Torture-- Let's Get Real [Archive]

Del Arroyo

12-19-2005, 16:23

English assassin

12-19-2005, 16:30

Morally: because we are supposed to be the side that DOESN'T regard the deliberate infliction of pain on a powerless person as a legitimate means to an end.

Practically: because the information you obtain is worthless.

Rodion Romanovich

12-19-2005, 16:53

The burden of proof and explanation lies in the hands of the torturers, not in the hands of those against it.

"In war innocent people suffer", indeed. You might want to think about that before you start a war. You've killed, hurt and tortured more than ten times the amount terrorists kill in 20 years. Are those people less worth than Americans? Why this racism, fascism and immorality? What makes you think the children of today's Americans and Europeans won't suffer from these cruel barbaric acts, when finally - it must inevitably happen sometime in the future - todays victims get stronger in power than today's war criminals. Do you really want your children to suffer from the consequences of such actions? It would be cowardice to refuse to do the right thing of fear of what might happen to yourself or your children, but in this case it's immoral acts which will hurt yourselves and your children. Only an irrational, general without discipline and long term strategy would support such actions. Only by constantly destroying every attempt of the enemies, and the innocents who belong to the same people, to build up their strength and hope of a better future, can such a strategy work. Is there anything that can make people lose their meaning of life as much as constant sabotage of that kind? Is there anything that can make people, previously friends of America and Europe, enemies of these two?

Also, this torture is not helping anyone. Perhaps in the very short term it's a source of information. But being a good guy and getting support from locals is a more effective way of gaining information. People deliberately seeking for US officials to give them information is much more effective than taking in people and torturing them, often even innocents. Loyalty, popularity and free will informers is better. What you are doing with torture is both and immoral act, and an act that hurts the American people, and the struggle against terrorism in the world.

Lenin once said: "it's better to kill 100 innocent than letting 1 guilty escape". Is that principle of the Soviet communist dictatorship something the USA wishes to adopt by starting wars where innocents get killed? Let me quote a certain Bible passage (from Genesis), which I'm very fond of:

And Abraham came near, and said, Will you let destruction come on the upright with the sinners?
18:24 If by chance there are fifty upright men in the town, will you give the place to destruction and not have mercy on it because of the fifty upright men?
18:25 Let such a thing be far from you, to put the upright to death with the sinner: will not the judge of all the earth do right?
18:26 And the Lord said, If there are fifty upright men in the town, I will have mercy on it because of them.
18:27 And Abraham answering said, Truly, I who am only dust, have undertaken to put my thoughts before the Lord:
18:28 If by chance there are five less than fifty upright men, will you give up all the town to destruction because of these five? And he said, I will not give it to destruction if there are forty-five.
18:29 And again he said to him, By chance there may be forty there. And he said, I will not do it if there are forty.
18:30 And he said, Let not the Lord be angry with me if I say, What if there are thirty there? And he said, I will not do it if there are thirty.
18:31 And he said, See now, I have undertaken to put my thoughts before the Lord: what if there are twenty there? And he said, I will have mercy because of the twenty.
18:32 And he said, O let not the Lord be angry and I will say only one word more: by chance there may be ten there. And he said, I will have mercy because of the ten.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder why those who support torture do support it. For the information it gives? Then I'd like to discuss whether that really is such a good method of acquiring information. Whether it's moral or not is, in the end, not interesting for the leaders, who want to achieve results. I'll therefore not post anything more in this thread about my moral view on the subject, which is merely a matter of personal opinion. But I'm open for discussing the efficiency of this torture as a weapon in a war like the Iraq war. As mentioned, I find it very hard to believe it has any positive effect in terms of information acqurining, and no positive effect as scare tactics/setting examples (as it also strikes innocents - making examples lose all it's scare effect and replaces it by disgust among the public when innocents are by mistake struck by it).

master of the puppets

12-19-2005, 17:10

a fine and plausible quote for anyone even non christians as it depitcts that innocence is far rarer and to be coveted much more than the ability to kill a guilty.

you must remember that you are an american, you and you forefathers lived by a constitution that was different from all the rest and revolutionary in its design (or at least it was) and in that it states that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishments. i believe that this makes us the moral superiors, we as americans practicew civility, mercy to even those who do not deserve it. if we were to go lower than that, to throw such time honored distinctions to the dirt we become no better than them, we become the savage animals we despise. i see it better to keep being the best, to be higher than those we fight, cause we are americans.

...but i was born to late cause america has already corrupted itself...damnit.

Idaho

12-19-2005, 17:19

In the words of the great Jon Luc Picard:

It is a wonder that [torture] is still practiced at all. As a means of gathering information it is at best unreliable. And as a means of controlling someone it is ultimately self defeating.

Del Arroyo

12-19-2005, 19:48

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix-- You are wrong on many counts.

First of all, since when has it been reasonable to consider the frequency and severity of American torture even remotely comparable to that which our enemies and indeed many non-Western governments, friendly and hostile, have used and still use around the world?

Second of all, it is undisputed statistical fact that the greater bulk of innocent casualties in Iraq have resulted from insurgent car bombs, suicide bombs, executions and reprisals.

Third of all, it is a serious logical error to place the full blame for the horror of the Iraq war onto the shoulders of the US. True, it would not have begun had we not invaded-- but its dogged continuation and its peculiarly gruesome nature cannot be blamed solely or even principally on the presence of US forces, but rather on the determined acts of terrorist and insurgent elements who most often have very little regard for the ultimate good of the Iraqi people and certainly have no interest in a reasonable peace. If you take that alongside the fact that Iraq was, although better than now, certainly not a wonderful place before the invasion, you may start to see the shades of gray which so delightfully color the world view of a reasonable thinking man.

Fourth of all, what is this crap about how we should be fearful of things to come? I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic and incorrect facts-- if the US is doing so many horrible things now, and that was without provocation, then what is there to make us believe that the motive for such cruelty would be revenge (or "justice"), rather than simple ability?

If you straighten your facts and your thinking out a little, you might come up with a better understanding of the situation.

..

And still no one has really adressed the question I was driving at. I am interested, though, in this notion that torture leads to bad or poor information-- can someone elaborate on that?

DA

Slyspy

12-19-2005, 20:02

Oh the different levels of torture? The nice kind and the bad kind? Pah!

Xiahou

12-19-2005, 20:14

Practically: because the information you obtain is worthless.Ignoring any morality, that's flat out wrong. When used intelligently and with other sources it can be highly valuable and reliable. Even recently, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was said to have spilled his guts with less than 3 minutes of waterboarding.

I'm interested to hear people's opinions, but I suspect that much of the outcry over "torture" may be due simply to delusional squeamishness.
Here's the thing... in reality, torture is very narrowly defined and the vast majority of tactics under debate are not considered torture by those standards. The characterizaion of the debate as being about "torture" has been something of a red herring, imo. What the debate's really been about uncomfortable and humiliating coercion, not torture. I don't think any here would advocate or support hooking car batteries to genitals or chopping off fingers. This is more about making people stay in cold rooms or forcing them to stand in uncomfortable positions, or sleep deprivation, or *gasp* female interrogators. The worst that's been talked about is waterboarding- which is no doubt terrifying, but when you come down to it, it causes no physical harm.

Personally, I think "routine" use of these things on people who have little or no operational knowledge is totally uneccessary. However, in cases such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or Zarqawi- when they have great operational knowledge- I'd like to think our intelligence guys were able to do more than say "please" while handing him a hot cup of tea.

Rodion Romanovich

12-19-2005, 21:49

@Del Arroyo: It's been a long time since I last saw, or heard, a series of propaganda statements as much like taking directly out of a rhetorics book as your post above. With all due respect, pretending I said things I didn't, without proof or arguments calling my facts wrong and writing it in a way as if it was common knowledge they were wrong, as in:

I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic and incorrect facts-- if the US is doing so many horrible things now, and that was without provocation, then what is there to make us believe that the motive for such cruelty would be revenge (or "justice"), rather than simple ability?"

where you're claiming the terrorists haven't been provoked in any way before, which is an incorrect statement. You know just as well as I do about the American broken promises about air support for shia and curdic rebellions against Saddam, and the weapons trade aimed at balancing Iran and Iraq equally in the Iran-Iraq war so that as many as possible would die on both sides. We also have a suspicious amount of oil leaving Iraq, and finally the prisoners who have without trial been put in the concentration camp Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The following quotation is a typical attempt to change subject:

First of all, since when has it been reasonable to consider the frequency and severity of American torture even remotely comparable to that which our enemies and indeed many non-Western governments, friendly and hostile, have used and still use around the world?

