Printable View
I see. Then I accept your premise. Your questions are valid, however, there is a need for definition -- at least, enough to draw a perceivable line -- and there is much need to adhere strictly to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
What, then, would be your line between barbarism and acceptable practice? Or, if a line is too strict a demand, that gray area..?
Well, I touched on it my staking out points on the gradient. Acts which are specifically designed to cause physical suffering should be avoided. Those which cause mental suffering should only be undertaken after careful consideration of the consequences and whether the goal is the suffering itself, or is tangential to the act. That is, solitary confinement may cause mental suffering. If the goal of the confinement is to cause that suffering, than it shouldn't be allowed. If the goal is to protect the safety of the inmate, or the other inmates in the prison population than it should be.
What if [and I'm just being particularly picky here] the goal is right and the method is wrong? There's talk about ends and means in this thread and I'm not sure that definition is the one I'm entirely secure on.
What if, for example, the prisoner is forced to either take to waterboarding or "fess up," and it is done to obtain information for a good cause, not because the torturer likes waterboarding people. Does that make it "right" and not torture?
Isnt being sent to the hole still practiced these days in prison? Not only are you deprived of company but of light there as well. You food ration is also substantially reduced. I guess Tito would know more about it. This would certainly be considered torture no? Its only purpose is to make one suffer. Again Im not sure if its still in practice anywhere but no offense the south would be the place to check.Quote:
hat is, solitary confinement may cause mental suffering. If the goal of the confinement is to cause that suffering, than it shouldn't be allowed. If the goal is to protect the safety of the inmate, or the other inmates in the prison population than it should be.
Hi Don, I remember posting several definitions for you in an earlier thread. You never wrote back. I felt lonely and rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
If I remember correctly, all I got for my pains was a lot of quibbling over how the federal legal definition of "torture" was irrelevant from one Orgah, and a general basting for wanting to cuddle terrorists from another. An altogether unrewarding experience.
I think you're quite right that "torture" is broad and malleable term, and it can be abused by many, many people. You can misuse it by defining it too expansively -- as with your line about incarceration being torture, which is obviously false. Likewise, you can abuse the word by defining it too narrowly, as regimes do when they want to hang people by their thumbs but not be in violation of the law.
I think that both over-expansive and over-inclusive uses of the word fail the smell test. If you're willing to be reasonable, it's not hard to say what's torture and what is not. The rather hysterical rhetoric that comes from the left and the right depends on abusing the word "torture" itself, and that same rhetoric gets in the way of having a meaningful discussion.
Would that not depend upon why you are being incarcerated and for how long and where and under what conditions just to name a few variables?Quote:
as with your line about incarceration being torture, which is obviously false.
No. The goal of waterboarding is to induce terror and a sensation of drowning. As opposed to simple stress or fear (you're gonna go away for a long time in a nasty prison if you don't confess), actual terror actually rises to my standard of physical suffering and thus isn't justifiable in my book. Similarly, sleep depravation beyond 36 hours and the induction of hypothermia would be taboo in my book. Playing offensive music or speech and forcing the recipient to listen, if I had valid information I had a reasonable expecation the target held would be allowable, as that would qualify as mental suffering but the intent is the extraction of the information, not the mental suffering itself.
Fair enough, Gawain. Locking someone away for life for spitting on the sidewalk is cruel and unjust. I don't believe it is torture, however.
Me so sorry, Lemur-san. ~:pat: I usually give these threads about half a day (each time less than the last as my patience wanes) to produce somebody's view of torture. You're right, and my intent of introducing the concept of the definition of torture is not to introduce a straw-man I have the pleasure to knock down, though I understand where some might be concerned that might be my intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The reason I seek definition is because the term torture means inhumane suffering, which is a distinctly relative term. For laws and ethical principles to have any meaning, they must have some meat on their bones, i.e. objectiveness by which we may all understand the compact to which we agree.
As you fear the straw-man, I fear the unwilling bandwagon. I don't want to sign on with an absolute statement against torture, only to hear that law enforcement may no longer attempt to use verbal coercion (your partner already gave you up). Likely? No, but certainly plausible.
If we really are talking about the garden variety definition of terrorism and harsh methods, in all but the most extreme extenuating circumstances, I am opposed.
