Department," said Senator Graham, himself a former military lawyer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You seem to think that punishing the wrongdoers somehow erases the fact that the changes in policy, the policy level disregard for Geneva conventions, created at an atmosphere were abuses were much more likely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I also have my doubts about "Beyond the Beltway" being an unbiased source. If I did a little googling, I could probably come up with all sorts of apologists for anything done wrong in the last six years, and you'd probably believe them no more than I do.

---

Quote:

---

Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
My point is that the UN defines torture as "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering. How do you define "severe"? Where does legitimate coercion stop and torture begin? Is it the same for all people?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Legitimate coercion is asking questions, if the subject does not want to give more information than name rank etc, and the interrogator uses any means to force an anwser that is a breach of the Geneva convention (unless you employ clever laywers of course).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by R1Z:
GEEZER wrote:
"My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition."

What I don't see anywhere is anyone taking responsibility for the improper actions of the people under their command. Has anyone with a rank higher than sergeant ever been charged?

The people in charge of any facility where people cannot get up and leave of their own free will are responsible for the health and well being of those confined. This includes prisons, jails, hospitals and nursing homes.

Suppose the staff of a hospital took no responsibility for evacuating the patients when the fire alarm went off?

Suppose the janitors were torturing the patients of a hospital? Would that not ultimately be the responsibility of the hospital administration for allowing conditions to exist where that torture was possible?

Even if the camp administration did not know that improper activities were going on, they were guilty of not knowing what their subordinates were doing.

I am responsible to my superiors for the actions, proper or im, of my subordinates. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here". Too bad he didn't leave it for George W. Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
...And it should be pointed out that the policies in control of US operations in Iraq came from the highest levels of the Administration. For heaven's sake, the one of the guys who formulated them is now Attorney General (though he wasn't at the time). Unfortunately, the buck stopped at the level of the NCO's.

So how about it all you folk who argue that the higher-ranking officers didn't know what was going on - what are your thoughts on command resposibility?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by R1Z:
Actually, we're debating the meaning of the word torture because the title of this thread is, "So, Just What *Is* Torture?" :>)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
...And it should be pointed out that the policies in control of US operations in Iraq came from the highest levels of the Administration. For heaven's sake, the one of the guys who formulated them is now Attorney General (though he wasn't at the time). Unfortunately, the buck stopped at the level of the NCO's.

So how about it all you folk who argue that the higher-ranking officers didn't know what was going on - what are your thoughts on command resposibility?

---

I brought this up several times, but no one seemed interested. To me, it's the single most important issue of the debate. If there are systemic, policy-level problems leading to abuse, and I think there are, they need to be dealt with. Instead we're debating the meaning of the word 'torture'.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
The whole thing boils down to the following: Not knowing what the people under your command are doing is functionally the same as ordering them to do it. That is to say, the outcomes are the same.

---

Quote:

---

Seriously, what are we gonna do about torture really? Can it really be stopped? Do enough people believe that this country can survive without it? Or is the best case senario that we get George Bush impeached and hand the reigns back over to the professionals in the C.I.A and call it good?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by R1Z:
When enough grunts realize that they have a right and an obligation to decline an order that violates all civilized standards of military conduct, then we will have a start.

---

Quote:

---

A friend of mine, who fought in the first Iraq war, made this point to me in no uncertain terms. A soldier is duty bound to disobey insane orders, and remove the negligent officer from any position of authority. The problem is, you have to prove your action was justified, or the repurcussions are very severe.

In other words, if at least someone up the chain of command doesn't agree with your actions, you're screwed. Especially if it's the Commander in Chieft giving the orders.

---

Quote:

---

Nor were the rules of engagement very clear. The platoon had the standard interrogations guide, Army Field Manual 34-52, and an order from the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to treat prisoners "humanely," and when possible, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. But with President Bush's final determination in February 2002 that the Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and that Taliban fighters would not be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the interrogators believed they "could deviate slightly from the rules," said one of the Utah reservists, Sgt. James A. Leahy.

"There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

"I just don't understand how, if we were given training to do this, you can say that we were wrong and should have known better," said the soldier, Pvt. Willie V. Brand, 26, of Cincinnati, a father of four who volunteered for tours in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

---

Quote:

---

In their final report, the investigators recommended that prosecutors charge the junior officer who led the interrogation group, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, with dereliction of duty, saying "she was clearly informed the techniques documented within F.M. 34-52 were the only approved interrogation techniques to be used at Bagram."

But in a statement given in the commander's inquiry, Captain Wood asked for "additional legal guidance" about techniques like stress positions and sleep deprivation.

In interviews, other former interrogators said she and the staff sergeant who was her deputy had for months been seeking clarification from their superiors about the interrogation methods they could use.

"They asked many, many times," said one former Bagram interrogator who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. "The lack of guidance was a source of frustration for them. My own feeling is that it was never given because nobody wanted to put themselves on the line."

---

Quote:

---

"They asked many, many times," said one former Bagram interrogator who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. "The lack of guidance was a source of frustration for them. My own feeling is that it was never given because nobody wanted to put themselves on the line."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

The idea (I gather) was that anything which didn't cause obvious physical injury was OK.

---

Quote:

---

Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
When I wrestled, it was an elective in college, and it was a Japanese form. Two people grappled until one of them surrendered. Merely incapacitating the opponent wasn't usually enough to illicit surrender. Discomfort was the key factor that caused someone to 'tap out.'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Right and wrong are terms best left to circumstances of an act, not the act itself.

That having been said, I can think of only fanciful and unlikely scenarios where the torturing of a captured enemy for information is anything but a heinous crime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It sounds as though you and Cavalier are advocating an element to be added to the definition of torture. For instance:

Discomfort applied to an unwilling subject.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The crucially missing element [of your definition] is the power differential and the absolute lack of consent by the victim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Unwilling is a better word than innocent, because it's less subjective.

---

Quote:

---

Still, I maintain that there are instances of consensual torture, which would make the 'unwilling' portion moot. I also maintain that there are non criminal applications of torture in everyday society.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think that torture is always wrong, but it is often the lesser of two evils.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Restraining a person often causes a significant amount of discomfort or pain, but it is frequently the 'lesser of two evils.' Of course, I'm not sure that it's evil at all in many cases, nor wrong at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Torturing an enemy for information. This continues to be our focus. And it continues to be a bad idea. It continues to be wrong, except in fanciful television drama scenarios.

---