The "I can steal cookies because he did" argument isn't valid in this case. The actual torture isn't in any way preventing these other governments, who use torture more, from carrying out their torture. The USA can choose to torture or not to torture, and choosing not to will both be morally correct and most benefitial for the American people, and the struggle against terrorism.

Another example of the annoying misquoting can be found in:

Third of all, it is a serious logical error to place the full blame for the horror of the Iraq war onto the shoulders of the US.

Again we're discussing Americas involvement. That's what the thread was apparently about - American torture, and the arguments for and against why Americans should use it or not. By claiming this immoral torture is inhumane and barbaric reveals nothing of one's view on who is to blame for this chaos and terror. One basic part of logic, which you apparently claim I know little about in this quote...

I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic

...is to not make conclusion just out of the blue, but based on information. You have no information on my view on who is to blame for the chaos and misery of these innocent people. Let me inform you, then, about my view on it. Europeans, Americans, and people of the Middle east have created this mess together. They could all, in several situations, have chosen better ways of acting, that would have resulted in a better situation today.

The lack of argumentation and any facts supporting your statements is also evident in the following passage:

but rather on the determined acts of terrorist and insurgent elements who most often have very little regard for the ultimate good of the Iraqi people and certainly have no interest in a reasonable peace.

This statement is the typical careless statement of ruling classes throughout history, to without further arguments calling any opposition "terrorism", "heresy", "insurgent elements" or "usurpers". As mentioned above, we have the US letting down the shias and curds by withdrawing air support and thereby luring them into a situation where Saddam carried out a gene gas massacre of them. We also have the Iran-Iraq war secret weapons trades aimed to maximize number of dead on both sides, and finally, of course, how the USA originally supported Saddam and made him able to become dictator of Iraq.

If you take that alongside the fact that Iraq was, although better than now, certainly not a wonderful place before the invasion, you may start to see the shades of gray which so delightfully color the world view of a reasonable thinking man.

The world community of intellectuals knew already before the invasion that this would be the result. Bush most likely also knew. The Iraq war is an affair of:
1. PR - making it look like active measures are taken against terrorism
2. oil
3. increasing western corporations influence in the Middle east
4. getting military bases and strengthen US control in the Middle east region

Fourth of all, what is this crap about how we should be fearful of things to come? I can even refute this using your own incorrect logic and incorrect facts-- if the US is doing so many horrible things now, and that was without provocation, then what is there to make us believe that the motive for such cruelty would be revenge (or "justice"), rather than simple ability?

See above, it isn't unprovoked. The US attack on Iraq, on the other hand, was unprovoked.

If you straighten your facts and your thinking out a little, you might come up with a better understanding of the situation.

It would be a lot easier if you at all gave some arguments for your opinion. It's quite difficult to understand where your "understanding" of the situation comes from, as it contradicts many commonly known historical facts, that I have demonstrated in this post.

And still no one has really adressed the question I was driving at. I am interested, though, in this notion that torture leads to bad or poor information-- can someone elaborate on that?

Perhaps you could also elaborate on why torture would result in better information than information through trust and popularity. Here's my motivation for why trust and popularity are so useful methods: simply because it would make locals (but not people like Zarqawi of course), want to provide useful information. It would of course also reduce the number of people available as recruiting material for terrorism. The result would be that the war would be a much quicker and easier business to win. He who can defeat his enemy without battle, is the greatest of all generals. The main enemy in this case is the group effect. No rebellion can be successful without sufficient numbers.

Xiahou

12-19-2005, 22:15

Perhaps you could, instead, elaborate on why torture would result in better information than information through trust and popularity, which would also have the positive effect of the enemy combattants stopping to fight. As you seem so certain of your standpoint, you must, surely, have some very good arguments that support that torture would be such a useful weapon in this war.Sorry, that's just comical.... we capture Zarqawi and he says "You know what? Since you guys are so popular and trustworthy, I'm just going to tell you everything I know!"
In fact, I probably shouldnt even have said "captured" surely, he would've just turned himself in to an enemy that was popular and trustworth. :san_laugh:

Think of all the lives that could've been saved in WW2- the Japanese probably just bombed Pearl Harbor because the US wasnt popular enough. :wink:

Do you know what the average Shiite would do to Saddam if they were given 5 minutes alone with him? Do you think they care if we're mean to some bigshot terrorist leader who's been blowing up their policemen? Your entire argument is fallacious. As I've said, no one is seriously advocating the rounding up of Iraqis off the street and sticking them with cattle prods until one of them tells us something. What we're discussing is what to do with high-value terrorists that we're able to capture to get them to give us actionable intel on their organization.

Rodion Romanovich

12-19-2005, 22:30

As I've said, no one is seriously advocating the rounding up of Iraqis off the street and sticking them with cattle prods until one of them tells us something. What we're discussing is what to do with high-value terrorists that we're able to capture to get them to give us actionable intel on their organization.

Like the innocent German citizen that was kidnapped and tortured? That's what I'm talking about. The usage of torture on innocents. If the innocent knows nothing, they can go on for half a year without getting any information. It's not very pleasant to have to suffer torture for half a year.

Fine, hopefully you who are in favor of the torture have some top secret reason for why torture is good to use, a reason which would be politically fatal to say aloud. In any case I gain nothing from a discussion that turns into a debate without proper argumentation, where attempts are made at silencing the arguments of the opposition by jokes and misquoting. I'm for discussion and Socratic analysis, not for parliament style debating. Have fun with this thread, I'm outta here... :weirdthread: Just don't come and torture me...

A.Saturnus

12-19-2005, 22:38

Can anyone explain to me why, morally, torture should be forbidden in our war in Iraq (I could say War on Terror, but that term really doesn't apply to our current situation).

The question why something is immoral is meaningless. Torturing is immoral for the same reason that it is immoral for your neighbour to break into your house and steal things or harm you. There either is a morality or there´s none, 'why' is not a question that can be applied to it.

Spetulhu

12-19-2005, 23:20

Sorry, that's just comical.... we capture Zarqawi and he says "You know what? Since you guys are so popular and trustworthy, I'm just going to tell you everything I know!"
In fact, I probably shouldnt even have said "captured" surely, he would've just turned himself in to an enemy that was popular and trustworth. :san_laugh:

Sure, a guy like that isn't going to tell you anything useful just because you're nice to him. But is he going to tell the truth to avoid torture? And will anyone believe him?

Why aren't you using torture in your own judicial system if it's such a great idea?

Tribesman

12-20-2005, 01:02

oh well , a couple of weeks in boot camp and your instuctors still havn't given you the run down on torture Del ?
It isn't nice , and it isn't allowed because it isn't nice , so you can come out with oh but war isn't nice anyway , but that is irrelevant .if your instructors are failing to teach you properly can we expect to see your smiling face being held up to the media as an example of a rotten apple that isn't really representative of the miltary and its long establised values ?:san_wink:

Kralizec

12-20-2005, 01:35

McCain says that information gathered through torture is not useful at all, and he has first hand experience.

Even if it does yield intelligence, it's still comes down to "the end justifies the means". Allowing torture on anyone means abandoning one of the principles by wich the USA claimed the higher moral ground. By allowing torture on suspects you do not only set a precedent, you're also opening the door for worse. It's like a stairway, where the first tread downwards is the most difficult. When you're a tread lower, you realise it wasn't that hard- and what you gained from it certainly is welcome. When you realise there's more further down, you take another tread down. Then another one, and another one, till you either reach the very bottom or fall from the stairs and break your neck, but by that time absolutely nobody's going to feel sorry for you anymore. Principles should never be sacrificed like that. Every step downwards, every erosion invites the next one.

Torture is wrong.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-20-2005, 01:43

do Chinese burns and nipple twisters count as torture?

Xiahou

12-20-2005, 01:57

McCain says that information gathered through torture is not useful at all, and he has first hand experience.Two points. 1. He's wrong, torture can be very effective. 2. We're not contemplating torture anyway.

Soulforged

12-20-2005, 02:07

Two points. 1. He's wrong, torture can be very effective. 2. We're not contemplating torture anyway.
Torture is effective to drag information or create it out of the nothing. But wheter it's the first or the second it doesn't matter. The court presumes that it's inmoral and the information was created. That's why it has no pratical use in any respectable country as yours, at least I think so. So the effectiveness is relative, and even if it was absolute it will still not have any pratical relevance.