Why dont you try it for a while? See how you feel after a few months. I did a year and it was torture believe me. Hit me few times and let me go please. Then again boot camp was much worse but you volunteer for that right? :laugh4: Unless your drafted. Is making some one chew on tin foil torture?Quote:
Fair enough, Gawain. Locking someone away for life for spitting on the sidewalk is cruel and unjust. I don't believe it is torture, however.
He he Maybe we should give criminals a choice of a whipping instead of jail time :)
Gawain, I understand what you're talking about. Some conversations with dull relatives are painful as well. Putting your penis in a mouse-trap because you want to be on TV is painful. Lots of things are painful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
However, in this context, torture means the deliberate induction of mental and/or physical pain. You were put away, as I understand it, because the system was messed up. There was no deliberate intent to induce pain, beyond the natural unpleasantness of incarceration.
And I agree with you, offering corporal punishment in lieu of jail time might be a better arrangement all around, especially when you consider how much it costs to keep a body in prison. It wouldn't fly with the voters, however.
A statement as to one of the reason the average Saudi does not have all that much reason to like you too much. There's a bunch of others too, all more or less complicated naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Nobody particularly likes colonial exploiters you know. The Brits happily used mustard gas to quell uprisings in what is now Iraq between the World Wars, remember ? Religion is quite irrelevant in this regard, and indeed far as I know the post-WW2 anticolonial movements in the Muslim world were by far more often based on ideologies like nationalism and modified Socialism than anything with a particularly religious bent. I'm pretty sure the Saudis - who weren't under the colonial thumb - took a fair while longer to start disliking you, as that had to develop primarily through the distaste US policies in the region were regarded with.Quote:
I dont mean to suggest that your average Muslim has plans to rule the world. You seem to be arguing against yourself here. I say it is because we got involved over there in the 50s and they look at the Koran and it told them hey dont trust these guys so they dont. But their distrust of us goes back much further than that Now do you have a different opinion?
That's called "piracy", Sherlock. The exact only thing that made the Barbary corsairs different from most in that ancient if not respectable profession was that they could quote Scriptures to feel all warm and fuzzy about "fighting the Infidel" whenever they wanted. Well, and the fact piracy was a well-organized state-backed industry in that curious part of the North African coastline, but then you could say all that about the French Huguenots who raided the Spanish Main in the 1500s and "pirate towns" like St. Malo, nevermind now the Protestant English state-supported piracy also against the Spanish...Quote:
Also we have been fighting them almost from the inception of our nation , long before there was any oil they were raiding our commerce. We even had to assure them when we made peace that we were not a Christian nation.
You should really read up on the history of that. Might give you some perspective. Did you know, for example, that the Barbary corsairs learned the art of making very good sailing ships (like most on the Med, they'd relied entirely on galleys until then) from a Dutch renegade (who, IIRC, eventually retired to live off his ill-gotten fortune in England or something like that) in the 1500s ? The institutions and practices for ransoming prisoners, buying back captured ships, and other such practicalities of mutual large-scale piracy that developed between the Christian and Muslim sea-powers of the region were also quite interestingly sophisticated and pragmatic; the standard result of people making a living off the exact same business at different sides of the border (which tended to be more than a little fuzzy too, when it came to that).
Heck, the only bunch with genuinely religious motivations in the whole region were pretty much the Knights of St. John - and they weren't too hesitant to prey on Christian shipping either. Although they were a little unusual in that whenever they boarded a grain shipment to fill their own granaries (and duly massacred most of the crew in process) they actually usually reimbursed the owners later - most Christian navies could not be bothered to do even that; more likely the owners had to buy back their ships from those...
:inquisitive: And what the Hell do the Nazis have to do here ? Don't tell me I need to start explaining those differences too...Quote:
It was much the same in Nazi Germany.
No, I quite think they are.Quote:
I dont think our opinions are really that far apart but the written word is not my forte as you people can obviousy tell.:laugh4:
Show me a Scripture that isn't. Even Buddhists have proven quite well able to play rather fast and loose with theirs.Quote:
Its just that its so damn easy to quote it and use it for evil.
