Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo [Archive]

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2007, 00:11

In the absence of all complaints from all 39 pages only a fool would make that statement about what is contained in the transcript .
Decipher this ............ yesterday******************************************************************************************* **************************************************************************************************** ****************************************************then******************************************** **************************************************************************************************** ************and***************************************************************************blue****** **************************************************************************************************** *********************and my hat was too small .

OMG a small hat is that all it was :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Im just saying, if I were having my toenails ripped out and daily testicular electrocutions, you wouldnt find "there are no DVD players" anywhere in my complaint. It makes one at least question the drumbeat of torture allegations. "Well, they were burning me with cigarette butts in the eyes, oh, and my deodorant wasn't Old Spice!" :laugh4:

Wait, that wasnt obnoxious enough.. .

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Jeez, my finger hurts. How much of your day do you spend clicking the same smiley over and over and over. :inquisitive:

Watchman

05-16-2007, 00:14

Ha ha. He made a funny. Everyone laugh now.
:dozey:
Am I imagining things or could it be that you maybe don't quite grasp what's going on here ?

IrishArmenian

05-16-2007, 00:28

Are you kidding, man? Couldn't the constant humiliation and physical pain be more than enough to plea about?

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2007, 01:39

Are you kidding, man? Couldn't the constant humiliation and physical pain be more than enough to plea about?

You would think, if that is what is really going on.

Watchman

05-16-2007, 02:20

Denial much ?

doc_bean

05-16-2007, 08:51

So they found one of the X number of people there who wrote something silly about his shampoo, and they make sure that gets out in the media.

Or they just faked the records.

Seriously, can you burry your heads deeper in the sand ?

ShadeHonestus

05-16-2007, 09:44

doc_bean

05-16-2007, 10:20

Is this the equivalent of western civilians taken prisoner in Iraq complaining that the sword with which their head was chopped off with was not sterilized first? Oh wait, they can't complain or release documents censored by the enemy's intelligence agency....they're dead, silly me. :dizzy2:

Weren't most people in Gitmo arrested before the Iraq war ? Or at least before the Isurgency ? Aren't most people in Gitmo from Afghanistan rather then Iraq ?

Besides, most (all ?) people in Gitmo should be considered innocent, since they never ahd a fair trial. Most (nearly all) of them have nothing to do with terrorism, let alone the beheadings in Iraq.

It's like you're blaming the Chinese for Pearl harbour...

English assassin

05-16-2007, 10:32

One man not tortured (maybe): torture proved not to exist

I don't have cancer: therefore cancer does not exist.

:dizzy2:

If our culture gets any more dumb we are going to need to start writing "R" and "L" on our shoes. Or "R" and "The Shoe That Hates Freedom", in some cases.

Andres

05-16-2007, 10:38

If our culture gets any more dumb we are going to need to start writing "R" and "L" on our shoes.

You assume too much. Not all of us can read you know...

macsen rufus

05-16-2007, 10:41

I can see a likely scenario here: "okay you got complaints, list it all, we'll look at EVERYTHING" ...

Then it goes pretty much as Tribesman said. I'm sure the 39 pages weren't taken out because they listed brand names of scentless deodorants that didn't deserve the free publicity.

A selectively edited text proves nothing, one way or the other. But - to use a phrase I picked up from EnglishAssassin - cui bono?

"The Shoe That Hates Freedom" :laugh:

Husar

05-16-2007, 11:07

If our culture gets any more dumb we are going to need to start writing "R" and "L" on our shoes. Or "R" and "The Shoe That Hates Freedom", in some cases.
I have some expensive socks that say "LEFT" and "RIGHT" on them.:inquisitive:
Just go into a sports store, you can find them there.:sweatdrop:
*thinks of jokes about sportspeople and brains...*

Fragony

05-16-2007, 11:28

Unscented deodorant and shampoo, raises the question, who is torturing who?

Vladimir

05-16-2007, 12:58

Weren't most people in Gitmo arrested before the Iraq war ? Or at least before the Isurgency ? Aren't most people in Gitmo from Afghanistan rather then Iraq ?

Besides, most (all ?) people in Gitmo should be considered innocent, since they never ahd a fair trial. Most (nearly all) of them have nothing to do with terrorism, let alone the beheadings in Iraq.

It's like you're blaming the Chinese for Pearl harbour...

Most if not all people there can be considered guilty. You don't capture someone shooting and launching RPGs at you and say: "Wait! He needs a fair trial!"

Naive.

doc_bean

05-16-2007, 13:03

Most if not all people there can be considered guilty. You don't capture someone shooting and launching RPGs at you and say: "Wait! He needs a fair trial!"

Naive.

Err...alot (most) of them were civilians at the worng place at the wrong time. You tend to shoot those people with RPGs. And even if you capture them, they'd be actual POWs, something the US administrations doesn't seem to agree with.

HoreTore

05-16-2007, 13:07

He needs the Geneva conventions, not a fair trial....

Vladimir

05-16-2007, 13:16

He needs the Geneva conventions, not a fair trial....

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

doc_bean

05-16-2007, 13:24

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Well technically, it would be exquivalent to the Russian coming to the US, blowing stuff up, you taking you gun, firing at them and then getting captured and taken to Russia.

Not quite the same situation. While I don't want to argue about the validity of the war in Afghanistan, the US was still the invading force, and a lot of people attacking US soldiers where doing so to protect themselves and/or their family and/or their assest, or at least believed they needed to be protected against 'the americans'.

English assassin

05-16-2007, 14:17

Most if not all people there can be considered guilty. You don't capture someone shooting and launching RPGs at you and say: "Wait! He needs a fair trial!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He needs the Geneva conventions, not a fair trial....

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. EITHER he is a combatant, in which case he needs the geneva convention, OR he is a criminal, in which case he needs a fair trial. There is no third way.

When we caught people shooting and launching RPGs at British troops in Northern ireland a fair trial is EXACTLY what we gave them*

*with the occasional unfair one thrown in just so Michael Mansfield QC could make some wedge

CrossLOPER

05-16-2007, 14:45

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272492,00.html

WASHINGTON — An accused enemy combatant held at Guantanamo Bay told a military hearing he was physically as well as mentally tortured there by having to read a newsletter full of 'crap,' being forced to use unscented deodorant and shampoo and having to play sports with a ball that would not bounce.

Khan told an April 15 hearing called to determine whether he was rightly classified as an "enemy combatant" that he also had his baby pictures taken from him, that cleaners left marks on his cell walls and that detainees have no DVD players or other entertainment.

This is simply outrageous. I've long taken a hard line with the terrorists in Gitmo, but unscented deodorant? No DVD players? Shoddy maid services!?! WHAT?? Torturous techniques such as this cannot be tolerated in our Republic!

And if it wasnt evidently clear... ~:rolleyes: with a bit of.. :laugh4:
The suicide rate and prior documentation of violations say a little bit more.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Waterboard3-small.jpg\
Look! He's washing his hair with the crappy shampoo!

EDIT: /alfnsnglngdsnb;lnb;ldnbnb

Vladimir

05-16-2007, 15:01

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. EITHER he is a combatant, in which case he needs the geneva convention, OR he is a criminal, in which case he needs a fair trial. There is no third way.

When we caught people shooting and launching RPGs at British troops in Northern ireland a fair trial is EXACTLY what we gave them*

*with the occasional unfair one thrown in just so Michael Mansfield QC could make some wedge

There is a difference between legal and illegal combatants. The former is covered and the latter is not. Once their legitimacy is verified then the conventions can be applied. If they are illegal combatants, then they are just criminals.

The only reason war isn't considered a crime is because it's waged by people in authority. For those of you who don't know, authority is simply the legitimate use of force. How legitimacy is determined is very important and nebulous.

The situation in Ireland is/was far different from the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Grey_Fox

05-16-2007, 15:50

The situation in Ireland is/was far different from the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How so? Occupying force being fought by a guerrilla force that also had a penchant for shooting unarmed civilians in both cases. As far as I can see the only difference is what happens after they are captured.

English assassin

05-16-2007, 17:05

There is a difference between legal and illegal combatants. The former is covered and the latter is not. Once their legitimacy is verified then the conventions can be applied. If they are illegal combatants, then they are just criminals

Exactly. And what do we do with criminals?

My Lord, the prosecution rests.

The only reason war isn't considered a crime is because it's waged by people in authority.

Yes

For those of you who don't know, authority is simply the legitimate lawful use of force. How legitimacy legality is determined is very important and nebulous.

Mildly fixed. Its not nebulous at all. The law of war is long established, and there are good legal careers to be had in the armed forces.

Rodion Romanovich

05-16-2007, 17:50

This Fox news article sounds quite a lot like the type of information nazi Germany leaked about their "peaceful camps for dangerous criminals and terrorists" :rolleyes: That people can be gullible enough for such propaganda to work over and over again in history... ~:mecry:

Tribesman

05-16-2007, 20:26

Most if not all people there can be considered guilty.
How come most people there are eventually released without charge then ?

You don't capture someone shooting and launching RPGs at you and say: "Wait! He needs a fair trial!"

Ah the old fallacy that people in Gitmo were captured under arms fighting in Afghanistan .

Naive.
are you describing your own views very accurately?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

When we caught people shooting and launching RPGs at British troops in Northern ireland a fair trial is EXACTLY what we gave them*

Yep , but don't forget that when the Gitmo approach was used it turned out to be a complete disaster .

Watchman

05-16-2007, 22:01

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.Of course not. Russia runs under "sovereign justice" these days, after all.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 14:03

I think its disgusting that fake-news outlets like Fox are putting out stories like this to desensitize the whole torture and illegal imprisonment issue at gitmo. The propaganda machine is in full spin here and most Americans eat it up and laugh it off. Just look at the applause at the republican debate about torturing people... WTF?

by the way, hey PJ, its me Al from the Pond :)

Redleg

05-20-2007, 14:40

Well technically, it would be exquivalent to the Russian coming to the US, blowing stuff up, you taking you gun, firing at them and then getting captured and taken to Russia.

Not exactly. The individual would have to have been from say Canada or Mexico.

Not quite the same situation. While I don't want to argue about the validity of the war in Afghanistan, the US was still the invading force, and a lot of people attacking US soldiers where doing so to protect themselves and/or their family and/or their assest, or at least believed they needed to be protected against 'the americans'.

Some that are held in Gitmo might fit that catergory but the majority should be those who are not native citizens of Afganstan. Now the problem that we all face is that we don't know the full story, to much is being left out, and then there is the futher mudding of the waters of prisoners not being captured in Afganstan or Iraq. If such prisoners exist then the United States is clearly in the wrong.

Strike For The South

05-20-2007, 14:58

So as long as we have the same veiw on Human rights as Russia were ok? Thats like saying our economys like Sierra Leones I think were on the right track.

Redleg

05-20-2007, 15:01

So as long as we have the same veiw on Human rights as Russia were ok? Thats like saying our economys like Sierra Leones I think were on the right track.

Never stated such a thing. try again or point out who you were directing your statement toward

Strike For The South

05-20-2007, 15:08

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Even if these men are illegal combatants why torture them? Doesnt that make us just as bad as the people we are figthing? I thought we were doing this to eradicate horrible people who dont respect basic human rights but its ok for us to do it if there "illegal" combatants? :daisy:.

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 15:15

the time when America stood for liberty and justice for the world is long over, now we're simply a force for mercantilism and imperialist oppression. Its up to patriotic citizens to reclaim our republic and change the epoch to the country's founding ideals.

doc_bean

05-20-2007, 15:21

Some that are held in Gitmo might fit that catergory but the majority should be those who are not native citizens of Afganstan.

Not something I've heard (often) before. Do you happen to have proof of this ?

Redleg

05-20-2007, 16:15

Not something I've heard (often) before. Do you happen to have proof of this ?

Just some information from globalsecurity.org that I would like to believe is correct. Again in the absence of real facts I am hestiant to reach a firm conclusion about Gitmo any longer. Several detainee's have been shown to have been brought in from outside Afganstan and Iraq.

However here is the statement I was refering to.

According to one report, to qualify for transfer and detention at Camp Delta, Guantanamo, prisoners taken in Afghanistan must meet any one of the following criteria:

Be a foreign national;
Have received training from Al-Qaeda; or
Be in command of 300 or more personnel

Zaknafien

05-20-2007, 16:33

Redleg

05-20-2007, 17:45

hm, just from personal experience in Afghanistan I can attest that battalions are pressured to create a plausible story for each candidate for detention in order to "send them away". I know of many such detainees that were sent to the BTIF and later to Camp Delta on less than solid reasons, and a true lack of anything we in the western world call "evidence".

Then as a soldier you should provide evidence to Congress - via your congressman that illegal activities are being conducted. By not doing so you are complaciant in any illegal activity.

But then plausible implies a believable theory - so which one is it - is it completely made up or is it at least plausible evidence that would support an initial charge?

You can't have it both ways if your directly involved in the situation. ITs either one or the other.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 04:50

If anyone actually cares, the techniques used in "enhanced interrogation" have been documented (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866). Extensively. And these are the approved ones, not even touching on some of the weird stuff going down in places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 05:47

Suicide rate: at the WTC 9/11 100%

Their treatment of prisoners: Beheading

If waterboarding stops another 9/11 or reveals the location of the prisoners before they are beheaded then I'll personally handle the cellophane. Of course people will argue that waterboarding will cause an increase in both of the above, but since 9/11 (and other attacks) and beheadings happened prior to the worldwide publication of interrogation technigues at Gitmo...I'd say the battle was joined from the other side prior and with vigor. If you say the above happened as a result of prior uses of these techniques then please provide the torture causation link to each act of violence in the name of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Of course it would be wonderful to rise above the situation and never commit "torture" no matter how benign, however in a country where people believe Bush choreographed 9/11 rising above would be seen as a failure in policy by those same people preaching our techniques as evil. Not to mention that rising above does not disarm or change the nature of our foe. We won't simply encounter a kinder gentler Islamo-Fascist committing PC acts of terror or take an olive branch approach to the West, moderates in the Middle East, or Israel.