On the topic: I think that everything has been said, but... I agree with you in many things DA, for example in that the war is already a violation of every principle the humanity appears to uphold. But no: you're only justified to apply violence and strenght when the situation requires it, and only to defend lives, in an inmediat or eventual form. Violence and strenght to get information is not fine from where you look at it. If you defend it only because it's more inmorality in the inmorality then it's not excuse, an evil doesn't justifies more evils.

bmolsson

12-20-2005, 02:47

So if CIA wouldn't have used torture, they would know there where no WMD in Iraq and invasion wouldn't been necessary ?? ~;)

Adrian II

12-20-2005, 07:45

Alright, let me ask-- what the hell is the matter with torture? Are we not at War? What is this nonsense about being Humane? Personally, I don't think that KILLING people is very humane. And don't even try any hogwash about quick, clean kills-- what if you get your leg blown off and bleed to death? Or shot in the neck and slowly choke to death? And what if you are forced to watch one of your best buddies slowly suffer and die from such an injury? Would that not be psychological torture as well?

It is horrible that people must die such deaths and undergo such torment, but such is the price they pay for acting as combatants on a hot battlefield. Or perhaps simply for being an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time-- no one said that war was fair. What I do not understand is in what way Torture is morally distinct-- it is also horrible that people must undergo such torment and humiliation, but such is the price to pay for associating with terrorists and being a carrier of militarily useful information. Or perhaps simply for being an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time-- no one said that war was fair.

I will grant that in many cases there may be a straight-forward "hearts and minds" practicality to prohibiting torture, but that is a practical and not a moral objection. Can anyone explain to me why, morally, torture should be forbidden in our war in Iraq (I could say War on Terror, but that term really doesn't apply to our current situation). Or is it a purely Practical concern? Basically, why all the hubbub?

I'm interested to hear people's opinions, but I suspect that much of the outcry over "torture" may be due simply to delusional squeamishness.

DAAfter their first military training many youngsters want to see black and white, be the toughest of the tough, forget about everything they were taught before. The prospect of serving and maybe dying in a war, which is inherently unjust because they were never asked in the first place and compounded by the lack of purpose of their own leaders, makes them want to be callous, feel doomed, part of another 'race', the only race on earth that knows what life and death and suffering are really all about.

The same happened to a friend of mine in the Israeli army, who was equally 'firm' and equally... unprepared. He went in to crush Palestinian skulls, but they got under his skull first and he came out a nervous wreck. Beware, Del Arroyo, the monster is in your own head and nowhere else. Your enemies know that; Iraq has been at war with itself for fifty years. They will find a way to get to your inner monster, to hurt and humiliate and enrage it to the point that it may destroy you. And they will, unless you are damned sure of what you stand for, and unless what you stand for is different from what they stand for. Better start fighting your inner monster now.

Take care.

Lemur

12-20-2005, 08:54

Two points. 1. He's wrong, torture can be very effective. 2. We're not contemplating torture anyway.
Who knew Xihaou knew more about torture and interrogation than any of the leading experts? Astonishing the things I learn on this board.

Xiahou

12-20-2005, 09:32

Who knew Xihaou knew more about torture and interrogation than any of the leading experts? Astonishing the things I learn on this board.Honestly, are you deliberately being obtuse? There are many documented cases of the strongest-willed people giving up information under torture or extreme coercion, including a case I already mentioned. Go ask your "experts" they'll tell you the same. That doesnt make torture the right thing to do- but to say it never works is a totally bogus argument. Get real.

McCain is his own refutation on this matter. When asked about torture under a "ticking bomb" scenario, he states that he'd expect people to do what they had to to save lives and use that as a defense if charged. Well Senator, if torture never works why would it be of any use in a "ticking bomb" scenario? :rolleyes:

Lemur

12-20-2005, 09:38

GoreBag

12-20-2005, 09:46

do Chinese burns and nipple twisters count as torture?

No, but they're legal consequences for not making it to the doorknob in time.

Xiahou

12-20-2005, 09:48

[edit]

BTW, I don't see you mentioning a specific case in this thread. Am I blind, or could you elucidate?I mentioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed- he was said to have started singing like a canary after about 2.5 minutes of waterboarding, which they said, was the longest anyone had held out up til that point.

Understand, I'm totally leaving morality and ethics at the door- but torture and extreme coercion, if used intelligently can and does gain useful intelligence. As you rightly point out, I'm not an intelligence expert- so I assume those that are could frame better questions- however, certainly the idea would be to ask for answers to as specific a question as is possible. You wouldn't ask "Where is Bin Laden?", clearly, they would lie because you have no way of fact checking them in a timely fashion. However, more specific questions or even some questions you already know the answer to mixed in could be very effective I would imagine.

I think this could potentially be an interesting discussion- but we have to set aside the mistaken belief that torture or coercion can never yield useful information.

Franconicus

12-20-2005, 10:01

Let's get real! What is this fight about. It is criminal terrorist fighting the free world. You may say that the free world must use weapons like torture to defend its people and its freedom. And it is still better than the criminals.
Wrong! Using torture (every kind of torture, there is no soft torture), every violtion of human rights makes you a thread for the free world. In fact I fear those most who violate human rights to defend us.

By torture you get a lot of information; the prisoner always tells you what you want to hear. AQ is a world wide organisation - yes! They plan attacks against nuklear plants - sure. They want to kill little children - no doubt.

Worst thing about torture is what it does to the society. Look at America. People are seriously discussing if torture is acceptable, which kind of torture, who should be tortured and when, and there is a group of Americans defending or play down the issue. If this thing is over America will not be the same as it used to be. I fear the trauma will be bigger than after Vietnam.

English assassin

12-20-2005, 10:36

There either is a morality or there´s none, 'why' is not a question that can be applied to it.

OT, but you philosophers never cease to amaze me. There is always a why to human behaviour. We are animals after all.

I mentioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed- he was said to have started singing like a canary after about 2.5 minutes of waterboarding, which they said, was the longest anyone had held out up til that point.

This is the waterboarding that is not a torture, am I right? Its uncomfortable and humiliating coercion? Well, whoda thunk that these terrorists are such sissies that after 2.5 minutes of discomfort they are coughing up the beans? i guess we don't got much to worry about after all...

Oh and by the way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids both torture and ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’

As for whether its reliable, one British citizen, Shafiq Rasul, captured in Afghanistan, confessed under torture to having been with Osama bin Laden on a particular day. In reality, he had been working at Curry’s in Tipton. I hear the CIA are still staking out the washing machine department in case Osama is working there as a salesman...

Idaho

12-20-2005, 11:34

OT, but you philosophers never cease to amaze me. There is always a why to human behaviour. We are animals after all.
You can't switch on and off the moral highground like a light switch. You can't say 'we are better than x' one minute then the next hide behind some nonsense about being animals.

Are you an animal? If yes, you can torture. But don't expect us to respect your opinions too. If no, then we'll listen, but you can't torture.

Fragony

12-20-2005, 11:51

Torture is always wrong, and I don't think it will give accurate information. Someone who hasn't slept for days will say anything just to get a nap.

But it's fun :san_cool:

Pannonian

12-20-2005, 11:57

Xihaou, the problem with getting info from torture is not that people don't talk. The problem is that they'll say anything -- anything -- to make the pain stop. If they don't have the info you're looking for, they will make it up. Not because they're clever, but simply because they want the pain to go away.

If you want to break someone, by all means, use torture. If you want reliable information, you have to suborn them. This is interrogation 101, man.

[edit]

BTW, I don't see you mentioning a specific case in this thread. Am I blind, or could you elucidate?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/14/content_434020.htm

JINGSHAN, Hubei Province: A man who served 11 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering his wife was officially cleared yesterday.

She Xianglin, 39, walked free following the pronouncement of the Jingshan County People's Court, the same body which in 1998 sentenced him to a 15-year jail term.

The original conviction came based on a confession which She says was extracted under police torture.

The miscarriage of justice came to light when She's wife, Zhang Zaiyu, the supposed victim of She's "crime," resurfaced late last month after being missing for 11 years.

English assassin

12-20-2005, 12:16

You can't switch on and off the moral highground like a light switch. You can't say 'we are better than x' one minute then the next hide behind some nonsense about being animals.

Are you an animal? If yes, you can torture. But don't expect us to respect your opinions too. If no, then we'll listen, but you can't torture.

You have misunderstood my post. A Saturnus asserted that "why is it immoral to torture" was a meaningless question since there is never a why to the existence of a moral imperative.

I found that an interesting position, and, although it was off topic, observed that as the perception of morality was a function of the human brain, and as the human brain was an animal organ, I did not agree that there could not be a "why" to a moral question. It seems to me there must be a reason for a moral imperative, even if there may not be a purpose. (Eg Tortoises are tough for a purpose, but only slow moving for a reason)

To be honest I don't understand how you got from that to thinking I was saying it was ok to torture since we are animals, not least because from my other posts it was plain that I do not think its ok to torture, but never mind.

Adrian II

12-20-2005, 12:35

I have posted various links about the uselessness of torture before. For a digest, read this (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1105/112305nj1.htm). It tells you what torture does to the torturers as well.

Adrian II

12-20-2005, 13:29

Torture is always wrong, and I don't think it will give accurate information.YOU WHAT??
But it's fun :san_cool:Oh thank God, for a moment there my world fell apart. :san_embarassed:

Fragony

12-20-2005, 14:51

Oh thank God, for a moment there my world fell apart. :san_embarassed:

Wait 2 days and it will, when your newspaper elects Rachel Hazes as the greatest dutchie of 2005 :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

Del Arroyo

12-20-2005, 16:53

AdrianII: much of what you say is rather true and I think it is interesting that you've taken that tack. However in this case these are almost exactly the opinions I held before, if there's been any change perhaps I see a little less grey.

As far as the psychological consequences of what I may or may not undergo over the next few years, war changes everyone, some more, some less-- I can see this in my Drill Sergeants. I can see that on some of them it weighs quite heavily but none of them has it destroyed, they are still strong, capable human beings. And while I am well aware that there is little that can really prepare me for it, I have little fear of what may happen to me out there-- no matter what happens, Hajji will be at least as scared as I will, and much more likely to die.

Thank you, though, I will take care.

..

As for this discussion on torture, there seems to be some confusion as far as terms and definitions. How far would you be willing to go? Is keeping someone awake for days too much? And what is water-boarding, exactly? That sounds like an interesting procedure.

My original question was how exactly Torture is morally distinct from War-- which inflicts all of the same horrible and gruesome torments on its participants, though in a less controlled setting. No one has so far really adressed this, though many have made a logical leap ahead and declared that torture is wrong and we can't do it because it compromises our values. While this is a very premature statement, which can't rightly be made unless we can distinguish morally between the horrors of battle and the horrors of controlled torture.

But even so, I will tentatively let it stand for a moment, only to say-- what is this moral high ground of which you all speak? Historically we have been a nation which whipped our slaves and slaughtered the civilian populations of our enemies-- if anything this big, touchy "moral conscience" has been a recent development. Now yes, granted, we have perhaps acted more morally overall than many powers, but does that not still today hold true?

And finally, whether or not this "moral high ground" is fictional, and whether or not we have anything to gain by it, does a little bit of pain or discomfort inflicted on a limited number of individuals really, truly, surrender it?

DA

Slyspy

12-20-2005, 17:10

Sure, a guy like that isn't going to tell you anything useful just because you're nice to him. But is he going to tell the truth to avoid torture? And will anyone believe him?

Why aren't you using torture in your own judicial system if it's such a great idea?

That last question is the important one.

master of the puppets

12-20-2005, 17:19

torture only gets you false information, bad publicity, and the official status of a barbaric monster, so never use it for getting imformation or intimidation, its stupid. but as punishment...if you are absolutely sure of there crime, like saddam, or bin laden, or paris hilton, or hitler, TORTURE EM!!! cause they deserve it :san_grin:

Fragony

12-20-2005, 17:33

paris hilton

No doubt that she should suffer, but I would still like to [ha moderaters! stole your job!]] her just to belong to a very large group.

rarrrrrrrrrrr little slut.

yesdachi

12-20-2005, 18:12

Some interesting points have been brought up but one thing that has been missed is the fact that an experienced “interrogator” will know when he is getting nonsense from the person being interrogated. Not all of the information gained thru “torture” is worthless, that has been proven. It has also been documented that it is much more difficult to obtain information from fanatics, with or without torture.

I don’t think torture should be made completely illegal, but it isn’t nice and shouldn’t be allowed to be used on anyone, perhaps just special cases where there is an immediate threat. Plus, just having it “available” would allow interrogators to use the threat of torture to obtain information without actually using it; still the information would have to be checked for authenticity.

As to tortures morality… phfff. Anyone who claims moral high ground can go jump in a lake. We as a people lie, cheat, steal, hurt and do bad things all the time, who cares if we do it to a bunch of terrorists or their like. Torturing terrorists bothers me about as much as getting a good nights sleep… not at all. I don’t approve of some of the hardcore tortures but (like I heard on the radio this morning) a few days of being forced to listen to Eminem and some other “light” torture is completely fine with me. To me there are indeed different levels of torture, all of which are acceptable to me under the right circumstances.

Ironside

12-20-2005, 18:49

Del Arroyo, the two main differences between war and torture is IMO:
A. It's purpose. The main purpose of war is to win by defeating your enemy, the main purpose if torture is to inflict pain.
B. The powersituation. In war both sides can fight back, while in the case of torture you're at the whim of your torturer (that has already shown himself being able to inflict pain and suffering).

As for the moral high ground, let skip that issue for now and go for the practical stuff.

Torture as an interogation meassure gives you lot of information quickly. The problem is that you'll get unreliable information, because some will try to appease you (mostly people that got no info at all in reality) and some of those with accurate information will still continue to lie for you. And it's hard to get more info than what you know you want (aka you won't get more info then the answers on your questions) because the victim will certainly not trust you.
So for info it's the quick and inaccurate way to get info, while befriending is the slower but more accurate way to get info.

Basically if you know that you got the right guy and know that he will tell the truth when he breaks, and need info fast, torture is the way to go. In all other cases, there's better ways.

As for Iraq. It's a quite well-known fact that terrorist/freedom fighters/etc need support by the population to operate in that area. Most of it is passive, as in not reporting in to the goverment if you hear something.
Would you trust those guys that seemingly random takes people and tortures them? Hell, would you even trust them if they treat people as in Abu Gharib (some patrons here doesn't consider that torture, so I needed to be speciffic). I wouldn't. Instead those wacky guys that likes blowing things up would make more sence, when they are chanting about "Death to the oppressors!". Enough to make me not support that goverment, and that is enough to make a difference in control for the goverment.
BTW the population will know that mistreatment/torture happens, unless you make the tortured people "disappear".
And even if the US truely wins in Iraq, treating this stuff as "no big deal" will create a free democratic Iraq were the idea of blowing up every American base in Iraq is getting a massive support.

Then we got that small issue about mental damage of the victims and the torturers and the readaptation back to the normal society. Those who have comed to enjoy the torture are the biggest problem here I think.

So basically you get poor information, loses the war on terror (rallying against a true oppressor is easier than vs a mostly made up one. This is applied world wide so even if you win in Iraq by terror you lose) and get a lot of people with mental damage (=societal damage).
What a brilliant deal!!!

And now back to the moral aspect. I'm going to bet that most people from any time-line would say that our "moral high ground" is something good and something to strive for. Your founding fathers thought so for example. Is that something to trow out the window this easily?

And finally, whether or not this "moral high ground" is fictional, and whether or not we have anything to gain by it, does a little bit of pain or discomfort inflicted on a limited number of individuals really, truly, surrender it?
A small speach.
This "moral high ground" applies to everybody. Except those guys, I mean I reallly, really know that those guys are bad.

Are you ready to put that power in one persons hand? A hand that got no troble torturing people. That he will always do it right? A well, it doesn't matter, if some bloke gets wrongfully tortured, I don't know him, don't care about. As suggested, why not use it in your own judical system in that case?

The slippery slope is also needed to be mentioned. It might only be one step, but it's certainly the most important one.

Ironside

12-20-2005, 19:07

It seems to me there must be a reason for a moral imperative, even if there may not be a purpose. (Eg Tortoises are tough for a purpose, but only slow moving for a reason)

Probably discomfort of the idea of being at the complete whim of someone that creates pain or discomfort on you. Avoidance of pain is a very basic instinct and that inferior position is certainly not helping. You can override yourself and still maintain control, but when another person does it?

Del Arroyo

12-20-2005, 19:19

Ironside: You say that the distinction between battle and torture lies in intent and power relationship, and while your argument may have some validity, consider this-- when a young Iraqi sprays some bullets at an American patrol, and a US soldier drops, sees him, aims, and fires, is this young Iraqi at that point really in a position to fight back? Does he really have any power, is there anything he can do to save himself? The answer is no. War, in reality, is not about some equal struggle between warriors, a contest of strength where all get their fair chance and say-- in fact the most true aim of war is to maneuver and dispatch a defenseless enemy.

Can a band of Hajji fighters really fight back against a 500-lb bomb? And what of the US soldier drawing closer, closer to an Improvised Explosive Device? Where is his chance at self-defence?