There comes a time to wake up, grow up, recognize the fight we are in, the nature of those we take a stand against, the difference between our worst acts and what is common place for our foe. Of course we go ahead with accoutabilty for our actions to our populace with accountability politically worldwide while the accountabilty pined for by the adversary is to that which brings him virgins.

AntiochusIII

05-22-2007, 06:22

Yeah, but.

I'm going to pull a Tribesman here and, well, quote him.

How come most people there are eventually released without charge then ?

The whole "we must fight with two ready hands untied (this time!)" thing is cute and all in a let's-win-this-one kind of way but it really doesn't hold up to scrunity. [The US Government] is torturing people and quite likely at least a few innocent people. We make martyrs, sufferings, protestations, and hatreds out of desperation or perhaps even worse -- convenience. Didn't we have a thread around here that people are saying that one of the most chilling aspects of the Holocaust was that a civilized nation was doing it?

Did I win Godwin on this one?

doc_bean

05-22-2007, 09:11

If waterboarding stops another 9/11 or reveals the location of the prisoners before they are beheaded then I'll personally handle the cellophane.

Because terrorist organizations don't realize the importance of changing their plans when one of their own is captured and probably forced to confess ?

This is a pretty sick mentality, Hezbollah and Iran keep trying to get rid of Israel to avoid a second invasion of them (don't know how many people got killed by israel in those countries, probably more than 3000). Several terrorists are out to destroy the US to prevent whatever the US has done to them from happening again. And yes the US has done a lot of things to a lot of people, under all presidents.
This kind of thinking can only lead to a completely polarized world where the genocide of one of the parties will be the only means to completely end the conflict. But then a new conflict will inevitably arise and whole things will start all over again, until someone is both desperate and powerful enough to nuke the world to bits and kill us all.

In light of such an escalation (which is exactly what would happen following your mentality) I say, take the beating, accept the losses. Find the ones who did this to you and bring them to justice, don't antagonize an entire religion/race/part of the world because they will antagonize you.

Zaknafien

05-22-2007, 12:09

well, perhaps if we stopped making reasons for them to attack us they would quit. there not naturall 'evil' people you know. perhaps if we removed our hundreds of foreign military bases that constitute the global empire and quit allowing corproations to exploit the poor and hungry in almost every nation around the world, yeah, that might be a good start.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 14:49

If waterboarding stops another 9/11 or reveals the location of the prisoners before they are beheaded then I'll personally handle the cellophane.
Ah, yes, a variation of the Jack Bauer meme. You are making two honking big assumptions:

Torture is more effective at eliciting valid intel than traditional means.
Torture is being reserved for high-value al-Qaeda detainees.

Neither is demonstrably true.

well, perhaps if we stopped making reasons for them to attack us they would quit.
You do realize that Salafism is fundamentally offended by the west's success, right? As in, they'd love to get along with us, so long as they are supreme and we send them tribute, since that's the natural order of things.

Oh, and we would need to give them Spain back.

Xiahou

05-22-2007, 15:44

Torture is more effective at eliciting valid intel than traditional means.
Torture is being reserved for high-value al-Qaeda detainees.

Neither is demonstrably true.What's more "traditional" than torture? As for effectiveness, the link you provided stated that it takes less than a minute to crack someone using waterboarding. :shrug:

Something tells me waterboarding isn't at all common either- why would their be all the other "approved" techniques if it was? You'd just cut to the chase and use what works. They all sound pretty rough, but frankly, I'd be glad if I got off so easy if I were ever captured abroad by a Middle-Eastern government. At least I'd still have all my peices attached.

I certainly don't feel bad that KSM was waterboarded and gave up valuable info as a result.

Petrus

05-22-2007, 16:01

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

I do not think this is true.

Waterboarding was heavily used by gestapo in France during WWII and if it gave results it was certainly not as efficient as the article suggests.

It looks like a justification to torture persons by giving torture an efficiency it doesn't have.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 16:08

What's more "traditional" than torture?
By "traditional," in this context, I was referring to the interrogation techniques that have traditionally been used by the U.S.A., especially in cases where we may want to bring criminal charges. The F.B.I. are the current masters of such techniques. The disagreement between the F.B.I. and the administration is well-documented (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html).

There has long been a split between the FBI, which favors (and has long experience with) slower, more benign interview techniques, like establishing long-term, personal relationships between interrogator and subject. Responsibility for KSM was given to the CIA, which had much less experience with interrogations before 9/11, but was more gung-ho.

As for effectiveness, the link you provided stated that it takes less than a minute to crack someone using waterboarding.
Yes, it takes a very short time to reduce a detainee into a gibbering mess who will tell you anything to make the pain stop. This does not necessarily provide reliable or actionable intelligence.

If your goal is to break a person, torture is the most effective tool. If your goal is to subvert them or get them telling you everything you need to know, a softer touch has been proven more effective.

Substantiating this to your satisfaction is probably impossible, due to your tendency to declare almost any source to be "biased," and therefore beneath discussion.

Something tells me waterboarding isn't at all common either- why would their be all the other "approved" techniques if it was?
Actually, the techniques listed in the piece were approved years ago, and far more destructive methods of interrogation have been documented since. Your logical supposition does not match reality.

They all sound pretty rough, but frankly, I'd be glad if I got off so easy if I were ever captured abroad by a Middle-Eastern government. At least I'd still have all my peices attached.
So we now measure our moral rectitude against Syria and Egypt? They are the benchmarks for U.S. righteousness? Lovely.

I certainly don't feel bad that KSM was waterboarded and gave up valuable info as a result.
Implying that those who object to American torture are full of love and pity for KSM? Interesting. And what makes you think he gave up oodles of valuable intel (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924664/site/newsweek/)?

It is clear, for instance, that Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. His interrogators even threatened, à la Jack Bauer, to go after his family. (KSM reportedly shrugged off the threat to his family—he would meet them in heaven, he said.) KSM did reveal some names and plots. But they haven’t panned out as all that threatening: one such plot was a plan by an Al Qaeda operative to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge—with a blow torch. Intelligence officials could never be sure if KSM was holding back on more serious threats, or just didn’t know of any.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 16:18

A conservative blogger (http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/2/9/31049/84149) put it better than I can:

Torture is wrong. The practice of extraordinary rendition began as a classic Clintonian hairsplitting exercise in the mid 1990s to avoid the clear letter of the laws which prohibit America from using torture. This is the kind of avoidance of the law and ridiculous semantics that we decried when employed by the Clinton adminstration. It has gotten no more attractive just because Bush has decided to continue the program.

We are torturing non-terrorists. Perhaps some people would be willing to torture Al Qaeda members. I'm not one of them, but perhaps some are. The problem with that mindset is that we aren't just torturing Al Qaeda members. It is becoming completely obvious that some of the people being tortured are innocent. See especially the ObsidianWings link above. That is crazy. There isn't any information we are getting that could possibly justify the torture of innocent people.

Torture is ineffective. Torture isn't ineffective at getting information per se. It is ineffective at geting useful information. That is because the victim either snaps completely, or starts trying to mold his story to fit what the torturer wants to hear. There is evidence that we have relied on information obtained through torture, only to find that it was very wrong.

Torture also opens us up to the legitmate criticism that we are acting out the very barbarism that we want to fight. I think as Republicans we have heard that charge so many times employed against practices where the analogy was completely inappropriate, that we have become inured to the charge when properly employed. This is a case where the charge has force. Go watch the Nick Berg Beheading Video and then imagine the blood pouring from his neck being just like the blood oozing from the fingers of an innocent torture victim sent to his fate by the CIA. That is the barbarism we are fighting, and that is the barbarism we must not become a part of. I know we have heard the charge that we are acting "just like them" thrown at us over trivial concerns like suggesting that we pay a bit more attention to visa-holders from other countries. This is NOT THAT CASE. This is the case of saying we are acting just like them because we are torturing people--acting just like them.

Therefore extraordinary rendition is a moral sinkhole, which is being employed on people we are not sure are guilty, and which doesn't even get good information. It cannot be continued.

drone

05-22-2007, 16:19

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
Red-bellies are an approved form of torture? Are noogies, titty-twisters, and wedgies considered too harsh, or do they not produce results?

doc_bean

05-22-2007, 16:23

His interrogators even threatened, à la Jack Bauer, to go after his family.

Sheesh, that almost has me rooting for the terrorists...

Lemur

05-22-2007, 17:01

I'd just like to add that it's now clear that General David Petraeus, commander of the combined forces in Iraq, is clearly a terrorist-coddling defeat monkey, since he has this (http://www.redstate.com/stories/national_security/profile_in_courage_award_general_david_h_petraeus) to say about the use of torture:

Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground . . . .

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary . . . .

We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 17:06

And here are some more softies coming out against torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395_pf.html), namely an ex-commandant of the Marine Corps and the ex-commander in chief of U.S. Central Command. What a couple of hippies!

It's Our Cage, Too

Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies

By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
Thursday, May 17, 2007; A17

Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 17:17

What's really sad is that our nation behaved with more dignity when its existence was at stake. George Washington (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051219&s=sullivan121905) had a better grip on what makes America special than any of today's torture cheerleaders.

The founders understood this argument. Its preeminent proponent was George Washington himself. As historian David Hackett Fischer memorably recounts in his 2004 book, Washington's Crossing: "Always some dark spirits wished to visit the same cruelties on the British and Hessians that had been inflicted on American captives. But Washington's example carried growing weight, more so than his written orders and prohibitions. He often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies. ... Even in the most urgent moments of the war, these men were concerned about ethical questions in the Revolution."

ajaxfetish

05-22-2007, 17:43

Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
Wow. Sounds like a throwback straight to the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe this sounds crazy, but perhaps we should be less worried about obtaining confessions and more about obtaining reliable information. Or maybe we're just looking for someone to blame and punish, instead of looking to protect American lives.

Ajax

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 18:05

Sheesh, that almost has me rooting for the terrorists...

Yeah, wow...that is worth joining in sympathy with terrorists. Nice perspective.

Wow. Sounds like a throwback straight to the Spanish Inquisition.

Yeah thats soooo close the Spanish Inquisition. Lets get a little more loose and fast with comparisons. We should just state that we are more like the Nazi's rounding up peace loving Muslims for eventual cremation. :dizzy2:

The article written is of a slant when it states the obtaining of confessions, its called critical thinking. This was the MO of the SI, but there, in the popularized cases you were facing death either way, confession or not. But yes, this is the same thing...pleeeeaaase.

Seriously why do you think we use methods to bring about quick determinations of whether or not a person has information? Do you think we just might have enough intelligence to determine the cred of intelligence gathered? You'll have to think and not just read drive by articles.

/sarcasm on

Personally, just to satisfy you tin hatters and the "that terrorist is just a freedom fighter" crowd, we should put some on a slow burn rack...thats what you want right? I mean if we're already compared to the SI with these benign practices, we might as well go all the way. If we're going to get wet waterboarding, might as well go swimming.

/sarcasm off

ajaxfetish

05-22-2007, 18:59

Do you think we just might have enough intelligence to determine the cred of intelligence gathered?

Based on results so far . . . no. Torture is a terrible way to obtain reliable information. AFAIC, its only effective use is obtaining confessions, hence the comparison to the SI. If we want to accomplish something other than making ourselves feel powerful and making others hate us, we're going to need to improve our methods.

Ajax

doc_bean

05-22-2007, 19:11

Yeah, wow...that is worth joining in sympathy with terrorists. Nice perspective.

The terrorists are arguably morally superior at this point. They tend to leave women and children alone.

The second quote wasn't mine BTW.

Lemur

05-22-2007, 19:14

The terrorists are arguably morally superior at this point. They tend to leave women and children alone.
I don't think the terrorists are being particularly discriminate when they set off car bombs in markets, crash planes into buildings, etc. We are still morally superior to them.

As I have stated before, I would have no issue if every terrorist were herded together and dropped in a meat grinder. I would dance a little happy dance. My concern is what torture does to us. We sacrifice all sorts of things, and gain so little.

Don Corleone

05-22-2007, 19:22

Terrorists leave women and children alone, huh? Yeah, cause they use those car bombs that know not to blow up kids. And those guys that blow up teenagers in Tel Aviv discos, they know to only blow up the kids over 18?

The big problem I have with torture is nobody is willing to declare what is and isn't torture. Sure, we can all stand around and say "Torture is bad". The problem is, torture means different things to different people.

Not allowing somebody conjugal visits is considered torture by the ACLU. Personally, I'm not up nights over that one. By the same token, jamming bamboo under somebody's fingernails doesn't cause any permanent harm either, and I think we can all agree that shouldn't be allowed...

Even the term 'causing moderate amounts of pain' is a subjective statement. What if the prisoners aren't getting air conditioning? In many ways, that can make you more uncomfortable than sleep depravation, but I'd hardly categorize it as torture. Then again, keeping somebody naked in a 50 degree room and splashing water on them does seem pretty harsh, especially if they don't have a doctor around to watch for hypothermia.

I guess my point is I stand between both sides in this one. On one side, there's a large group of you that seems to want to declare anything the US does to people in it's custody as torture. On the other, there seems to be a large group content to cause pain and terror, so long as no lasting physical harm is inflicted.

I don't want to be part of either group.

And for the record, there are some innocents being held at Gitmo. Many of them are there because the US went into Pakistan and offered bounties of $10K US to the locals to point out who the Al-Queda members were. Not exactly a foolproof method, me thinks.

At this stage of the game, i don't understand why we can't hold tribunals or do something. Many of those being held don't even know the charges against them. Habeus corpus seems like a pretty big give-back. Personally, I'm not happy with the precedent that we can just suspend it whenever things get tough.

barocca

05-22-2007, 19:24

the truth of the effectiveness of torture is obvious to those with an open mind.

those who have already decided it is better to become a barbarian, than be the victim of one, will never see it.

doc_bean

05-22-2007, 19:33

Terrorists leave women and children alone, huh? Yeah, cause they use those car bombs that know not to blow up kids. And those guys that blow up teenagers in Tel Aviv discos, they know to only blow up the kids over 18?