And as far as intent, one cannot say that the intent of a soldier in battle is simply victory. The US soldier firing his rifle at the AK-toting teenager, the Infantryman calling in Close Air Support on an insurgent position, the insurgent watching, with his finger on the trigger, as GI Joe walks closer and closer to the IED-- these men are in positions of absolute power over their victims, and their explicit and direct intent is to inflict pain; death or grievous pain, with the object of victory.

An interrogator, with his victim similarly secured in a defenseless position, also intends to inflict pain, with the object of obtaining information, and, by connection, victory.

So while I can see some moral distinction between the battlefield and the torture chamber, it seems to me a matter of flavor rather than a whole new beast. In essence, the two seem equivalent to me.

..

As for the other points you raised Ironside, about PR and society and things like that, it was not my original intent to address those here, so I will take some time to think before commenting on them.

DA

Leet Eriksson

12-20-2005, 20:41

I find the word Hajji very offensive.

Not to disrupt the ongoing debate, but please reconsider your choice of words in future posts.

Ironside

12-20-2005, 22:34

First, it's not about the factual ability to fight back, but that you have that ability.

Second, for a person in war the kill comes from survival, kill or be killed. For mines and IED that is intended to cripple the enemy, the person doing is distanced from it. It's not the same thing to drop a bomb on Hiroshima, than it's to shoot thousands of people in point-blank range. Torture comes up close and personal. You know your victim there.

Think of this situation. After a battle, one of the enemies is lying there in the grounds with his guts outside his body. He's screaming of pain and you can see on him that he doesn't have much time left. What do you do?
A. Shoot him in his head to end his suffering.
B. Leave him there.
C. Break his hand.

For the torturer, it's C that applies. That's the difference. You need to go against your pity and compassion to inflict pain and then continue to do it. And that in a cold and controlled manner.

Or another example, war is picking a street fight and beat your opponent to a bloody pulp, torture is to take a 10 min tour afterwards to get a knife to do some extra work on him.

So maybe your right, war might be a hill and torture a mountain, both in essence the same thing, but none calls Mount Everest for a hill and most people would wonder quite a bit over the compairation.

BTW the difference between war and torture as a hole has been blurred with the total war concept this last century, although there's certainly been exceptions from that.

A.Saturnus

12-20-2005, 23:16

You have misunderstood my post. A Saturnus asserted that "why is it immoral to torture" was a meaningless question since there is never a why to the existence of a moral imperative.

I found that an interesting position, and, although it was off topic, observed that as the perception of morality was a function of the human brain, and as the human brain was an animal organ, I did not agree that there could not be a "why" to a moral question. It seems to me there must be a reason for a moral imperative, even if there may not be a purpose. (Eg Tortoises are tough for a purpose, but only slow moving for a reason)

Every behaviour has a cause and so has our view that torture is immoral, but morality itself is not a matter of causation. It is an abstract entity. I don´t think what Del Arroyo was interested in was an elaboration on the origins of the human rights idea. What he asked for was a justification. But any justification for a moral evaluation would be circular and therefore pointless.

Kralizec

12-21-2005, 00:15

I'd be much less bothered if the torture was limited to Iraqi insurgents. You could even that in such a case there'd be a undeniable and direct enough danger to the lives of troopers to justify some sort of torture.
But it's not limited to Iraqi insurgents. We've all heard of the story of the German guy (who turned out innocent) who got kidnapped while on vacation and was tortured by the CIA for information. I don't think he's the only one, either (and you're naive if you do). This sort of thing can't possibly be attributed to a "war situation" - TWAT is not a real war scenario in the correct sense of the word, and besides if it were then everybody would be elligable for torture.

Now...I'm sure that none of you are advocating dissection of limbs, pain stretching or hot coals...but where DO you pull the line? Questioning with exessive psychological pressure can too be considered torture in many cases, like with police investigators who're to enthusiastic and forget to go by the book. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that could be almost as effective. And when dealing with high risk suspects, you could justify stretching the definition of "acceptable tactics" by quite a bit- but not to justify stuff like waterboarding or hot coals.

Tribesman

12-21-2005, 00:26

And what is water-boarding, exactly? That sounds like an interesting procedure.

Yes very interesting Del , a thoroughly modern development of the ancient and noble craft of witchfinding .
You tie someone up then hold them underwater until they are nearly drowned then you pull them out and ask them if they practice the black arts and are responsible for milk yields going down , you repeat the practice until they either drown or admit that thay are really the devil incarnate and not only have they been secretly milking the cows and selling it to the local guild of badger botherers , but they also once knew a cat who said his name was Julian and Julian had once known a newt who applied for a pilots licence for a commercial broomstick , but the newt (whose name was Ralph BTW) aroused suspicions because he never asked how to land the broomstick .
Very nice , and very reliable .

Xiahou

12-21-2005, 03:01

Yes very interesting Del , a thoroughly modern development of the ancient and noble craft of witchfinding .
You tie someone up then hold them underwater until they are nearly drowned then you pull them out and ask them if they practice the black arts and are responsible for milk yields going down , you repeat the practice until they either drown or admit that thay are really the devil incarnate and not only have they been secretly milking the cows and selling it to the local guild of badger botherers , but they also once knew a cat who said his name was Julian and Julian had once known a newt who applied for a pilots licence for a commercial broomstick , but the newt (whose name was Ralph BTW) aroused suspicions because he never asked how to land the broomstick .
Very nice , and very reliable .
Geez man, that's not waterboarding... where did you hear that? It's when you put someone on a board, tilt it upsidedown, with their head partially submerged (not the face). Then, you place a damp cloth over the nose & mouth and proceed to pour water on their face. As some water seeps through, and due to the overall situation (upside down, partially submerged, ect) it apparently creates a very real and very frightening sensation of drowning without significant risk of actually drowning (since the lungs are actually elevated above the head and water cant easily flow into them). I'm not saying that's much nicer, mind you, but lets be accurate at least. :wink:

JINGSHAN, Hubei Province: A man who served 11 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering his wife was officially cleared yesterday.

She Xianglin, 39, walked free following the pronouncement of the Jingshan County People's Court, the same body which in 1998 sentenced him to a 15-year jail term.

The original conviction came based on a confession which She says was extracted under police torture.

The miscarriage of justice came to light when She's wife, Zhang Zaiyu, the supposed victim of She's "crime," resurfaced late last month after being missing for 11 years.The same thing happens in the US under coercive police interrogations- I've seen video of police officers lying/threatening/browbeating someone until they confess, only to be freed later. Clearly, torture for the purposes of making someone confess to doing something is going to regularly give false results.

However, if someone started waterboarding you for specific information- like your bank PIN numbers- how long do you think it would take for you to give up the information? :san_shocked:

master of the puppets

12-21-2005, 03:02

lol, iron pokers will do the job too

accused (but innocent): i did'nt do nuthin!!!
torturer: i don't believe you
metal poker: hissssssssssssssssssss
accused (but innocent): ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuugh, i did'nt do it i swear.
torturer: wheres bin laden?
Accused (but innocent): i have no idea, i'm sikh, i hate muslims.
metal poker: hisssssssssssssssss
accused (but innocent): whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
torturer: did you suicide bomb anyone lately?
accused (but innocent): how would i be here if i did you dumbarse
metal poker: hissssssssssssssssssssssssss
SEVERAL HOURS LATER
accused (and newly found guilty): whaaaaa, ok i swear,al queda has links to france, i commited suicide with a car bomb, sabatoged the CIA, am really a woman, had an affair with bill clinton, i sabotaged peral harbor and and part of the fourth reich operating undergoung the north pole, now please let me gooooooo.
torturer: see, does'nt the truth feel better
Accused (and newly found guilty): no, so can i go?
torturer: well not exactly, we can't let news of our under-handed doings get into the public.
accused (and newly found guilty): but the public already knows, its all over the news
torturer: *gasp* you told the news
accused (and newly found guilty): wait, what no, oh god NOOOOOO
metal poker: HISSSSSSSS

hooray for torture.

Soulforged

12-21-2005, 04:28

The same thing happens in the US under coercive police interrogations- I've seen video of police officers lying/threatening/browbeating someone until they confess, only to be freed later. Clearly, torture for the purposes of making someone confess to doing something is going to regularly give false results.The police acted wrong. And you're wrong about the use of torture, it's irrelevant if you can get results or not, the probability of the result being -how can I call it?...- "biased" or totally created out of the nothing, is enough for any court to dismiss it, and it's enough for the law to presume it like biased or created. You can argue about how many cases it worked, but it will be for naught.

Xiahou

12-21-2005, 04:36

As I've said, I agree that it's pointless to use it to elicit confessions or even in any part of a criminal prosecution. The only use it could and has had is when it's used in a very specific, directed manner for intelligence purposes.