Like US bombs never hurt women or children...

They don't target them specifically at least.

And learn to recognize a hyperbole people.

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 19:35

Based on results so far . . . no. Torture is a terrible way to obtain reliable information. AFAIC, its only effective use is obtaining confessions, hence the comparison to the SI. If we want to accomplish something other than making ourselves feel powerful and making others hate us, we're going to need to improve our methods.

We do have intelligence assets around the globe that collect information independent of interrogation of prisoners. This is used to determine the cred of intelligence gathered via interrogation. To think that we just poke some Islamic fundamentalist with a stick and then take what he says to make us stop as gospel is less than accurate and I find you a more intelligent individual than this so it puzzles me.

The terrorists are arguably morally superior at this point. They tend to leave women and children alone.

If this wasn't so tragic, it'd be sig worthy. You can't get your terrorist membership card without wanting to purposely murder civilians of any age or gender that have zero military significance in an effort to invoke terror. Please spare me any tin hat comparisons to our military operations as that would invoke a distinctions of naivety paramount only to American pilots bombing pearl harbor.

-edit- Well you made that reference but qualified it at least -end edit-

The second quote wasn't mine BTW.

Fixed.

doc_bean

05-22-2007, 19:41

If this wasn't so tragic, it'd be sig worthy. You can't get your terrorist membership card without wanting to purposely murder civilians of any age or gender that have zero military significance in an effort to invoke terror. Please spare me any tin hat comparisons to our military operations as that would invoke a distinctions of naivety paramount only to American pilots bombing pearl harbor.

They're indiscriminate when it comes to bombings, with the kidnappings they usually release the women first and unharmed.
They're bombing places with lots of people, including women and children, that's something entirely different from actually cutting their heads off.

Of course, I wouldn't claim the average American has less morals than the average terrorist, but comparing terrorists to the Bush administration, I might occasionally have my doubts...

Xiahou

05-22-2007, 19:41

the truth of the effectiveness of torture is obvious to those with an open mind.I bet you could get just about anyone's MAC pin# out of them in 5 minutes or less with waterboarding.

"Torture" can and does yield useful information- it's all about asking the right questions. Saying it can't yield accurate information shouldn't even be part of the argument. Vague and open-ended questions will lead to trouble, pointed and verifiable questions can yield useful intel if done right. I'm no interrogator or intelligence officer, but I'm able to work that much out on my own.

I'd just like to add that it's now clear that General David Petraeus, commander of the combined forces in Iraq, is clearly a terrorist-coddling defeat monkey, since he has this to say about the use of torture:He has to, and should say this. Soldiers in the field need to hear their commander telling them unequivocally that unnecessary violence towards prisoners or civilians is unacceptable.

The terrorists are arguably morally superior at this point. They tend to leave women and children alone.What an astonishing statement.

The four unidentified men and the boy were found during raids against an al Qaeda network in Garma, about 30 km (20 miles) west of Baghdad in Anbar province, a Sunni Arab insurgency stronghold.

They were found inside a padlocked room and had been beaten with chains, cables and hoses, the U.S military said in a statement.

"The boy stated the terrorists had hooked electrical wires to his tongue and shocked him," it said. It did not give the boy's age.

"The hostages indicated their captors were foreign fighters who spoke with different accents."

All five were from different tribes, the military said, but no other details were available. They would receive medical treatment and then be handed over to tribal leaders.http://lite.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21661229.htm

Lemur

05-22-2007, 19:58

"Torture" can and does yield useful information- it's all about asking the right questions. Saying it can't yield accurate information shouldn't even be part of the argument. Vague and open-ended questions will lead to trouble, pointed and verifiable questions can yield useful intel if done right. I'm no interrogator or intelligence officer, but I'm able to work that much out on my own.
So you are in favor of torture, so long as it's done right. Astonishing faith you have in our government when it comes to such issues.

What evidence do you have that interrogations are conducted with such delicate sense of appropriate application? None of the evidence supports such a conclusion. Account after account coming out of our system shows open-ended questions (http://www.americantorture.com/documents/featured/featured_02.pdf), forced confessions (many later contradicted by evidence (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127982,00.html)) and in notable cases, death due to interrogation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601569.html). What makes Xiahou think that every interrogator in every black box prison is another Xiahou?

ajaxfetish

05-22-2007, 20:02

We do have intelligence assets around the globe that collect information independent of interrogation of prisoners. This is used to determine the cred of intelligence gathered via interrogation. To think that we just poke some Islamic fundamentalist with a stick and then take what he says to make us stop as gospel is less than accurate and I find you a more intelligent individual than this so it puzzles me.

I'm all for using those intelligence assets independent of interrogation. I'm all for interrogation, and I don't suggest we coddle our interrogatees. But I think there's a distinction to be made between interrogation and torture, I don't trust torture, and I don't like what torture does either to those who commit it or those who suffer it. I especially think it's counterproductive in a war against an ideology, where we're trying to earn the trust and friendship of the other side so they won't want to blow us up. Having your countrymen tortured by Americans, I imagine, would only make someone want to blow Americans up all the more.

Ajax

Xiahou

05-22-2007, 20:04

Whether it is being done right or should be done at all is a separate point. I'm just dismissing the idea that it can't yield useful information. Historically speaking- it can, it has, and it will continue to do so. Of course it can get bad information too, especially if done "wrong"- but so can every intelligence gathering method.

Tribesman

05-22-2007, 20:16

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 20:26

Thats interesting ....I certainly don't feel bad that KSM was waterboarded and gave up valuable info as a result.
errrrr..,....thats the bloke with the valuable info that he planned every terrorist attack ever undertaken in his lifetime isn't it .
That people can support and try and justify this barbarism is a very sad statement about the human race , an absolutely sickening statement in fact .

Lets play Where's Waldo and find the inaccuracies and lack of integrity in this post. I find that that people can support and try and justify this glossing over and reinventing of fact as a very sad statement of the human race, an absolutely sickening statemement in fact.

Tribesman

05-22-2007, 20:33

Shades if you support torture and abuse you are no different from those who associate with bin-laden .

Don Corleone

05-22-2007, 20:38

Shades if you support torture and abuse you are no different from those who associate with bin-laden

What do you mean by this statement? What specific actions qualify as 'torture' in your book? Are Shades and I on the same level as bin-Laden's :daisy: if we agree the prison has the right to keep them in solitary confinement, a practice some define as torture? I'm asking you... what is torture in your book?

Banquo's Ghost

05-22-2007, 20:46

This has often proven to be a contentious debate, but there is still the need to be civil and refrain from personal attacks.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Don Corleone

05-22-2007, 20:55

Sorry, I didn't know that word I used that got flowered was a cussword. What does it mean? I thought it meant henchmen or lackey...

By the way, do you mind when we use :daisy: ourselves in a manner that makes it clear we intended a 'colorful expression'?

barocca

05-22-2007, 20:56

you will not get my MAC pin out of me EVER, because i refuse to memorise it,
you WILL get a fake MAC pin out of me simply to stop the pain.

reliability of intel retrieved from torturing me = zero.

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 20:59

you will not get my MAC pin out of me EVER, because i refuse to memorise it,
you WILL get a fake MAC pin out of me simply to stop the pain.

reliability of intel retrieved from torturing me = zero.

After trying the pin number we'd know it was or wasn't false, but on the chance that it was correct you're alive and so are we.

Banquo's Ghost

05-22-2007, 21:09

Sorry, I didn't know that word I used that got flowered was a cussword. What does it mean? I thought it meant henchmen or lackey...

It means a foul or contemptible person. The second syllable derives from exactly the word it looks like and means much the same.

By the way, do you mind when we use :daisy: ourselves in a manner that makes it clear we intended a 'colorful expression'?

Not at all. The forum rules on swearing indicate that if the word is fully blanked out (by asterisks for example) it is permissible to "colour" one's posts. I thought the :daisy: was a gentler way of editing language that was not permissible than sending alerts and warnings - unless the language used was inflammatory or particularly bad, in which case they still follow.

If members want to use it as a replacement for asterisks, that's fine by me. Of course, we'd all prefer that recourse to colourful metaphor was kept to a minimum, since this is a PG site.

Forgive the intermission. I return you to the discussion at hand.

:bow:

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 21:46

Shades if you support torture and abuse you are no different from those who associate with bin-laden .

By making that comparison you show your cards perfectly.

barocca

05-22-2007, 22:09

After trying the pin number we'd know it was or wasn't false, but on the chance that it was correct you're alive and so are we.
but you cannot get information from me that I DO NOT KNOW

it dont matter how many times you come back and beat the tar out of me i simply DO NOT KNOW

each and every time i will tell you something you want to hear simply to stop the pain

that is why torture is not and can never be reliable.

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 22:17

but you cannot get information from me that I DO NOT KNOW

it dont matter how many times you come back and beat the tar out of me i simply DO NOT KNOW

each and every time i will tell you something you want to hear simply to stop the pain

that is why torture is not and can never be reliable.

You assume universal ignorance amongst those tortured and a complete lack of collaborating and supporting intelligence prior to and independant of questioning.

Xiahou

05-22-2007, 22:18

Eh, nevermind. Someone beat me to it.

barocca

05-22-2007, 22:30

You assume universal ignorance amongst those tortured and a complete lack of collaborating and supporting intelligence prior to and independant of questioning.
but everybody in this country has keycards and thus MAC numbers,
i have such a card,
a natural assumption would be that i know the number for mine
i do not

you can torture me till i die and i cannot tell you something that i should know,

that any reasonable person would assume i know,

that even my bank will tell you i should know,

i simply do not know the number

and if you guys have access to such almighty and allknowing intelligence apparatus then why do you need to torture anyone?

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 22:40

and if you guys have access to such almighty and allknowing intelligence apparatus then why do you need to torture anyone?

The reason we question anyone is to increase the intelligence picture. Your being captured with an AK amongst a group of Taliban shows you have opportunity for intelligence. If you lack value in intelligence that is just as telling as to your station and the information flow environment.

By what you've stated, we might as well not ask any detainees any questions whether we slap their stomach or serve them cupcakes.

barocca

05-22-2007, 23:04

now that is being too simplistic,

You cannot beat information out of people who do not know,
but once you start beating them you cannot stop in case they are being stubborn,
they will eventually make up a story to get you to stop,

once you have that story you have to spend additional resources checking it,
and beating up more people if need be.

why not simply hook them up to a lie detector?
sure, those things can be beaten, but not as easily as many would have you believe. in better than 90% of the time you'll get the truth.

barocca

05-22-2007, 23:05

heck, even sodium pentathol (?spelling) in careful doses is better than torture

ShadeHonestus

05-22-2007, 23:39

now that is being too simplistic,

Thats because I took your arguments to be too simplistic, this was my poor attempt at mocking the argument.

You cannot beat information out of people who do not know,
but once you start beating them you cannot stop in case they are being stubborn,
they will eventually make up a story to get you to stop,

They will eventually make up a story or tell you the truth to get you to stop. Negatives and positives are both valuable in the intelligence game. If a person is being stubborn then you have to ask why? It could be out of contempt, out of principle, or because they are guarding information. These quasi torture techniques are used to break down those barriers.

once you have that story you have to spend additional resources checking it,

Of course you have to check it, you have to check any intelligence.

and beating up more people if need be.

or question more people using a varietly of methods.

why not simply hook them up to a lie detector?
sure, those things can be beaten, but not as easily as many would have you believe. in better than 90% of the time you'll get the truth.

heck, even sodium pentathol (?spelling) in careful doses is better than torture

Of course those are all great but we have to then do it all again to more people and use resources to check that intelligence - sorry couldn't resist the reference to what you said above.

Really though these are all good methods and you don't honestly believe that everyone we detain goes straight to the waterboard do you? By having enhanced techniques at hand doesn't mean we use them absolutely. This is an attempt to characterize it as sadists run amok and a need to have to feed the machine.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 01:23

Watchman

05-23-2007, 01:44

"I am on the side of justice. Therefore, what I do is justice. Therefore, whoever I do it to is getting his just desserts."

I figure that's roughly the sort of circular reasoning the apologists are running, personally. The idea that because you're Good, you can do no wrong.

AntiochusIII

05-23-2007, 01:51

To be fair, Lemur, America has a history of abandoning its most precious principles when practicalities demand -- although those practicalities usually turn out to be less than useless. The famed and much beloved President Abraham Lincoln was the first guy to really try and shut down the fundamental defense mechanism of the Writ of Habeas Corpus since John Adams after all. The almost equally beloved President Roosevelt (II) put Japanese-Americans in detention camps in the deserts and pretty much screw them over, just as well; and what else, the supposedly almighty Supreme Court ruled in his favor in Korematsu. They fought that Court Packing tooth and nail but damn if anyone cared about Japanese-Americans being herded around like sheep when the USA was at war with the Japanese Empire. National Security, old argument.

President Bush really isn't worse than anybody else. But that doesn't mean it's a Very Bad Thing of course; like you said, schoolboy's excuse.

By the way, barocca's back!? :book:

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 01:54

This is not a left-right issue; this is a moral absolute. Torture is wrong. It's wrong when anyone does it. "They're worse" is not an argument, it's a school-child's excuse.

Isn't the left the same lot which argues that there are no moral absolutes. That all morality is relative to the personal subjective core or whatever nonsense. The world is gray and all that stuff.

The idea that because you're Good, you can do no wrong.

The fact that this discussion is taking place asserts that we are good and that there are feelings of right and wrong associated with it. What it boils down to is who makes the call, in what circumstances is it called for and whether or not we accept accountability for our choices. Denying it in absolutes denies the discussion, denies accountability and denies responsibility. The old we do not do it so we are on moral high ground argument, despite being deaf dumb and blind.

Don Corleone

05-23-2007, 02:25

I don't really know what to say to people who believe that torture is a good and American thing, or who want to play semantic games with "enhanced interrogation techniques" (an Orwellian turn of phrase if ever there was one).

We're the good guys. We're on the side of right. We're America. How can you countenance throwing that away for a debatable advantage over some Middle Eastern parasites? How can you approve of us losing so much prestige and moral suasion?

This is not a left-right issue; this is a moral absolute. Torture is wrong. It's wrong when anyone does it. "They're worse" is not an argument, it's a school-child's excuse.

Alright, Tribesman wouldn't answer me, let me try you. What is your definition of torture? Are we agreeing not to slap people around repeatedly? Are we guaranteeing that we won't use coercive questioning? Is soliatary confinement on the table? I've seen people make make arguments that all of the above 3 are torture, and I would agree or disagree to varying degrees on each of them.

Are you asking me to sign on for treating them the way the ACLU says we should (conjugal visits and high-def tv in air conditioned cells)? What exactly is torture to you?

Because honestly Lemur, if somebody had Jillian kidnapped somewhere, I don't think a slap or two across the face would seem like torture if I knew they knew where she was. I strongly suspect you'd follow the same path.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 02:30

The fact that this discussion is taking place asserts that we are good and that there are feelings of right and wrong associated with it. What it boils down to is who makes the call, in what circumstances is it called for and whether or not we accept accountability for our choices. Denying it in absolution denies the discussion, denies accountability and denies responsibility. The old we do not do it so we are on moral high ground argument, despite being deaf dumb and blind.This seems to be a fair bit of text that doesn't actually say anything. "Platitudes" is the word, I believe.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 02:33

This seems to be a fair bit of text that doesn't actually say anything. "Platitudes" is the word, I believe.

It says a great deal, but that is relative to the reader.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 02:36

Could you be enticed to indulge me by rewording it in a less roundabout manner ?

Papewaio

05-23-2007, 02:49

This is an attempt to characterize it as sadists run amok and a need to have to feed the machine.

There isn't a benchmark for this at which point it becomes wrong, torturing one million isn't the point of sadists running amok, torturing ten thousand isn't the point of sadists running amok, its the point that you choose to torture One.

'Those who trade freedom for security deserver neither.'

Principles that are dropped when things get tough were never principles, they were just show pieces. Just mere Euclidean points, ethereal medals, style over substance, show ponies... meaningless. It also brings into sharp relief what is the substance of the remaining principles, one expects they will be dropped for expediency too... as will friends, allies and family. Survival yes, but survival of what for what? A self replicating organism with nary a higher calling. Clap fecking clap.

'Live by the sword, die by the sword'/'Reap what you sow'
The US is now stating that it is fine for any one of their citizens to be tortured, as long as it makes someone somewhere feel more secure.

What a timid way for a great nation to handle a situation.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 03:43

What exactly is torture to you?

Because honestly Lemur, if somebody had Jillian kidnapped somewhere, I don't think a slap or two across the face would seem like torture if I knew they knew where she was. I strongly suspect you'd follow the same path.
I agree completely. If my children were threatened, and I knew a single individual had information critical to saving them, I would have no compunctions.

But that shouldn't be legal. There will always be worst-case "ticking bomb" scenarios, and historically, juries have been very reluctant to convict people who behaved the way they had to. Usually charges are not even filed. That's one of the things that makes me so crazy about the torture discussion. We're not really talking about in extremis worst-case moments; we're talking about the routine, everyday application of physical force to people under our control.

What is torture? Deliberate application of pain to either break the individual, elicit a confession or obtain information. I think that's a safe definition, and it saves us from getting into a tedious debate about how much electricity applied to which body part is "really" torture.

The jihadis are taught that we are brutal animals who hate Islam. When we conform to that image, we do ourselves no favors, and we encourage no defections. The seduction style of interrogation has been used successfully by the F.B.I. for decades, and British counter-terrorism units had great success with it in Northern Ireland. Even the Israelis use it. Slapping around the Arabs is something uneducated grunts do over there.

I hate to keep dragging generals into the debate, but here's another (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/07/torture/?source=whitelist):

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there."

Kimmons added that "our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them."

This seems to be a fair bit of text that doesn't actually say anything. "Platitudes" is the word, I believe.
It makes more sense if you substitute "absolute" for "absolution." Miss Malaprop has been visiting.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 03:52

Don, if a more legal definition would suit better, here's the one from the books (18 U.S. Code § 2340 (Definitions)):

As used in this chapter— (1) 'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) 'severe mental pain or suffering' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) 'United States' means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

So "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture under our law.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 03:57

And to throw down against anyone who claims that we would only torture when absolutely necessary, I give you the confessions of an army interrogator (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/torture/):

Asked how he explains himself, Lagouranis says, “It’s tough. I can say I was following orders, and that is partly true. I was wondering, ‘At what point do I put my foot down?’ and there were definitely times when I said I wasn’t going to cross this or that line.” Lagouranis refused, he says, to engage in sexual humiliation, electric shock, or mock execution (though he admits that he once failed to assure a blindfolded prisoner he was escorting past some soldiers at target practice that this was not a firing squad). He also says he never hit a prisoner, though he admits that hitting someone “might do less damage to him than hypothermia or stress positions or things like that. It just seemed like that was completely taboo. I didn’t really think that through—it seemed to me like that was where the line was legally and morally.

“But there are other answers, too. You are in a war zone and things get blurred. We wanted intelligence. It really became absolutely morally impossible for me to continue when I realized that most of the people we were dealing with were innocent. And that was tough. So it made it easier if I thought that I was actually dealing with a real-life bad guy. Another thing that made it easier was that I felt—and I think this is a flawed argument too—that it was all environmental things that were happening to this person. Like it was gravity that was making his knees hurt, it was the fact that it was cold outside that was making him uncomfortable, it wasn’t me, you know what I mean? As I said, those are flawed arguments, but it makes it easier to do it if you think of it that way.

“Then, also, you’re in an environment where everybody is telling you that this is OK, and it’s hard to be the only person saying, ‘This is wrong.’ ”

Xiahou

05-23-2007, 03:57

What is torture? Deliberate application of pain to either break the individual, elicit a confession or obtain information. I think that's a safe definition, and it saves us from getting into a tedious debate about how much electricity applied to which body part is "really" torture.That's still terribly vague. Is sleep deprivation painful? What about making someone remain standing? Belly slaps? I don't think waterboarding causes much, if any physical pain.

We're not really talking about in extremis worst-case moments; we're talking about the routine, everyday application of physical force to people under our control.We are?

Lemur

05-23-2007, 03:59

That's still terribly vague. Is sleep deprivation painful? What about making someone remain standing? Belly slaps? I don't think waterboarding causes much, if any physical pain.
If my definition is too vague, I have also supplied the Federal definition. Hope that's more helpful.

We are?
We are.

Xiahou

05-23-2007, 04:09

If my definition is too vague, I have also supplied the Federal definition. Hope that's more helpful.Way to skirt the question. I'll make it easier- which of the "approved techniques" that you listed earlier would you consider to be torture and why? And what about what Don said? Is denying air conditioning torture? Denying Korans? What about not preparing religiously appropriate meals?

We are.Do you think everyone at Gitmo has been waterboarded?

Lemur

05-23-2007, 04:22

Way to skirt the question. I'll make it easier- which of the "approved techniques" that you listed earlier would you consider to be torture and why? And what about what Don said? Is denying air conditioning torture? Denying Korans?
I'm not trying to skirt the question; rather, I'm trying to avoid getting into a treatment-by-treatment dissection of what is or is not torture. If that's where you really want to go, have at it with someone else. Obviously, lack of creature comforts is not torture, but deliberate manipulation of environment can be. Deliberate induction of hypothermia, which has been documented, is clearly torture.

Denial of holy texts is not torture. I'll leave it to you to ask more specifics. I'm not clear on why they are necessary; intent is the important thing. If you set out to hurt a person in your control, you're on dangerous ground.

Do you think everyone at Gitmo has been waterboarded?
I am highly suspicious (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3806713.stm) of how they have been treated.

She said current Iraqi prisons chief Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller - who was in charge at Guantanamo Bay - visited her in Baghdad and said: "At Guantanamo Bay we learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing that they have."

"He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them."

General Miller was in charge of Gitmo when many of the abuses are alleged.

What's your take on this, Xiahou? I can't tell whether you're arguing that limited torture is a valid path, or rather that we don't torture, and anyone who is concerned about it is a tinfoil-hatted leftie.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 04:47

It's hard to talk intelligently about what's going on in Gitmo, since it is literally a black hole of information.

Here's an account from the American Journal of Bioethics of the interrogation of prisoner 063 (http://www.bioethics.net/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140). Worth a read.

Xiahou

05-23-2007, 04:55

What's your take on this, Xiahou? I can't tell whether you're arguing that limited torture is a valid path, or rather that we don't torture, and anyone who is concerned about it is a tinfoil-hatted leftie.
First, from what I can tell, waterboarding has never been condoned at Gitmo. The only reference I found was that permission was denied (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-waterboarding.htm) in 2002. As for belly slaps, white noise... it's tough for me to get very worked up about it.

Again, I don't think even those techniques are routine and certainly not waterboarding. If you believe Brian Ross (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/), it was only reserved for 14 top terrorist leaders and that they did spill their guts and give up valuable info. Ross also says he believes that as many as 12 attacks have been broken up as a result of intel gained. It was done by trained CIA interrogators and those 14 certainly sound like they'd qualify as "the worst of the worst".

These sorts of measure should not be routine, and I don't think they are.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 05:02

These sorts of measure should not be routine, and I don't think they are.
So what will your position be if evidence emerges that we've been using extreme measures far more broadly than you suppose? I'm genuinely curious. At what point will you feel that we have crossed a line?

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 08:57

There isn't a benchmark for this at which point it becomes wrong, torturing one million isn't the point of sadists running amok, torturing ten thousand isn't the point of sadists running amok, its the point that you choose to torture One.

So you're stating that its a moral point of no return? Do you believe we have ever "tortured" an individual lets say...pre 2001? If the answer is no then I can give you some off the record testimony by veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WW2 that would include hard slaps across the face, not to mention a belly slap here and there. Of course this does not even touch the CiA and FBI operations during the Cold War. The line has already been crossed my friend. What we are essentially talking about is people coming to the realizatiobn that to stand for something you sometimes have to step into the gray. Is this a wholesale sell out? Of course it isn't, it never has been. The U.S. will never rival the torture dens of Saddam....for example let alone those more notorious.

Having the discussion does allow us to come to terms with this. However its important that we have a true interpretation of what things mean, what our version of so called "torture" is. To wave in front of people the absolutes of torture to incite visions of Inquisitions, Soviet style reeducation and Nazi experimentations is to only further disinformation and breed ignorance. For what would this purpose be, but for political gain. Upon the threshold of reality we kick ourselves back into ignorance for the sake of votes. Republicans and democrats are both doing this with very few on either side willing to stand up and take a bit of accountabilty and culpabilty. Well done.

I'll throw in there that the suspension of habeas corpus was a line that was not dared to be crossed, but it was and we survived and are no doubt stronger for it. Exectuive order 9066 was supposed to be a line not crossed, but it was and we survived and are a better people for having done so, because we learned much about ourselves.

'Those who trade freedom for security deserver neither.'

Principles that are dropped when things get tough were never principles, they were just show pieces. Just mere Euclidean points, ethereal medals, style over substance, show ponies... meaningless. It also brings into sharp relief what is the substance of the remaining principles, one expects they will be dropped for expediency too... as will friends, allies and family. Survival yes, but survival of what for what? A self replicating organism with nary a higher calling. Clap fecking clap.

See above. Integrity to principle is not a game of absolutes.

'Live by the sword, die by the sword'/'Reap what you sow'
The US is now stating that it is fine for any one of their citizens to be tortured, as long as it makes someone somewhere feel more secure.

Not even close to factual see above.

What a timid way for a great nation to handle a situation.

To be morally strong we must check our grey matter at the door..excellent idea.

Could you be enticed to indulge me by rewording it in a less roundabout manner ?

Sure, for starters just imagine the three apes seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Now imagine them wearing Halo's purchased at K-Mart.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 09:16

It makes more sense if you substitute "absolute" for "absolution." Miss Malaprop has been visiting.

Actually I meant to state "absolutes", but with all these visions of inquisitors knocking on my door asking for my ATM PIN number I was looking for a little absolution.

Ironside

05-23-2007, 09:31

Because honestly Lemur, if somebody had Jillian kidnapped somewhere, I don't think a slap or two across the face would seem like torture if I knew they knew where she was. I strongly suspect you'd follow the same path.

Only because you gave a nice ticking bomb scenario.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't marines trained to endure 3 days of torture (something about the expire time of the intel), or something like that ? I seem to recall something like that mentioned earlier in here in the forum.

How many here thinks that any group of people, on average, can endure say 60 hours of waterboarding, even with extensive training?

So what's done during the next 59 hours that keeps the evil guys from this vital information?

barocca

05-23-2007, 09:32

You will never convince me that people who torture others are anything less than barbarians and terrorists, deserving of nothing more than contempt.

If the USA wants to join those ranks then all that can be said is you will reap what you sow.
Become a brother of the terrorist states and ignore Basic Human Rights and you will have no cause to cry foul when the same treament is visited upon your own citzens.

Barocca has left This building

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 09:47

Only because you gave a nice ticking bomb scenario.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't marines trained to endure 3 days of torture (something about the expire time of the intel), or something like that ? I seem to recall something like that mentioned earlier in here in the forum.

Marines generally speaking are educated about torture techniques that could be used on them and ways to endure it, but from my own training and that done by people I know now there is not a 3 day hold out regime. On the other side, MCBT is set up to stress the recruit to a greater degree than other branches specifically for the purpose of increasing mental and physical endurance on the chance that he/she may encounter a PoW situation. This was and remains a doctrine of recruit training as far as I know.

How many here thinks that any group of people, on average, can endure say 60 hours of waterboarding, even with extensive training?

Waterboarding past the finite cannot be performed under proposed rulesets nor is it currently as excessive continuous waterboarding increases chance of death.

So what's done during the next 59 hours that keeps the evil guys from this vital information?