Now...I'm sure that none of you are advocating dissection of limbs, pain stretching or hot coals...but where DO you pull the line? Questioning with exessive psychological pressure can too be considered torture in many cases, like with police investigators who're to enthusiastic and forget to go by the book. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that could be almost as effective. And when dealing with high risk suspects, you could justify stretching the definition of "acceptable tactics" by quite a bit- but not to justify stuff like waterboarding or hot coals.I think that's what is really unfortunate here. The Bush administration has had many opportunities to refine and limit the scope of their use of coercive interrogations so as to protect it's use for the high-value targets. Yet, they missed opportunity after opportunity thinking they could keep their carte blanche and now they've been stuck with the McCain ammendment because of it. A big screw up by the administration, imo.

Lemur

12-21-2005, 05:57

The Bush administration has had many opportunities to refine and limit the scope of their use of coercive interrogations so as to protect it's use for the high-value targets.
If you've been reading any of the first-hand accounts from guys who were conducting/facilitating interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan, you must know that this lack of clarity has hit the ground. Some guys use dogs. The SEALS get a lot of props from the other interrogators for inducing hypothermia without killing the subjects. (Well, they did kill and photograph one, but we'll have to chalk that up to the odds.)

I was reading one soldier's account, saying basically that when he heard Rumsfeld talking on-air about how soldiers should never use dogs or torture techniques, he nearly peed his fatigues. Everybody he worked with was using such techniques.

The torture problem is systemic, and it's not being used just with high-value targets. And it's not being used just for time-sensitive data. What we have is a leadership problem, a classic failure to provide clear direction. If the McCain amendment is what it takes to clear this mess up, then so be it.

Xiahou

12-21-2005, 06:07

The torture problem is systemic, and it's not being used just with high-value targets. And it's not being used just for time-sensitive data. What we have is a leadership problem, a classic failure to provide clear direction. If the McCain amendment is what it takes to clear this mess up, then so be it.That's almost exactly what I'm saying. Bush had many opportunities to outline some clear rules on detainee treatment- he decided not to and because of his unwillingness to compromise, we're now totally losing what can be an important intelligence gathering technique due to his stubborness. McCain is grandstanding, as usual (he's a presidential candidate afterall)- but Bush all but brought these new regulations on himself. He's facing the same problem with the Patriot Act, imo. Instead of allowing time for debate on it's provisions he tried to stifle it by ramming it through at the last possible minute and sabotaging any short-term extensions. Again in this case, his brinkmanship seems like it's going to blow up in his face and leave him without any of the provisions once it expires.

Duke of Gloucester

12-21-2005, 11:36

I am not sure about the assertion that there is never any "why" to moral arguments. You do have to start with certain axioms, but you can deduce moral positions from the axioms.

For example if you accept that equality of human beings and the requirement that punishment should not be applied without "due process" it is difficult to justify torture of those not convicted of any offence.

However a stronger argument against torture is enlightened self-interest. Apart from the terrible affect on the victim, torture dehumanises the perpetrator. It is unwise to allow those with a judicial or quasi-judicial function to become inured to violence and cruelty. If they are acting this way towards those who many agree "deserve" it today, who will they be torturing tomorrow? If we empower them to act outside the normal judicial process because we perceive that the risk is worth it, we may find that, later, they are extending the powers they have been given.

I would assert that you can only agree that torture is justified if you accept that, in some circumstances, torturing you would be acceptable. If not, you have to ask yourself what makes you different and special.

English assassin

12-21-2005, 12:37

Even if we feel that the "biological" why questions for morality are uninteresting (and I'm not sure why we would) it seems to me that the fact that we can choose between different moralities suggests we have some sense of a "why" behind them.

A Roman, for instance, would see nothing incompatible with his morality in owning a slave, and yet in our current morality the idea that a human being can be the legal property of another human being is profoundly immoral.

How can we make these judgements without having an idea of a why behind our moral judgements? Or is AS going to slip out of this one by defining my "why" for choosing between different moralities as his "morality"?

If he does its going to be impossible to argue further because as every parent of a two year old knows if you push a chain of why questions far enough you always end up with a "just because".

Rodion Romanovich

12-21-2005, 13:03

On a side note I think the statement that a roman didn't think it immoral to own a slave is in danger to be interpreted incorrectly. First of all, the old patron-client system meant that owning a slave was also a matter of protecting the slave and so on. Secondly, it was justified by tradition which had grown from step by step extension of the patron-client system and similar institutions, and is therefore comparable to the religious crusade and heretics-hunting ideas, without really being seen as completely and fully morally just by either of the sides, but rather a necessity. Heretics threatened the church because they were against the heretic, pornocratic and power-hungry leadership the church had at that time. Not silencing the heretics would hurt the church (although the silencing of them however made the hatred for the church so much stronger once it fell, like today for instance). Similarly, slaves were needed in the economical competition. In a reality where you had little reason to travel far and choose your job, freedom or not didn't matter as much as it does when freedom of choice is absolutely essential to the survival. Slaves becoming gladiators, or slaves being maltreated or forced to work too hard by their patronus, on the other hand, had a strong moral reason to dislike the slavery, and did.

The basis of morals when it comes to restricting what others should be allowed to do is self-preserverance, and the basic urge to grant ones own survival etc. The basis of morals when it comes to restricting what oneself should do is when one realizes that power isn't final. A strong man once turns old, a man who uses divide et impera against his enemies must once be prepared to face them all at once. A silent, or loud, agreement of what can be done, and what can't, is simply a way of granting your own security when/if you once become too weak to be able to carry out your evil actions and defend yourself against revenge. Morals has an obvious usage, and is both genetically and culturally in all of us. It is when we get too much power to have to worry about consequences of evil acts, or when we are exposed to enemies breaking the silent agreements, that we start questioning morals. Sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. The civilization also makes it more complex in that it's difficult for people of one nation to direct revenge towards the guilty, and respond quickly. The power of some nations is too great for that. Therefore, innocent people are struck by revenge. It's the children of the criminals that are struck. Those children natually see it as an unprovoked attack, which it, biologically, is. On the society level, it often isn't. To use personal revenge in stately matters in civilization isn't possible without causing a series of revenge back and forth. Blood-feud. That is also one of the main reasons for how the blood-feud started. Look at the ghibellins and guelphs of Florence, and how difficult it actually is to strike the actually guilty. Look at vikings, where a quick reprisal raid had to have the element of surprise and going around looking for the guilty to punish would be impossible. Personal revenge has no place on the political level in civilization. Similarly, one must know ones history about the political actions of ones nation, and look for faults the nation made earlier. An apology and carried through promise to repair the damage is accepted by any nation with honor.

So in conclusion morals are really biological. It's simply that power balances shift often and quickly, and that you only by moral agreements can be secure when you lose the power. Apart from being something on the personal level, it's also a matter of keeping the flock calm. A flock with constant internal rivalry is weaker than one which stands united. I'm talking about the weakness in the ability to survive in nature, not the weakness in conflict between the flocks, as that is a nearly non-existent phenomenon in nature (only a few examples exist). It's of course for good reason that wars don't exist often in nature. Most flock have almost the same size, as evolution has made the most useful flock size standardized with very few exceptions and differences. A fight between two equally strong parts is, needless to say, devastating for both parts. There's nothing more important for survival than to as much as possible avoid a fight with another flock in nature. That is why we have a strong desire for peace. Even when we start wars, we are doing it because of that very desire for peace (no, I'm not being sarcastic here). But again, our instincts aren't adapted to civlization. That's why we keep starting these devastating wars.

A.Saturnus

12-21-2005, 21:27

EA, I´m not pushing the question away, but you keep applying it to things it was not meant for.
You can have different "why´s". A causal why, an intentional why or a conceptual why. Del Arroyo´s question was a conceptional why, but you seem to see it as either a causal or intentional one. The causes for adopting a certain morality or the intentions behind it are not relevant here. The question was about the conceptual status of torture within morality. Causes or decissions play no role. The problem with the question is that the conceptual status of torture is set in many moral systems as either moral or immoral. That just is so and bears no conceptual answers.

Kaiser of Arabia

12-22-2005, 00:36

Del Arroyo

12-22-2005, 05:53

Cattle prods are fun, are they not?

Actually that was a red hot poker, but thanks for playing... :stupido2:

DA

Duke John

12-22-2005, 08:12

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;

...
You are a soldier right, Del Arryo? Why do you need more? Or do you reject these rules of war?

Spetulhu

12-22-2005, 11:45

You are a soldier right, Del Arryo? Why do you need more? Or do you reject these rules of war?