In short, very little, practically any former PoW will tell you that every man has his limits. No matter how macho, ballsy or devout a person may be, they can't hold out forever.

A friend of mine who was a child in N. Vietnam and Southern China during the Vietnam conflict spoke to me directly about this. Of course recalling how he would give McCain candy at different times was not a recollection of an attempt at torture.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 10:02

You will never convince me that people who torture others are anything less than barbarians and terrorists, deserving of nothing more than contempt.

Well I consider you deserving of much more than contempt even though I find your argument against enhanced methods tired and nothing less than barbaric in its neglect of reality.

If the USA wants to join those ranks then all that can be said is you will reap what you sow.
Become a brother of the terrorist states and ignore Basic Human Rights and you will have no cause to cry foul when the same treament is visited upon your own citzens.

Who is ignoring basic human rights? We are in fact one of the few nations that believe in a basic human dignity and performing enhanced interogations of those choosing to be counted as those who want to destroy and wipe from the earth any basis of basic human dignity in no way compromises that principle.

Barocca has left This building

Well I wish you wouldn't leave the building, but I hope you do so rooted in whatever beliefs you hold as ones you come about honestly and not out of stubborness to dogma or drive by sound bytes that appeal to pathos. I enjoyed our give and take as you at least seemed genuine in your opposition.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 10:06

Ah. "Just ends justify any means." I kinda figured that pointlessly convoluted piece of rhetoric amounted to that much. And with empty excuses of the classic "but the bad guys do it worse" school thrown in.
:dozey:
Want me to start digging up figures of speech relevant to the issue ? Nietzsche had a couple of good ones for starters.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 10:18

Ah. "Just ends justify any means." I kinda figured that pointlessly convoluted piece of rhetoric amounted to that much.

I'm sorry, at what point were we talking about anything but finite examples. Go play Chicken Little somewhere else.

And with empty excuses of the classic "but the bad guys do it worse" school thrown in.

What a wonderfully original turn of phrase to make an excellent point. :dizzy2: Honestly, this oversimplification of an issue was tired after its first utterance.

:dozey:

Oh nice an emoticon, matched above.

Want me to start digging up figures of speech relevant to the issue ? Nietzsche had a couple of good ones for starters.

Precisely what I would expect, first you reduce the butter to use later, then you add a variety of spices in an attempt to kill pathogens inherent in rotten reduction. What is this...rhetorical cooking by watchman?

Ironside

05-23-2007, 10:27

ShadeHonestus, as you just pointed out "well done" torture will make people talk, so how do you keep the vital information from getting extracted to be at use within the next few days?

Watchman

05-23-2007, 11:45

I'm sorry, at what point were we talking about anything but finite examples. Go play Chicken Little somewhere else.
---
What a wonderfully original turn of phrase to make an excellent point. :dizzy2: Honestly, this oversimplification of an issue was tired after its first utterance.
---
Oh nice an emoticon, matched above.
---
Precisely what I would expect, first you reduce the butter to use later, then you add a variety of spices in an attempt to kill pathogens inherent in rotten reduction. What is this...rhetorical cooking by watchman?Please don't waste my time playing silly rhetorical games, Clinton. I'm much too old and cynical for those to work. Oral sex doesn't become any less oral sex no matter how much you mince the definitions.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 15:43

Shades, I'd like to ask you to take some time out between declarations that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or a moral coward, and ask for some clarification.

I'm having much the same confusion with you that I had with Xiahou, in that your arguments veer between "What we do isn't torture" and "Torture would be justified even if we did it." Could you please clarify? Do you believe that the U.S.A. is within its rights to torture terror suspects and illegal combatants? Or do you believe, rather, that nothing we have authorized constitutes torture? Or, confusingly, both?

Lemur

05-23-2007, 15:55

Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago that sleep deprivation was perhaps the worst torture inflicted on the prisoners. Interestingly, torture was also illegal in the Soviet Union, and sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, and stress positions were merely considered coercive methods. At the end of interrogation, prisoners had to sign a statement affirming that they had not been tortured and that they had given their confessions in full awareness of their rights.

Contrast and compare with a recent account (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1207633,00.html):

In one of the few actual logs we have of a high-level interrogation, that of Mohammed al-Qhatani, doctors were present during the long process of constant sleep deprivation over 55 days, and they induced hypothermia and the use of threatening dogs, among other techniques. According to Miles, Medics had to administer three bags of medical saline to Qhatani — while he was strapped to a chair — and aggressively treat him for hypothermia in the hospital. They then returned him to his interrogators.

What does that sound like to you? Further:

Of the 136 documented deaths of prisoners in detention, Miles found, medical death certificates were often not issued until months or even years after the actual deaths. One prisoner's corpse at Camp Cropper was kept for two weeks before his family or criminal investigators were notified. The body was then left at a local hospital with a certificate attributing death to "sudden brainstem compression." The hospital's own autopsy found that the man had died of a massive blow to the head. Another certificate claimed a 63-year-old prisoner had died of "cardiovascular disease and a buildup of fluid around his heart." According to Miles, no mention was made that the old man had been stripped naked, doused in cold water and kept outside in 40 degree cold for three days before cardiac arrest.

Tribesman

05-23-2007, 19:26

I'm having much the same confusion with you that I had with Xiahou, in that your arguments veer between "What we do isn't torture" and "Torture would be justified even if we did it." Could you please clarify?
You need him to clarify ?????I thought it was clear that he has no clarity and no point , someone who tries to justify the unjustifiable is undoubtable speakin to prove....what was it again ......that the more he talks the more he shows what a fool he is

Don Corleone

05-23-2007, 20:09

The reason I'm so loathe to speak out against 'torture' is the misappropriation the term has endured in the past 20 years. As PJ's initial post and subsequent ones have supported, the term has come to mean 'anything the opposition party disagrees with'.

I am opposed to inflicting pain on people or subjecting them to mental anguish in anything but a ticking timebomb scenario. I don't believe in slapping prisoners around, stress positions, water boarding or the like. I especially don't agree with it on "fishing expeditions" of the type where some some Pakastani 22-year old, let's even say he was attending a madras, get's dragged off to to a secret prison and his interrogators repeat the simplistic 'tell us everything you know or else' repeatedly and then proceed with the hoods, the dogs, and the rest. Hell, put me through enough of that and I'll confess to being the gunman on the hill and I'll confess that I am the advance scout for an Alpha-Centauri invasion, if that's what I think you want to hear.

I think Xiahou's and Shade's point is that if you know the guy knows the answer to a distinct question, it may be possible to get it out of him, and putting the guy through some discomfort may be appropriate to get it out of him.

I think Lemur and Watchman are making the point that you can't ever let yourselves go do down that road, as 1) you can't know that they really do know and 2) even if you could, the ends don't justify the means (minus the ticking timebomb scenario).

I think both sides have valid points, I just wish you'd focus on triangulating them instead of engaging in indirect personal attacks on each other.

That being said, I recently heard some disturbing reports on 'This American Life' and "McNeil Lehrer" about the nature of the detainees in Gitmo. They weren't scooped up off a battlefield (at least not the majority of them). The were turned over by neighbors with a grudge. The US went around Afghanistan and Pakistan offering rewards. They then interred anyone that got turned in as a 'collaborator'. In many cases, the government can't say why they're being held, not because of national security issues, but because they themselves don't know why they interred these guys in the first place and won't let them go until they can figure it out.

I'm all for getting the KSMs of the world into isolated cells and keeping them awake for 3 or 4 days. But taking his chaffeur's nephew's girlfriend's younger brother off to Gitmo for the same, because of the 'connection' just doesn't seem right to me.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 20:54

Please don't waste my time playing silly rhetorical games, Clinton. I'm much too old and cynical for those to work. Oral sex doesn't become any less oral sex no matter how much you mince the definitions.

I didn't have sex with that woman. But if we'd agree on the definitions of things, it might prove out that I did shag her.

Shades, I'd like to ask you to take some time out between declarations that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or a moral coward, and ask for some clarification.

Please don't cast empty aspersions. I've only called out certain arguments, demonstrated the shortcomings and put questions back on the person. Is the taking of arguments to task calling somebody an idiot or moral coward? I'm sorry but if you even read what has been written it was my position which was attempted to be pigeon holed as "timid" and repeatedly insulted as being terrorist in nature and worse. Have I called anyone here an idiot? Have I called anyone a moral wimp? In fact the only insult I have put out there was extremely benign and retaliatory in nature and it was one which I withdrew.

Thank you for furthering the discussions by asking legitimate questions some of which I have answered prior.

in that your arguments veer between "What we do isn't torture" and "Torture would be justified even if we did it." Could you please clarify?

The word torture is something that people would have to be educated on to understand its meaning, history and context before I personally am willing to label what we do as torture. Sure if we go "wiki" on definitions we are according to Hoyle. However what does the average person out there think of when you mention torture? Is it those procedures outlined above such as the face and belly slap, cold rooms, sleep deprivation and standing or waterboarding? Of course it isn't. Walk on any campus, walk through any mall and ask the question, your definitions will range from the ripping of fingernails to the rack to vision of the Chuck Norris movies in bamboo cages. Its important when asking the questions that people know what words mean. Its that simple. Furthermore the misunderstanding of what words mean leads to the "naturally since we are getting wet, we'll go swimming" attitude. That once we slap a face we suddenly will be wearing fingernail necklaces, pulling people from mosques, putting them in chains and whipping them into confinement. This ignores history, ignores our own history as well as that of our enemies.

Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago

So we are already going swimming? Are you stating the detainees are the equivalent of Solzhenitsyn and that we already a Gulag culture? is that the exact comparison you are wishing to portray by providing this distinct example.

One of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's first instructions for military interrogations outside the Geneva Conventions was that military doctors should be involved in monitoring torture.

Do you honestly believe this is our first taste of those techniques used at Gitmo? What is this shock and horror but editorializing facts politically? I hope you had your critical thinking cap on when reading this article and understand the context we live in.

All of this sidesteps the third face of America in this war. the fact that the information provided for the article was...well provided. We somehow can print these facts for open discussion. Are the sources now in a gulag? Is this not "the America I know and love."

Of course one could look at George Tenet's interview of April 29 when speaking of his book on 60 minutes when asked about enhanced techniques.

"Here’s what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the President of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots, I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

Or do we dismiss this simply as justification at any cost? What is the cost? Or is it the source that we have problems with? What is the agenda for not reading the writing on the wall? I know there might be some people here would gladly trade 1000 American lives to save one detainee from enhanced techniques, but how many would you give? If it came out later that reports from Tenet were ignored for the sake of perception and perceived principle to protect our illusions of innocence, but ended up costing 1 or 2 or 10,000 lives would there not be a call for heads politically and on the principle that the federal government's primary role is the protection of its citizens? Or do we forget that one entirely to keep our illusions?

You need him to clarify ?????I thought it was clear that he has no clarity and no point , someone who tries to justify the unjustifiable is undoubtable speakin to prove....what was it again ......that the more he talks the more he shows what a fool he is

Oh tribesman...what would I expect from a pig but a grunt.

There ya go Lemur, I concede that one. :laugh4:

Ser Clegane

05-23-2007, 21:06

Keep this civil - personal attacks (e.g., "fool", "pig") will not be tolerated.

Thanks

Lemur

05-23-2007, 21:35

I've only called out certain arguments, demonstrated the shortcomings and put questions back on the person.
I'm sorry, but when you lace your somewhat impenetrable prose with lines such as "I'm sorry but if you even read what has been written," you're skirting the edge of common courtesy. It's true, you generally argue the issue and not the person, but you often suggest that the person you're speaking to is uneducated, illiterate, stupid, or just generally clueless. If you want me to pull out some samples, I'll do so.

The word torture is something that people would have to be educated on to understand its meaning, history and context before I personally am willing to label what we do as torture.
This is very strange. You're not willing to conceded that torture is torture until the general populace's education and understanding of the word is increased?

However what does the average person out there think of when you mention torture? Is it those procedures outlined above such as the face and belly slap, cold rooms, sleep deprivation and standing or waterboarding? Of course it isn't. Walk on any campus, walk through any mall and ask the question, your definitions will range from the ripping of fingernails to the rack to vision of the Chuck Norris movies in bamboo cages. Its important when asking the questions that people know what words mean. Its that simple.
An interesting point, but it really answers nothing. Likewise, when we mention "corruption," people have all sorts of odd notions that may or may not have anything to do with real malfeasance. Does this mean we should not condemn corruption? Trust me, I understand your point. I just don't see it leading anywhere productive.

Furthermore the misunderstanding of what words mean leads to the "naturally since we are getting wet, we'll go swimming" attitude. That once we slap a face we suddenly will be wearing fingernail necklaces, pulling people from mosques, putting them in chains and whipping them into confinement. This ignores history, ignores our own history as well as that of our enemies.
Right, so you don't like the slippery slope fallacy. Fine. There is evidence, however, that the use of torture has a historical tendency to spread. Most armed forces have to work like mad to prevent cruelty to prisoners.

Are you stating the detainees are the equivalent of Solzhenitsyn and that we already a Gulag culture? is that the exact comparison you are wishing to portray by providing this distinct example.
The comparison I was drawing was precise, not a broad brush of condemnation for America and All She Stands For, as convenient as it would be to you for purposes of dismissal.

Another society faced exactly the same issue we're facing today -- how to integrate "enhanced interrogation" into a legal framework that outlaws "torture." They reached many of the same conclusions, and methods. If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, nothing will.

Do you honestly believe this is our first taste of those techniques used at Gitmo? What is this shock and horror but editorializing facts politically? I hope you had your critical thinking cap on when reading this article and understand the context we live in.
The first two sentences are so vague I don't really know how to respond to them. Doubtless you're clear as crystal about what you meant, but it didn't quite make it to the screen. Any response, therefore, will probably be pointless, since both of those sentences could be read any number of ways. As for whether or not I have my "critical thinking cap" on, that's a nice little rhetorical flourish that accomplishes nothing. Shall I say, "Oh! Hey! I sure do have it on!" What a bit of fluff.

All of this sidesteps the third face of America in this war. the fact that the information provided for the article was...well provided. We somehow can print these facts for open discussion. Are the sources now in a gulag? Is this not "the America I know and love."
Of course we have open discussions in America. Of course we're not a gulag. When you're done beating up that straw man, I'll be over at the bar.

Of course one could look at George Tenet's interview of April 29 when speaking of his book on 60 minutes when asked about enhanced techniques.
I'm glad you finally brought something besides your prose and opinions to the party. Tenet is an interesting guy, and his book has been received by all sides with something bordering on contempt. I'm not in a position to know if his claim is justified (and neither are you), but I will note that the man has every reason to want "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be seen in a benign light. Slam Dunk has a lot of history to revise.

What is the cost? Or is it the source that we have problems with?
Cost of what? Source of what? You need to throw some nouns in to leaven your pronouns, sir.

What is the agenda for not reading the writing on the wall?
Whose agenda? What writing? I think I know what you mean, but like so many of your phrases, this is deeply unclear.

I know there might be some people here would gladly trade 1000 American lives to save one detainee from enhanced techniques, but how many would you give?
Excuse me? Who has stated such a thing? Where, on this entire board, has any Orgah stated that they would trade Western lives (of any number) to save a detainee from waterboarding? You're piggybacking on your own assumptions, and putting slanderous words in others' mouths. Very Ann Coulter of you, sir. If you want to have a serious discussion about the appropriateness of torture and its application, you might want to start by not deciding that you, personally, know others' minds better than they know their own.

If it came out later that reports from Tenet were ignored for the sake of perception and perceived principle to protect our illusions of innocence, but ended up costing 1 or 2 or 10,000 lives would there not be a call for heads politically and on the principle that the federal government's primary role is the protection of its citizens? Or do we forget that one entirely to keep our illusions?
Reports from the C.I.A. were ignored, at a cost of thousands of lives, if you recall the attacks of 9/11, and the summer '01 Presidential briefing coyly titled "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack in The U.S."

Now, let's look at "perception and perceived principle to protect our illusions of innocence." (A felicitous turn of phrase if ever I read one.) I take this to mean that you believe we are in an existential struggle for survival, and any froo-frah about American principles are "illusions of innocence." Of course, the phrase is constructed in such a Germanic compound-noun style, you could mean any number of things. I trust you'll unpack it for us.

I thought Don did a fairly good job of summing our positions:

I think Xiahou's and Shade's point is that if you know the guy knows the answer to a distinct question, it may be possible to get it out of him, and putting the guy through some discomfort may be appropriate to get it out of him.

I think Lemur and Watchman are making the point that you can't ever let yourselves go do down that road, as 1) you can't know that they really do know and 2) even if you could, the ends don't justify the means (minus the ticking timebomb scenario).

I think both sides have valid points, I just wish you'd focus on triangulating them instead of engaging in indirect personal attacks on each other.
It's over-simplified, sure, but he gets the broad outlines right. I'm not against torture in every conceivable scenario -- I'm just against its institutionalization. Torture is a sin. perhaps sometimes it is necessary, but sin should not be endorsed by the law of the land.

Lemur

05-23-2007, 21:59

The Inspector General's report on detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib just came out from under classification (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/abuse.pdf). Conclusions:

“Allegations of detainee abuse were not consistently reported, investigated, or managed in an effective, systematic, and timely manner.”

“Reports of detainee abuse by special mission unit task force personnel dated back to June 2003, but we believe it took the publicized abuse at Abu Ghraib [in spring 2004]… to elevate the issue to the Flag Officer level.”

“There are many well-documented reasons why detention and interrogation operations were overwhelmed [including] … inconsistent training; a critical shortage of skilled interrogators, translators, and guard force personnel; and the external influence of special operations forces and OGAs ['other government agencies,' namely, the CIA].”

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 22:02

Torture is a sin. perhaps sometimes it is necessary, but sin should not be endorsed by the law of the land.

This is precisely what 90% of what I've written addresses, although thinking it clear it seems to have escaped you as the reader where it was crystal to me the writer.

By moving this from an unsanctioned act which has occurred for decades to a legally defined act we somehow cross into a different realm of no return? This is the illusion of innocence. By keeping it in the shadows we afford ourselves plausible deniability, but make ourselves fools as we predicate our principles upon lies. By bringing this under the law we allow for accountability and responsibility in light of our principles where we can make the distinctions. Like those distinctions between what we do and what Hollywood has educated the public to understand as the definition of torture. By not doing this we will not stop enhanced techniques, thats naive, however admirable, but we lose any chances at integrity to principle.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 22:07

By bringing this under the law we allow for accountability and responsibility in light of our principles where we can make the distinctions.That's a weird way of saying "legalize it". Because that's what it'd actually be isn't it ? "No more doing bad stuff sneakily, we just defined it as good stuff so it's okay to do it openly so stop complaining."

Nevermind now that the potential for "pushing the envelope" after the first step is taken ought to be tempting indeed in some circles... all in the name of dire needs and just causes, of course.

ajaxfetish

05-23-2007, 22:10

All of this sidesteps the third face of America in this war. the fact that the information provided for the article was...well provided. We somehow can print these facts for open discussion. Are the sources now in a gulag? Is this not "the America I know and love."
This is something I love about America, and it gives me the opportunity to say that I think what we are doing is wrong, and we need to change it. Also, I don't think it consitutes a straw man, as Lemur has suggested. At worst, it's a red herring.

Ajax

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 22:24

That's a weird way of saying "legalize it". Because that's what it'd actually be isn't it ? "No more doing bad stuff sneakily, we just defined it as good stuff so it's okay to do it openly so stop complaining."

Nevermind now that the potential for "pushing the envelope" after the first step is taken ought to be tempting indeed in some circles... all in the name of dire needs and just causes, of course.

Nobody is arguing that we are labeling anything as "good stuff" as you would define it and furthermore legalistlation has never stifled rhetoric in the U.S.. The code of law is not a stone on the neck of the people. Pushing the envelope is something that under legal definitions is regulated via a number of vehicles, especially if we allow judicial review. Many have argued for the courts access are you now denying it on the "envelope" principle? Or do you want lawless courts without jurisdiction to review this...now thats an envelope.

ajaxfetish

05-23-2007, 22:47

By moving this from an unsanctioned act which has occurred for decades to a legally defined act we somehow cross into a different realm of no return? This is the illusion of innocence. By keeping it in the shadows we afford ourselves plausible deniability, but make ourselves fools as we predicate our principles upon lies. By bringing this under the law we allow for accountability and responsibility in light of our principles where we can make the distinctions.
I think I can see where you're coming from here. It makes me think of issues like say prostitution, where it's generally seen as morally contemptible, but at the same time inevitable. Should prostitution be illegal for the sake of moral outrage, and happen in back alleys with no protection, or should it be legalized and regulated to protect the prostitutes? A touchy question, to be sure. Same thing for abortion. Moral satisfaction in spite of the coathangers, or a safe procedure and an irate public?

Would you say then that the issue is as follows?: military personnel, CIA interrogators, etc. will commit acts of torture whether we regulate it or not, but by regulating torture we can ensure minimum standards of decent conduct and protection for those being tortured? Does this mean torture will be worse if not legalized? I understand the analogy I suppose, but I still don't like the sound of it. Perhaps I'm just like one of the hardline religious types that wants to keep things I consider wrong--wrong period--illegal in spite of any harsh realities there may be. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that unregulated torture vs. regulated torture would really be that similar to unregulated vs. regulated prostitution or abortion.

Ajax

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 23:07

military personnel, CIA interrogators, etc. will commit acts of torture whether we regulate it or not.

They have before and will continue to do so, yes.

but by regulating torture we can ensure minimum standards of decent conduct and protection for those being tortured?

Not only this but it brings it into proper light legally. Let it's use be found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, where the argument can be made, then you will it put to rest, properly and by law, not empty rhetoric and on the other side of the coin if withstanding USSC scrutiny it becomes legal we have further legal framework for strict defintion and oversight. This is further handled properly by the people, every election year there is a chance for public referendum with our politicians.

Does this mean torture will be worse if not legalized?

If not under scrutiny of the law, it may get worse, but then like before we may not choose to recognize it and cry foul and personal outrage when we do. Legal definitions are important.

I understand the analogy I suppose, but I still don't like the sound of it. Perhaps I'm just like one of the hardline religious types that wants to keep things I consider wrong--wrong period--illegal in spite of any harsh realities there may be. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that unregulated torture vs. regulated torture would really be that similar to unregulated vs. regulated prostitution or abortion.
Ajax

Believe me this is not something that I snuggle up with at night and feel cozy with. Its a tough decision, its a tough topic. I'm not some junkyard dog who can't wait to take a bite out of some Islamic Fundamentalists either as any decision we make about enhanced techniques and these people we ultimately make for ourselves and others. Its about not being in denial, protecting our citizens and understanding that what words mean is extrememly important in the struggle which we are in.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 23:10

Personally I think it would simply be used as a carte blanche justification for whatever dodgy business is already carried out, and then it would gradually erode the whole taboo on torture, the writ being applied to over more vicious methods under one pretext or another, until one day you're right back in the singular unpleasantness before the original taboo became established.
And probably feeling heartily appalled at the sort of stuff you've been giving the nod to.

You see, the problem is that people get used to stuff. They learn to regard the abnormal as normal. This whole debate is already a case in point, with quite a few folks quite seriously and earnestly arguing for the relaxation on certain rights and safeguards that protect the individual from abuse by the system. If that stuff were made officially legit, I can all but quarantee sooner or later people would have become so inured to it they wouldn't really see anything wrong with extending the permit to just a bit harsher methods, you know just this once because the needs are really pressing... and then a bit... and then a bit...

That's the way idealistic revolutions turn into horrid tyrannies too.

ShadeHonestus

05-23-2007, 23:30

Watchman

That argument has been made before.
Remember when people were stating that the monitoring of calls made by terror suspects within the U.S. to overseas parties was now somehow testament to a carte blanche for domestic surveillance? Or are you of that camp as well? In fact the bringing of the program under judicial review in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was seen as even more dubious, making it a "moving target" as the times reported, the Bush boogey man creeping into your house through your phone lines. Of course the only damage to anything domestic was the actual bringing of this under judicial review as it was done, as there was no basis for it, there was no precedent binding the president to subject it and in fact no constitutional authority for any legal bound court to have jurisdiction.

In fact I argue are we more critical of this or less since its evil inception?

Watchman

05-24-2007, 00:16

Yay for still-working checks and balances. How long do you figure you can keep chipping at them before they stop working properly ? Listening to suspects' call isn't unprecedented in modern Rechtstaats; the police can usually do it if they get the proper permits from due authorities.

But you're talking about the equivalent of giving the police the right to torture ('lightly' or not is quite irrelevant) suspects to extract information for the sake of convenience. I'd say that's a bridge that just should not be crossed; because there's much too good chances that what lies beyond is very very unpleasant.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 00:32

I do value what you say Watchman and I would like to leave it as two schools of thought arrived at honestly, but I have to ask a couple questions pertaining to your last post.

Yay for still-working checks and balances. How long do you figure you can keep chipping at them before they stop working properly ?

What checks and balances have we chipped away? We added a new one with the precedent afforded by Bush.

Listening to suspects' call isn't unprecedented in modern Rechtstaats; the police can usually do it if they get the proper permits from due authorities.

As it is here domestically

But you're talking about the equivalent of giving the police the right to torture ('lightly' or not is quite irrelevant) suspects to extract information for the sake of convenience. I'd say that's a bridge that just should not be crossed; because there's much too good chances that what lies beyond is very very unpleasant.

I would say that is a bridge I wouldn't want to cross either, but who said anything about domestic police? We are talking about enemy combatants/detainees here.

Watchman

05-24-2007, 00:46

We are talking about enemy combatants/detainees here.I fail to see where they are any less entitled to the same basic human rights.

...do you quite realize that with that statement you've already dividing mankind into at least two categories, one - the "foreign" one - of which you're withholding certain fairly fundamental rights ?

That sort of thing is exactly the kind of gradual corruption of ethics I've been talking and worried about.

Here's a funny detail for you. Do you know what the rightly infamous WW1 gas warfare started off of ?
Tear gas grenades used against bunkers.
It ended up with stuff that sounds positively nightmarish even when read from a book that doesn't dwell on the ugly details.

Comparable ? Perhaps not. But it should be kept in mind that things tend to escalate under pressure and the genie, as it were, tends to be reluctant to return to the bottle.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 01:06

I fail to see where they are any less entitled to the same basic human rights.

...do you quite realize that with that statement you've already dividing mankind into at least two categories, one - the "foreign" one - of which you're withholding certain fairly fundamental rights ?

That sort of thing is exactly the kind of gradual corruption of ethics I've been talking and worried about.

I was and am referring to legal definitions of individuals as that goes directly to legal status. That meaning under what legal code their rights exist and what court will uphold them and who would defend them. The fairly fundamental rights are not things recognized readily around the globe outside of legal code.

Here's a funny detail for you. Do you know what the rightly infamous WW1 gas warfare started off of ?
Tear gas grenades used against bunkers.
It ended up with stuff that sounds positively nightmarish even when read from a book that doesn't dwell on the ugly details.

Comparable ? Perhaps not. But it should be kept in mind that things tend to escalate under pressure and the genie, as it were, tends to be reluctant to return to the bottle.

I think its a decent compairason and very valuable. I think everyone should have as required reading The Guns of August as the escalation scenarios of WW1 are very practical throughout ones life. I do not see it as opposition to codifying our intelligence gathering techniques, however I would not propose it without remembering its lessons. Another reason I say that the education of definitions through the law is extremely important.