Bush said it doesn't apply to the enemy, so it's OK.

Del Arroyo

12-22-2005, 16:09

You are a soldier right, Del Arryo? Why do you need more? Or do you reject these rules of war?

Well, the original version of the Geneva Convention also outlawed the use of 16-in naval guns-- did you see anyone really paying attention to that one?

But seriously, as wonderful and great as the Geneva Convention is, and as closely as it should be followed in all applicable circumstances, the jihadists that we are fighting in the Near East are not signatories to said convention and therefore neither they nor we are bound by its tenets.

The convention was drafted way back in 19-whenever-it-was, and was intended to bring civility to conflicts between major, civilized powers. Do you really think that the authors would have ever imagined a war in which one side would follow it strictly even though the other side had never signed nor even read it and had no regard whatsoever for its rules? Of course not! The idea would have seemed preposterous to them-- indeed it would only NOT seem preposterous to the fatalistic masochistic suicidal Human Rights whiners of the modern day.

..

But even assuming that the Geneva Convention was applicable, I would still ask a few questions. Can terrorists, intent on attacking soft targets and causing massed civilian casualties, really ever be said to be taking no active part in hostilities? As a matter of fact, were they ever really taking part in "hostilities" at all, within the definition of a "real" war, in which you stand up and fight your military enemy on a battlefield?

If they wear civilian garb and do not claim to be a member of one army or another, then in reality they are not soldiers but mere criminals, fully worthy of whatever treatment their crimes deserve.

Now, I have not addressed the issue of accidental mistreatment of innocents here, but only because it is an issue irrelevant to the establishment of a principle.

DA

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;

...

master of the puppets

12-22-2005, 17:07

every creature, animal, human, ,plants, even fungus, strive for life, this is one thing that makes them alive, to reproduce, to want life and cherish it. these jihadists, they are unlike all other things in the universe, something that seeks death when it is not more pleasurable than life can not be considered on the same level. its unnatural, all of humanity wants there life, anyone who wishes to end it for such foolish reasons is very troubled (emo/depressed) or less than human (jihadist). these are not human, do them a little honor if you must and call them avenging angles or whatever but do not call them human, they are not worthy of that honor. and so if you know there crimes, then deliver unto them a pain, the same pain that they gave to there victims, let it not be to get information, or in anger, do it for the manes, slain by those people who cry out for justice. CAUSE THEY DESERVE IT (once again only in sure cases while the crimew is undeniable, never do it on a doubt).

also, there is this radio station in new jersey, (New Jersey 101.5) who actually interviewed a couple of ex-terrorists, i missed it but the people who heard it claimed they were enthraled and that it was very informative, i can't find a copy but its bound to be out there, mabey someone more skilled at internet browsing could scrounge it up if they would be so kind.

Duke John

12-22-2005, 17:24

DA, so if American soldiers are captured and tortured or when dead dragged through the streets then the world should take no notice, because that is how the war is fought?

these are not human, do them a little honor if you must and call them avenging angles or whatever but do not call them human, they are not worthy of that honor.
That is nonsense. There are countless examples of deliberate attacks on civilians made by western countries. Pushing a button or placing a bomb on a train does not make the crime any different.

Del Arroyo

12-22-2005, 17:53

DA, so if American soldiers are captured and tortured or when dead dragged through the streets then the world should take no notice, because that is how the war is fought?

Umm, I'm sorry, but have you heard anyone in Fallujah apologizing? I know I haven't, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention... :san_huh:

Slyspy

12-22-2005, 20:17

Oh the dehumanising effect of war works so quickly these days! You invade a foreign country and they turn on you for no reason whatsoever. They must be subhuman and so are fair game for anything we want to do, besides which they are sooooo nasty to us. Our President said we could and we have the power to so it must be the right thing to do.

master of the puppets

12-22-2005, 20:22

Tribesman

12-22-2005, 23:18

Umm, I'm sorry, but have you heard anyone in Fallujah apologizing? I know I haven't, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention...
Clearly you have not been paying attention then , since at the time of the murders of the mercenaries the behaviour was pubicly condemned by religeous , tribal and community leaders in Fallujah , and you will find many interviews with ordinary people in the city condemning it as well .
So perhaps it might be an idea to pay more attention .

Lemur

12-27-2005, 06:16

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/torture.jpg

(Mods, please let me know if I've finally gone too far.)

Tribesman

12-27-2005, 07:05

Well, the original version of the Geneva Convention also outlawed the use of 16-in naval guns-- did you see anyone really paying attention to that one?

Are you getting your documnts mixed up there del ? perhaps you could ask your drill sergeants for some more information ?

the jihadists that we are fighting in the Near East are not signatories to said convention and therefore neither they nor we are bound by its tenets.

Would you like to read the documents and its stipulations ? I am sure your instructors will have a copy .
Are you determined to end up as a smiling face , as a representative of the rotten apple club for the media Del ?
It would certainly seem that way , whats up , hasn't Benning been teaching you properly ?:san_shocked:

LeftEyeNine

12-27-2005, 08:32

Did you ever feel like a God watching how the ordinary human beings fall onto each other despite the fact that you tried to teach something about "the end of all days" ?

I just feel like a Greek God watching from Mt. Olympus -though I didn't ever try to teach anyone anything- with a grin on my face and seeing things happen the way I had predicted in the book called "fate"..Oh! Look at who's with me here.. Welcome Slyspy, you see what's going on below ? AdrianII and I were watching it for quite some time. AdrianII retried preaching...Well, I'm sick of this game..It just happens again and again..

ICantSpellDawg

12-27-2005, 21:13

triple post

ICantSpellDawg

12-27-2005, 21:15

another post

ICantSpellDawg

12-27-2005, 21:25

yes indeed

ICantSpellDawg

12-27-2005, 21:25

Soulforged

12-28-2005, 00:14

A technique such as "water-boarding" a leader of a terrorist organization is legit as far as I'm concerned. As international law is basically decided by consensus of nations, I would back a decision by my nation to make this technique legal in certain situations. Artificial (or real) fear of death is a good thing for people to have when they are involved in mass murder.*wondering what artificial fear means...:questiong: * Allowing it on any person will lead to the legallization for political causes, such as destroying your personal enemies, the enemies of the state or the enemies of society.

Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.Torture doesn't serve for information gathering except on isolated cases...There we go with execution again...:blankg: Well I'll not enter there... :rolleyes:

Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.No the rights are representative of the level of civilization of your country, by failing to them you're failing to everybody. Those are human rights also, that at least in my country have Constitutional level.

Mongoose

12-28-2005, 00:54

Maybe you're assuming abit too much on that one? Suppose a state does not imprison convicted felons, and a politician wanted it changed so major crimes will earn you a large prison sentence. Does that mean that in a few years he will put as many new candidates for his office is jails as he can?

"Bush said it doesn't apply to the enemy, so it's OK."

It doesn’t apply to them because they don't follow "Rules of war. There are no "Rules of war". Only rules that both parties agree to use in order to keep the conflict from becoming more unpleasant and harmful to civilians then it needs to be.

Soulforged

12-28-2005, 01:09

Mongoose

12-28-2005, 01:20

Soulforged

12-28-2005, 03:19

"If he can get "confesions" then yes..."

It's very hard to do that... unless you had your new Secret police unit brake into their home, tie them down, and start cutting off their limbs with a butter knifes until they talk. And when a country has as many lawyers and reporters as the united states, it's not easy to get way with things like that...
I'm not so sure about that...but I'll not speak of things that I don't know and seem like a conspiracy theorist...
The point is that any kind of punishment or means that threaten the human being are forever abolished.

Slyspy

12-28-2005, 03:51

A technique such as "water-boarding" a leader of a terrorist organization is legit as far as I'm concerned. As international law is basically decided by consensus of nations, I would back a decision by my nation to make this technique legal in certain situations. Artificial (or real) fear of death is a good thing for people to have when they are involved in mass murder.

Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.

Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.

Are you a great fan of Imperial Japan? My Grandfather's generation wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire after hearing opinions like that.

ICantSpellDawg

12-28-2005, 06:09

Are you a great fan of Imperial Japan? My Grandfather's generation wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire after hearing opinions like that.

Your grandfather's generation is, for the most part, entirely dead. They probably wouldn't like hearing about gay or inter-racial marriage, legalized abortion, or cultural relativism either. My opinions are my own in this matter - tradition has nothing to do with them.

Del Arroyo

12-28-2005, 07:35

Well, the original version of the Geneva Convention also outlawed the use of 16-in naval guns-- did you see anyone really paying attention to that one?

Are you getting your documnts mixed up there del ?

the jihadists that we are fighting in the Near East are not signatories to said convention and therefore neither they nor we are bound by its tenets.