Papewaio

05-24-2007, 01:12

So you're stating that its a moral point of no return? Do you believe we have ever "tortured" an individual lets say...pre 2001? If the answer is no then I can give you some off the record testimony by veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WW2 that would include hard slaps across the face, not to mention a belly slap here and there. Of course this does not even touch the CiA and FBI operations during the Cold War. The line has already been crossed my friend. What we are essentially talking about is people coming to the realizatiobn that to stand for something you sometimes have to step into the gray. Is this a wholesale sell out? Of course it isn't, it never has been. The U.S. will never rival the torture dens of Saddam....for example let alone those more notorious.

The point of no return is where out of fear it is endorsed by the law of the land that torture is okay.

Having the discussion does allow us to come to terms with this. However its important that we have a true interpretation of what things mean, what our version of so called "torture" is. To wave in front of people the absolutes of torture to incite visions of Inquisitions, Soviet style reeducation and Nazi experimentations is to only further disinformation and breed ignorance. For what would this purpose be, but for political gain. Upon the threshold of reality we kick ourselves back into ignorance for the sake of votes. Republicans and democrats are both doing this with very few on either side willing to stand up and take a bit of accountabilty and culpabilty. Well done.

Yes it is always true that it is okay to do something as long as someone else has already done it to the same degree or more. You can't for instance rape a woman who isn't a virgin because she already has had sex. You also can't be wrong in torturing someone as long as another country or the other side torture worse then what you have done.

I'll throw in there that the suspension of habeas corpus was a line that was not dared to be crossed, but it was and we survived and are no doubt stronger for it. Exectuive order 9066 was supposed to be a line not crossed, but it was and we survived and are a better people for having done so, because we learned much about ourselves.

You are not stronger for it. You are showing that principles mean nothing when a small amount of fear is introduced into the equation. Animals fear. Humans evaluate and decide if the situation warrants the response.

See above. Integrity to principle is not a game of absolutes.

Actually it is.

Not even close to factual see above.

There is a principle of reciprocity which is used in international relations, philosophy and religions... 'Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.'... essentially the golden rule means that the door swings both ways. If you think that it is okay to torture someone so that you feel more secure then it is okay for someone to torture you so they may feel more secure.

To be morally strong we must check our grey matter at the door..excellent idea.

Quite the opposite, principles are in general much smarter ways to approach a situation, and they are there to protect those who would go beyond the boundaries they establish. You are not getting stronger or the moral high ground you are weakening your position. Principles that are broken devour those who break them. Being the second ship to ignore a lighthouse does not brilliance make.

Sure, for starters just imagine the three apes seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Now imagine them wearing Halo's purchased at K-Mart.

I'm glad that you admit your position on torture is one of ignoring its consequences. After all you are the one willfully ignoring the evil by covering your eyes, ears and braying in an effort to not speak of it. I hope your Halo isn't too tight as they come in one size fits all.

Watchman

05-24-2007, 01:32

The fairly fundamental rights are not things recognized readily around the globe outside of legal code.A lot of work and effort has gone into trying to get them recognized at an intuitive level. A good portion of the so-called "First World" has more or less already managed that.

And you'd discard it for convenience ?

Tribesman

05-24-2007, 01:34

And you'd discard it for convenience ?

No he would discard it because he thinks the sky is falling in .

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 01:47

The point of no return is where out of fear it is endorsed by the law of the land that torture is okay.

Conflict resolution is not fear mongering, maybe it is in your world but that makes me only thankful that you are not in a position of leadership.

Yes it is always true that it is okay to do something as long as someone else has already done it to the same degree or more. You can't for instance rape a woman who isn't a virgin because she already has had sex.

If you got more abstract I'd call the argument Picasso, but past perception just the same it lacks any value to the issue.

You also can't be wrong in torturing someone as long as another country or the other side torture worse then what you have done.

I don't believe we are determining our policy by proportion to what others do. I believe it should be mentioned for perspective and contrast so nut jobs can be revealed for what they are when they scream that a slap on the face is the same as tearing out a fingernail or executing fellow prisoners.

You are not stronger for it. You are showing that principles mean nothing when a small amount of fear is introduced into the equation. Animals fear. Humans evaluate and decide if the situation warrants the response.

You lack a concrete understanding of those scenarios and the reality of the situations. You attempt to state that an irrelevant emotion to the matter at hand is somehow only felt by animals? Is that an attempt to pigeon hole anyone who honestly engages in this discussion as animal and sub human? What next, if somebody argues for legal courts granted to detainees you'll submit the person to Eugenics? Way to go Adolf.

Actually it is.

Actually it isn't. The easiest example is that of Lincoln on the principles of preserving the Union and the political principle of abolishion. He did so while suspending habeas corpus. As fundamental as that is to what the Union was and to any notion of freedom, yet that in no way abandoned the integrity to those principles.

There is a principle of reciprocity which is used in international relations, philosophy and religions... 'Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.'... essentially the golden rule means that the door swings both ways. If you think that it is okay to torture someone so that you feel more secure then it is okay for someone to torture you so they may feel more secure.

So what you're saying is that we'll get tortured more than we already are? Tell me a modern war where we weren't tortured. Hell waterboarding was the weakest of N. Vietnam's tools, yet they perfected it and many more in coordination with Soviet assets.

Quite the opposite, principles are in general much smarter ways to approach a situation, and they are there to protect those who would go beyond the boundaries they establish. You are not getting stronger or the moral high ground you are weakening your position. Principles that are broken devour those who break them. Being the second ship to ignore a lighthouse does not brilliance make.

Actually nobody is discussing the breaking or the abandoning of principles here or have you just not paid attention.

I'm glad that you admit your position on torture is one of ignoring its consequences.

I do believe its you who continually seeks to be in denial preferring to ignore what has been happening and is currently happening. But great job line there, just the wrong target.

I'm glad you admit your position on ignoring torture or the definitions of it and its value or lasting existence within our intelligence community is that of absolute denial.

There fixed.

After all you are the one willfully ignoring the evil by covering your eyes, ears and braying in an effort to not speak of it. I hope your Halo isn't too tight as they come in one size fits all.

On the contrary I'm one of those here willing to discuss it and bring it into light. Your actions of plugging your ears yelling "torture NO!! la la la la la" is to join the ranks of the forever blissful in ignorance, halo optional.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 01:50

A lot of work and effort has gone into trying to get them recognized at an intuitive level. A good portion of the so-called "First World" has more or less already managed that.

And you'd discard it for convenience ?

No of course not, as I stated I seek a legal definition within a legal code from which to work with an authoritative body to exercise its enforcement. Anything less is rather arbitrary and ad hoc.

Watchman

05-24-2007, 02:34

Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.

Just pointing out.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 02:39

Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.

Just pointing out.

Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.

While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?

ajaxfetish

05-24-2007, 02:51

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 02:55

I think his point is that moral rectitude > legal justification. Codifying torture doesn't make it right. Especially since we already have it legally coded as wrong in all situations with no exceptions.

Ajax

I considered this, but that would mean one assumes legal justification would be made absent of morality.

Watchman

05-24-2007, 02:56

Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.

While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?I wasn't talking about that. For example Die Reich was a proper Rechtstaat and took it quite seriously; if they for example located in the camps someone wanted for a crime or with outstanding prison sentences, they duly properly plucked the fellow out and put him through the proper judicial procedures. It would not do for someone to not suffer his due legal punishement merely because he was some dirty Jew or Gypsy sent into the death camps, after all.

The Soviets could also be strangely legalistic, given their usual arbitrary style. There were cases where a person sought by the secret police in one member-state of the USSR (it was a federation, remember) fled to another where there was no warrant for him, and in some cases could rise quite high in the local power structure...

Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 03:12

Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.

As stated before what assumption is given that legal code here will be in the absence of morality? Currently here despite ratifying empty resolutions it isn't clear cut outside of the domestic sphere. Currently torture of any shape and size can take place outside our borders and under information privealage it can be classified. In fact this is what is happening and has happened for quite some time, occasional cases making it into courts, but its been a long time since this has been allowed to happen. None of this is subject to the public or the public's courts.

Watchman

05-24-2007, 03:14

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ? But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business, or in any case should; I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

ajaxfetish

05-24-2007, 03:19

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 03:22

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ?

Never said you did.

But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business,

The whole business meaning a lot more than simply interrogation techniques.

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced, move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained. But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

Such as...

Lemur

05-24-2007, 03:27

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced,
Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained.
In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.
The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 03:34

I'm getting a little confused, Shades. For most of this thread, you've seemed to be advocating the use of torture, albeit in a limited and controlled fashion, but your latest few posts sound almost more like we need to clearly define torture so that we can more effectively prohibit it. Could you clarify your intentions when you say we need a clearer legal framework for torture?

I believe I've said it in previous post, but if you missed it or if I'm just imagining things I'll clarify again. Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review. Second, its important simply so people know exactly what is going on, education, the law can't operate free from the principle of education. Third, by defining what we do, we also define what we do not do, there aren't the gray areas outside the law which we can manipulate and if attempted, see public review. Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.

Gawain of Orkeny

05-24-2007, 03:36

One mans torture is another mans pleasure :laugh4:

Some actually like it.. It takes all kinds :whip:

ajaxfetish

05-24-2007, 03:37

I believe I've said it in previous post, but if you missed it or if I'm just imagining things I'll clarify again. Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review. Second, its important simply so people know exactly what is going on, education, the law can't operate free from the principle of education. Third, by defining what we do, we also define what we do not do, there aren't the gray areas outside the law which we can manipulate and if attempted, see public review. Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.
All of that I agree with completely.

Ajax

Lemur

05-24-2007, 03:42

Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review.
I hate to re-post, but there is already a Federal definition of torture:

18 U.S. Code § 2340 (Definitions):

As used in this chapter— (1) 'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) 'severe mental pain or suffering' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) 'United States' means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Not the exact thing you're talking about, namely, a law that describes which techniques are allowable with which enemy combatants, but still, it's not as though the law has been silent on the subject.

Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.
I am not aware of any meaningful, unified oversight being applied at Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. It's an entirely in-house operation. In fact, when the F.B.I. was allowed to see what was being done at Gitmo, they filed complaints, which went nowhere.

If our current system isn't out of control, it's not because there's any sort of judicial review.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 03:42

Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

The black hole analogy is well met, but without legal change it will remain a black hole.

In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

I honestly don't see it going away, information privilege is not a party favorite. The only candidate I see as changing the status quo would be McCain on a point of integrity as he introduced an amendment amounting to such, but even then when his feet hit the pavement he may be hard pressed to own it.

The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...

It is, as I stated...proved illegitimate by dismissing torture outright and keeping it where it is. That is moral neglect.

Papewaio

05-24-2007, 03:42

One mans torture is another mans pleasure :laugh4:

Some actually like it.. It takes all kinds :whip:

Thats why I say homosexuals should be allowed to be tortured err married... which reminds me I have to take the Missus shoe shopping today. :wall:

Lemur

05-24-2007, 03:47

It is, as I stated...proved illegitimate by dismissing torture outright and keeping it where it is. That is moral neglect.
Hm, if someone is utterly offended at the idea of torture, I don't know if I'd call them any names. There are people who are morally outraged by abortion in all instances, and they believe as they do from principle. Likewise, there are pacifists who reject violence. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but they can certainly be principled, decent people, who are not necessarily subject to any moral decay or neglect.

I think your analysis should take into account people of good faith who arrive at different conclusions.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 03:57

I hate to re-post, but there is already a Federal definition of torture:

18 U.S. Code § 2340 (Definitions):

Not the exact thing you're talking about, namely, a law that describes which techniques are allowable with which enemy combatants, but still, it's not as though the law has been silent on the subject.

It hasn't been silent on the matter in fact, but it hasn't addressed the issue in the light of the ambiguity inherent in the current conflict. Not to mention it doesn't address our cooperation with allies who don't operate under our definitions. The furthest step forward has been the DoD and their revision of the Army FM on what activities it no longer condones. I do not know if the DoD extended like revisions to the Department of the Navy and Air Force. I know for a fact that this in no way affects CIA or paramilitary groups acting in coordination with the DoD.

I am not aware of any meaningful, unified oversight being applied at Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. It's an entirely in-house operation. In fact, when the F.B.I. was allowed to see what was being done at Gitmo, they filed complaints, which went nowhere.

Well thats part of the problem. There is a need for unified oversight. The idea of breaking down barriers for information flow needs to work for oversight as well as information sharing, maybe a worthwhile cause for the DoHD.

If our current system isn't out of control, it's not because there's any sort of judicial review.

What judicial review is there that is afforded by law? What complaints can be brought to bear that hold weight on the letter of the law and circumvent information privilege? What federal court has a legal outline on which to predicate charges against those committing torture. There aren't any.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 04:05

Hm, if someone is utterly offended at the idea of torture, I don't know if I'd call them any names.

What names? I called that stance as I clearly defined as cheapening that argument which they wish to make.

There are people who are morally outraged by abortion in all instances, and they believe as they do from principle.

But they call for it in reference to the protection of life under the law. Abandoning the need for legal code in a cry against torture makes any moral high ground illegitimate imo. Saying no to torture in the absolute without discussions in an unmocking display does not further anything. Why would you not want this all to be moved under a legal house.

Likewise, there are pacifists who reject violence. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but they can certainly be principled, decent people, who are not necessarily subject to any moral decay or neglect.

Of course there are, but they don't ignore the need for law. In fact most that I know argue the illegality of almost any violent action.

I think your analysis should take into account people of good faith who arrive at different conclusions.

I believe I have. Going so far as to explicitly state such.

KukriKhan

05-24-2007, 04:58

Temporarily closed, pending staff consultation.

KukriKhan

05-24-2007, 14:21

Re-opened with caveat: play the ball, not the man.

This is a heated discussion, but we've had those before and managed to remain civil to each other, dispite opposing views. Let's keep it that way.

Further contributions to this subject will be scrupulously parsed, so I strongly urge all to review their input before clicking "submit".

I apologize for the interruption. :bow: Kindly carry on.

Lemur

05-24-2007, 16:33

The chief military investigator of Abu Ghraib doesn't much like it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201402_pf.html). I note that none of the torture proponents have commented on the many generals' essays I've reprinted back here, with the exception of Xiahou approving of the letter from Gen. Petraeus.

Regarding "It's Our Cage, Too; Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies," the commendable May 17 op-ed by retired Marine Corps Gens. Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar:

As the investigator of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, I confronted the outcome of current interrogation policies. We undermine the values that built this country and the credibility of our armed forces when we stoop to the level of some of our enemies. The awful events at Abu Ghraib and their far-reaching consequences could have been prevented if we had adhered to the Geneva Conventions.

The policies that were implemented for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then revoked found their way into headquarters in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the staffs were contemplating draft policies. When no official direction was given, the interrogators referred to their experience in other situations, such as Guantanamo, or to the drafts they had seen. They acknowledged that they understood the Geneva Conventions and their Army training on this matter, but the pressure to uncover intelligence led them to the "new procedures."

I support the conclusion of Gens. Krulak and Hoar: "The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality."

Captured U.S. service members will face increased risk if torture becomes a tool of our interrogators. Our research showed that torture may produce an answer but that the credibility of the answer will always be in doubt. When our service members become captives, we could pay a high price for questionable intelligence that we extracted through torture.

PAUL J. KERN

The writer, a retired U.S. Army general, is a senior counselor with the Cohen Group.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 16:43

I note that none of the torture proponents have commented on the many generals' essays I've reprinted back here, with the exception of Xiahou approving of the letter from Gen. Petraeus.

I believe I covered most if not all of their content directly within the argument. I know I did so explicitly on a few occasions. What are you trying to insinuate? Or did you want me to shadow box with an editorial directly?

Lemur

05-24-2007, 16:48

Tribesman

05-24-2007, 16:49

When they recovered the body of Joseph Anzack in Iraq yesterday it showed signs of torture .
Is anyone going to speak up in support of his torture ?
After all he might have had some information that those who captured him thought would be valuable . It might have saved some of their friends of families lives .
Any takers ?
Or is torture clearly unjustifiable .

Soulforged

05-24-2007, 16:58

Lower thy hackles, man. Yes, you have addressed many of their points, but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture. If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.I think that they oppose it out of shame. They saw those man stripped from their dignity in the past, and probably they suffered it too (who knows...) and thus they're not willing to let it happen again.

EDIT: Really now, it's so strange that a man can feel compasion even for his enemies? Why reduce this subject to something low as technique or legal institutions?

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 16:59

Yes, you have addressed many of their points,

Well thank you for acknowledging it.

but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture.

I don't find it particularly odd at all. They are in a unique position after all. They look to maintain battlefield superiority which includes troop morale. A wholesale endorsement of torture would lower morale. However very few choose to make the distinction, like that found in the U.S. Army, that although removing torture from their domain in new directives (revising those in place sine 1992) does nothing but remove it from their hands. They still endorse by action the interrogations of the CIA and in fact aid and empower them in doing so. Where is the directive or policy change to change this? It isn't existent.

If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

As stated the value of morale in deniability. They probably see this deniability in repairing the image of the service in which they were dedicated to. What was your line about Tenet? A lot to make up for slam dunk? There is a lot of ground to be made up for Abu Gharib.

-edit-

When they recovered the body of Joseph Anzack in Iraq yesterday it showed signs of torture .
Is anyone going to speak up in support of his torture ?
After all he might have had some information that those who captured him thought would be valuable . It might have saved some of their friends of families lives .
Any takers ?
Or is torture clearly unjustifiable .

Nothing new from these people now is it? Do they have any type of definitions of what they do or how they do it? Oh wait, I know, they just need to ratify a treaty and they would be up to speed on what's correct, correct? I mean you do know the processes for different nations ratifying treaties do you not?

"When the Senate ratified the treaty, it defined such treatment as violations of the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendments. Because of that provision the Justice Department decided that the convention applies only to actions under U.S. jurisdiction, not treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

Who else ratified this, did the UK? What were the UK's ratification provisions? What middle eastern countries ratified it? Iran, Egypt, Iraq under Saddam? Didn't the supposed endorsement of the treaty in total without provision lead to such things as Sweden being held responsible for the torture of an individual they extradited to Egypt? An individual who was a member of Islamic Jihad? This treaty while well meaning on its face is rather like a dog that doesn't hunt, but rather chooses to sniff butts all day. Throw me a factual bone here. In fact this looks a lot like a resolution partly authored in committe by afghanistan years ago.

Rameusb5

05-24-2007, 17:20

My glib response: Anyone who is FOR torture should be tortured until they are against it.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 17:41

My glib response: Anyone who is FOR torture should be tortured until they are against it.

Hey, welcome to the discussion. I think you might actually be on to something here.

Now please do not take this personal or as a wish for me to actually do this to you or in fact for you to do this to me, its just a hypothetical exercise.

You can waterboard me, sleep deprive me, put me in cold rooms naked, slap my face and belly.

I get to rip out your fingernails, stretch you on the rack, beat you to near death, behead people detained with you, cut off your thumbs, put electrodes on your genitals, hang you to near death, beat you with reeds, beat you with pipes, beat you with garden hose, cut off your nose, cut off your ears, hang you buy your hands and place a torch under your feet, make you execute fellow prisoners, make you eat your own feces, rape you and anything else sadistic enough to come rolling off my imagination.

Lets then compare notes afterwards to discuss our experiences. Or if you like we can each be submitted to each regime at distinct periods of time and then we can compare whether we noticed a distinct difference.

doc_bean

05-24-2007, 19:08

Hey, welcome to the discussion. I think you might actually be on to something here.

Now please do not take this personal or as a wish for me to actually do this to you or in fact for you to do this to me, its just a hypothetical exercise.

You can waterboard me, sleep deprive me, put me in cold rooms naked, slap my face and belly.

I get to rip out your fingernails, stretch you on the rack, beat you to near death, behead people detained with you, cut off your thumbs, put electrodes on your genitals, hang you to near death, beat you with reeds, beat you with pipes, beat you with garden hose, cut off your nose, cut off your ears, hang you buy your hands and place a torch under your feet, make you execute fellow prisoners, make you eat your own feces, rape you and anything else sadistic enough to come rolling off my imagination.

Lets then compare notes afterwards to discuss our experiences. Or if you like we can each be submitted to each regime at distinct periods of time and then we can compare whether we noticed a distinct difference.

So, following that logic, if anal rape is worse than vaginal rape, vaginal rape should be okay since it isn't the worst thing you can think of.

Yeah, right.

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 19:15

So, following that logic, if anal rape is worse than vaginal rape, vaginal rape should be okay since it isn't the worst thing you can think of.

That has nothing to do with the price of fish, however since you brought them up as distinctly different things it should be noted that both would be listed solely in the 2nd regime. Thank you although I doubt the imaginary and hypothetical test subject Rameusb5 would thank you for adding to the regiment.

doc_bean

05-24-2007, 20:13

That has nothing to do with the price of fish, however since you brought them up as distinctly different things it should be noted that both would be listed solely in the 2nd regime. Thank you although I doubt the imaginary and hypothetical test subject Rameusb5 would thank you for adding to the regiment.

You still haven't explained how the mere existence of a worse act makes another act okay.

Banquo's Ghost

05-24-2007, 20:20

Coincidentally, John McCarthy wrote a piece in the Independent (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2578453.ece) today on torture and our desensitisation to its realities.

Worth reflecting on, whatever one's position.

John McCarthy: Television is making torture acceptable

Bond's ability to joke while his genitals are beaten makes a mockery of the degradation felt by real victims

Published: 24 May 2007

The blows were excruciating, and the anticipation of them almost as bad. For several weeks while held hostage in Lebanon in the late 1980s, I and my fellow captive Brian Keenan were at the mercy of a guard who took a twisted delight in inflicting pain.

Sometimes he would burst into our cell, screaming and striking out with the butt of his rifle. The only sensible response was to roll up into a foetal position until his fury was spent. At other times he would enter silently. Stand over us - or even on us - pushing the barrel of his gun against our temples.

It took a long time for our bodies to recover from these batterings and for our minds to be clear of the sickening dread the man inspired. But in comparison with the horrors inflicted on many clients of the British charity the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, of which I am a patron, the damage was slight.

It has been 16 years since I regained my freedom, but I still find it difficult, if not impossible, to witness on screen images of the deliberate infliction of pain by one individual on another.

Today, however, such images are increasingly difficult to avoid - for extremes of violence involving torture have become prized ammunition in the battle of the box office and the television ratings war. And with this relish for depicting the darker side of human nature have come a number of lies that must be countered, if we are to continue to live in a world where the rule of law, and respect for other human beings, remain paramount.

It is becoming increasingly clear that what we enjoy as entertainment shapes the world in which we live. As the American Psychiatric Association said recently, in calling for a reduction in television violence: "The debate is over. Over the last three decades, the one overriding finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behaviour in children."

There is research too showing that the lessons learned are copied over into adulthood, while adults exposed to violent entertainment can become desensitised and begin to identify with the aggressors, and the aggressors' solutions to problems.

The biggest lie that has gained currency through television is that torture is an acceptable weapon for the "good guys" to use if the stakes are high enough. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, so the logic goes, a line of reasoning that is particularly pernicious given the excesses that have marked the "war on terror". It is a lie that underpins Fox Television's thriller 24, which features the ruthless agent Jack Bauer in a series that Time magazine recently dubbed "a weekly rationalisation of the 'ticking bomb' defence of torture".

The "ticking bomb" scenario, in which torture is justified if there is a limited period in which to prise from a suspect information that would avert a catastrophe, is the argument of choice for torture apologists everywhere. Certainly the co-creator of 24, Joel Surnow, makes no bones about where he stands in the debate, telling The Independent recently: "If there's a bomb about to hit a major US city, and you have a person with information... if you don't torture that person, that would be one of the most immoral acts you could imagine."

Torture is never justified. It maims or kills the individual, while eroding the moral and legal principles on which a just society is based, and corrupting those branches of the state which sanction and inflict it.

The second lie that surrounds its fictional depiction is that torture works, despite the long held recognition - dating back to at least the time of Aristotle - that a victim will often say anything to stop the pain.

Late last year, the US Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan met the producers of 24 to suggest they tone down the content. He was concerned not just at the impact the torture was having on the reputation of the US, but on how it was influencing the behaviour of troops in the field. One former US Army interrogator has publicly admitted that he and his colleagues in Iraq copied behaviour and techniques seen on TV when questioning prisoners.

The entertainment industry is also guilty of minimising the true horrors of torture by failing to show the very profound impact it has on its victims' lives. James Bond's ability to joke while his genitals are beaten in Casino Royale, for instance, makes a mockery of the pain, humiliation and degradation felt by the real victims of sexual violence helped by the MF.

The point might seem academic, until it is remembered that the Bush administration has consistently tried to maintain that a variety of coercive techniques used in the "war on terror" - including sleep deprivation, forcing people to stand for long periods of time in contorted positions, and being subjected to noise bombardment - don't actually amount to torture, a stance that flies in the face of findings by the UN Committee Against Torture.

As a human rights organisation, the MF defers to no one in its support for freedom of expression. The numerous writers, journalists and other public figures among our clients who have fallen foul of repressive governments would demand nothing less. But when freedom of expression leads, either directly or indirectly, to an incitement to violence, a responsible society has the right to say that there are other principles too that it is equally important to maintain. One cannot be at the expense of another.

In case no-one remembers who Mr McCarthy is, here's a link to his story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/8/newsid_2492000/2492499.stm).

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 20:20

You still haven't explained how the mere existence of a worse act makes another act okay.

I never made that assertion.

doc_bean

05-24-2007, 20:35

I never made that assertion.

Then your argument doesn't hold up.

The only conclusion is that you assume that 'they' or doing worse, while it's not certain that the people you are torturing are 'them', you just assume so because they're Arabs or because they somehow ended up in gitmo (kinda like a witch trial, the fact that you're accused means you must have done *something*).

You are subjecting people who have never tortured and possibly oppose it to waterboarding, claiming they would have done worse. This is simply, false.

Soulforged

05-24-2007, 20:37

Shade:

Let's expand on the definitions if you please. Let's, just for the sake of argument, suppose that torture is a valorative term, perhaps you consider it that way, and perhaps it's plausible indeed, considering that it depends on the feeling of an human being. So having that in consideration: A- Does waterboarding don't clasify as torture (just to take an example)? B- Does sexual molestation clasify as such? C- The same but with sexual humiliation D- What about sleep depravation... We could follow, of course, but if we consider torture as the activity of inflicting pain in another subject, then do those examples fit or don't.

If they do. Do they also damage the dignity of an human being and possibly his health? If they do, why should they be allowed considering a liberal principle?

EDIT: Also don't you consider that the populace shares that same idea on what fits and what doesn't as torture?

ShadeHonestus

05-24-2007, 21:00

Worth reflecting on, whatever one's position.

A valuable read. There is litte contention that you'll get from me on the point that movies, tv, and the media in general completely shape for some while mildly influencing for others not only a world view but their emtional reactions. It's in my opinion that this, like others, miss the plate high and inside with their conclusions. The most dangerous result of the consumption of material like that talked about within the article is the corruption of definitions. We are unable to have a meaningful public discourse when the public is unable to define and make distinctions. This article in particular would take our collective numbing by Die Hard and 007 in the macro and promote it to the causation, and inclusion, of what are clearly defined practices within a clearly defined environment and one that we neglect to give clearly defined legality and public authority and review.

With all respect to John McCarthy this idea that to seek definitions not only for education but to understand context is to corrupt principle emtirely, is typical of the crowd that believes in order to throw out the bath water the baby must go with it. This is simply dishonest intellectually with all due respect to those on the other side of the aisle. It seems cold and callous of me I'm sure to say such things about arguments that wrap themselves in the protective garb of basic human dignity, but that is a luxury that the opposition is afforded and which I must at every corner demonstrate and put into context of the basic human dignity battle with which we are truly engaged. That being not only of the war and the nature of the opposition, but the battle for the code of law and legal definitions, that which when all else fails us, is, aside from faith, what we appeal to to uphold that right to dignity.

-edit- 1 verb tense, 1 adverb....I'm sure there are more...