Would you like to read the documents and its stipulations ?

(1) You are correct. 16-in Naval Guns were outlawed by the Washington Naval Conference of 1922. http://www.militarymuseum.org/BtyDavis.html

(2) Why don't you give it a read yourself?

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

..

So finally, Tribesman, you only end up looking kind of dumb. Seeing as it's you, that somehow doesn't really surprise me.

DA

Del Arroyo

12-28-2005, 08:11

Are you a great fan of Imperial Japan? My Grandfather's generation wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire after hearing opinions like that.

Hogwash! Your grandfather's generation fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo and put thousands of native-born American citizens in concentration camps. Get off your high horse and start reading history.

DA

Strike For The South

12-28-2005, 08:43

Hogwash! Your grandfather's generation fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo and put thousands of native-born American citizens in concentration camps. Get off your high horse and start reading history.

DA

two wrongs dont make a right I beilive we were all tuaght that wernt we? Anyway torture is a tricky lil fellar to figure out. All humans have rights which should never be violated but on the other hand a few minutes of testicle ping pong could save allot of lives or it could turn up nothing. In the end torture is usually self defeating and will do more harm than good in the WOT

Strike For The South

12-28-2005, 08:47

Gah wrong one

Duke of Gloucester

12-28-2005, 10:41

Also, quarter in general is practical and logical in wartime only for the sake of potential information gathering. if it wasn't for this, immediate execution of prisoners is A-OK in my book. If you are going to fight a war, rules apply only when they are beneficial to your cause.

Many people, including me, will be appalled by this. I strongly doubt whether there is any "consensus" for this view in the US or amongst their armed forces. Quite apart from moral arguments, quarter is both practical and logical for the following reasons:

1. Unless you want to continue a war forever and end up dominating (or killing) everyone, quarter makes it easier to settle things once the war has finish. Your prisoners won't haved been killed by the enemy so they can return to their original ocupations, or if professional soldiers, you don't need to retrain new people to replace the ones you have lost. The prisoners that you have treated well and whose bravery you have honoured return to their homes and dispell any myths of how barbaric you are and you can work together to establish peace.

2. If your outnumbered or defeated enemy know that they will be slaughtered, they will fight to the last soldier standing. They may well kill many of your troops before you kill all of them.

3. Your own soldiers will become brutalised by killing those who pose no threat to them. You end up with a group of brutalised people with guns, tanks etc. Scary thought!

4. Today's enemy might be tomorrow's ally, but not if they are all dead.

Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.

Very dangerous morality - we are special; they are worthless. Be careful, because if this becomes accepted, someone in power may decide that you are not "we" but "they"; then you are in trouble.

Tribesman

12-28-2005, 11:37

So finally, Tribesman, you only end up looking kind of dumb.
Really ? then perhaps you could exlpain exacly what this power is you are at war with , what is its territory and who are its representatives .
Since you cannot then perhaps you could explain how operations in territory that is belonging to other powers are not covered ?
So before you make silly claims about people looking dumb you might want to examine some cases from those territories where servicemen have been punished for breaking the conventions which you foolishly think do not apply , hey there is even a recent one involving Psy-ops soldiers out of Fort Benning , perhaps your instuctors could enlighten you on that little case .~;)

Ironside

12-28-2005, 11:51

Everyone dies and we live in a secular and ammoral nation. Ethics apply in this country only because we have come to a representative consensus. Everyone outside of this sphere has zero rights guaranteed by us unless they are beneficial to us. Get on board or drown.

Pray that your country will always be the top dog, because if "they" is in the lead, they might decide :rtwno: for you, when playing with the same rules as you do.

Maybe you're assuming abit too much on that one? Suppose a state does not imprison convicted felons, and a politician wanted it changed so major crimes will earn you a large prison sentence. Does that mean that in a few years he will put as many new candidates for his office is jails as he can?

When it comes to torture, US has already shown that in Iraq, practices that some might consider ok on bad guys gets applied on more or less random people.

As for applying torture on the terrorists because the "Genova conventions doesn't apply to them".

Why?
Why do you need to apply it?

Slyspy

12-28-2005, 15:13

Your grandfather's generation is, for the most part, entirely dead. They probably wouldn't like hearing about gay or inter-racial marriage, legalized abortion, or cultural relativism either. My opinions are my own in this matter - tradition has nothing to do with them.

Except for my Grandad and his brother, obviously. And another old man I known who was crippled by his treatment in a camp run by people who thought in the same way as you. And all the others who suffered because, at that time, the "morality" in which you believe was the creed of a nation.

Frankly your views disgust me.

There are others who believe the rubbish you spout here. They send suicide bombers into Israeli cafes, or fly planes into famous landmarks. They don't care who they kill or how they do it because the end justifies the means and the enemy is barely human. Why do you not praise them as heroes?

As for you Del Arroyo I seriously hope that your instructors can turn you around, or we'll no doubt end up seeing your face in the papers. My Grandfather's generation did indeed do those terrible things, but it was not systematic. However wrong those deeds were they all had one specific problem to solve and were not used as a matter of course, of routine. This does not make them right, but at least there is the knowledge that they were known to be terrible, not everyday. I cannot speak on the internment, not being American I know little about it. The atom bombs? Always a tricky moral issue as no doubt you understand. My gut feeling is that it was wrong. As for Dresden, well. Dresden is Britain's shame. Utterly unecessary, pointless terrorism on a grand scale. Few veterans to whom I have spoken talk about it with pride. They reflect on the deeds and do not always like what they see. One man I know was on the raid. He said that at the time the young men we excited by the thought of causing carnage, by the size of the attack, by thoughts of revenge and of the Germans getting their just desserts. But after the war, when the human cost of what had been done came home there was sadness and shame. That is right and proper, how it should be.

ICantSpellDawg

12-28-2005, 17:17

Except for my Grandad and his brother, obviously. And another old man I known who was crippled by his treatment in a camp run by people who thought in the same way as you. And all the others who suffered because, at that time, the "morality" in which you believe was the creed of a nation.

Frankly your views disgust me.

There are others who believe the rubbish you spout here. They send suicide bombers into Israeli cafes, or fly planes into famous landmarks. They don't care who they kill or how they do it because the end justifies the means and the enemy is barely human. Why do you not praise them as heroes?

I disagree with your views as well. I do not believe in spending billions of dollars to have an ongoing war where there is cork on the end of our swords. When you make the decision to go to war, you kill until the other side can't take it anymore. Anything other than all out war is an absurd waste of time and lives. Any form of psychological torture is a humane way of avoiding real physical torture and i think it needs to be implemented in extreme cases. "Water-boarding" for a reason is acceptable, sadistic measures like those taken by soldiers at abu gharib is not.

Del Arroyo

12-28-2005, 18:08

Tribesman, not one single US servicemen has yet been charged under or punished for violating any of the Geneva Conventions. A small number have been charged under the US's Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating their Rules of Engagement (and some other charges). A much smaller number have actually been punished.

In the case of the two Psyops soldiers that you mentioned, they will face some administrative disciplinary action and not be charged with anything. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=3674516 In other words, they're not really being punished at all-- and they shouldn't be. And they came out of Fort Bragg, not Fort Benning.

As far as these mysterious references you keep making to "my instructors"-- do you have any military experience or knowledge at all? "My instructors" are there to teach us to kill and to work as a team. They also teach us to follow all orders, including our Rules of Engagement. When we get to the units which we will deploy with, we will recieve classes on certain things as directed by our commander, which will probably include some briefing on general rules we should follow. When we actually deploy we will be fully briefed on our specific Rules of Engagement, which may actually change from day to day. Do you have any more questions?

Slyspy-- If your self-righteous, arm-chair hand-wringing were to be the standard, then "my instructors" would certainly not be the ones you'd want to have "turn me around". As for your concern for my potential future infamy, as the one and only thing I've been advocating here is judicious use of torture in a controlled environment on specific individuals who are likely to yield very useful information, I would say based on that that your concern is unnecessary. I don't feel that I have a predisposition towards random and unnecessary cruelty, and even if I did-- the honest truth is that no matter what a US Soldier does (with a few exceptions), he is very unlikely to get into trouble unless it's on video tape. You can ask "my instructors" about that.

..

And anyway, this started as a simple academic discussion of the morality of torture, not whether or not I, as an American Soldier, personally plan on "water-boarding" anyone. Are you galoots capable of staying with the topic of a discussion, or is your repressed, neurotic hatred of the US military so strong that you cannot resist the opportunity to insult and slander the first Soldier, Sailor, or Airman you find willing to discuss?

DA