:dizzy2: Anyone would be a major war criminal if he behaved as the average Medieval European warlord did, these days.Quote:
If I were a Muslim Im afraid id be a terrorist. That is if I took the Koran at its word or even behaved as Mohamed did.
Perspective.
Thinking Medieval, aren't we ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As I recall, there have been a number of threads that discussed and debated
what constitues torture. There was no resolve in any of these, because those that condone any or limited forms of torture see it as justifiable if the ends justify the means - or even if it doesn't and the wrong person is being tortured because of clerical error, or misidentification.
It is not so much a matter of what constitutes torture, but whether or not there are other means available that are in fact more conducive to attaining verifiable information - versus, the suspect saying anything the interrogator asks them just so the "interview" ends.
Someone mentioned the ACLU's position on torture. Though it is true the ACLU is handling a number of cases that challange the interrogation techniques of more than a few Police Departments - and have suceeded in getting more than a few cases over turned because of both excessive enthusiasm (on the part of detectives) and that the interviews weren't video taped (note, those that were aided in the dismissals). However, I think the ACLU is more concerned about equal justice for all, rather than the sliding rule we have today that is based on the economic scale of an individual being prosecuted. Wealthy people do not get interrogated, their lawyers have them out of jail in a matter of hours (some times even if the charge is murder) - and sweetheart deals get cut when they are guilty. Regardless, the ACLU is not happy about GITMO - but, not based on the torture being conducted there (though it is a factor), but on the denial of basic human rights that America has always claimed to be the spine of our democratic system of government.
This ought to PO every American that believes the USA is a shining light of moral and ethical fiber that Gitmo exists under a nation of laws. But, it doesn't bother some. Those people see it as a necessity, justified because of 9/11 and reinforced out of fear. Torture is just a byproduct of that fear, whether torture is affective is actually of less consequence than that it makes the true believers feel good that something is being done. Right or wrong, something is being done - and isn't that all anyone can ask for? Who needs laws when they have the righteousness of 9/11 on their side?
Regardless, it is not a matter of using tortue, or its morality, legality, or any of the other ___tys. It is a matter that there are better methods to accomplish the goals intended (gathering information) than using torture purports to achieve, and they aren't because .... because, why exactly?
:balloon2:
Yeah like Drake. Its not Piracy when its sanctioned by the state Sherlock. Since when do we sign treaties with Pirates?Quote:
That's called "piracy", Sherlock.
Do I really have to show you the similarities?Quote:
And what the Hell do the Nazis have to do here ? Don't tell me I need to start explaining those differences too...
Your being obstinate then.Quote:
No, I quite think they are.
You could start with the New Testament. I know weve been through this countless times. You would have to read The art of war to find a book that comes close to the Koran. Dont make silly claims that all religious books are as easy to find things telling you to kill the unbeliever in them.Quote:
Show me a Scripture that isn't. Even Buddhists have proven quite well able to play rather fast and loose with theirs.
My point is that the average person looking at the Koran would come away as a terrorist. That OBLs interpretation is correct.Quote:
Anyone would be a major war criminal if he behaved as the average Medieval European warlord did, these days.
Ive always maintained that religion can and often is used as an excuse for war. It is rarely the reason for war itself. I said if we hadnt messed around over there they would still hate us but they wouldnt be attacking us. Now where exactly do we part company here? The only part I can see is you think they wouldnt hate us anyway. Maybe hate is too strong a word. Look down upon us may be a better term.
The average person reading the Torah should become a terrorist too, using your logic. The new testament is full of bigotry and violence as well, perhaps you've never studied it like you should. Jesus himself is shown to be a racist when he refuses to heal a non-Jew. "not wasting my time" as he puts it. I don't even want to get into the psychotic insanity of the "Revelation".
And please, if the "Art of War" is your nearest comparison to the Qur'an, clearly you've never read the "Old Testament" which is full of mytholgical genocides, murders, rapes, incest, and wanton destruction for no reason.
In fact, the Gospel of Judas claims that the "God" of the OT is in fact the evil one that should be avoided.
Go back a few thousand years and tell me about it.Quote:
The average person reading the Torah should become a terrorist too, using your logic.
1815? Although I think that was payment of protection money rather than a treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Edit:
A pirate attacks anyone unless they have already paid for "protection" (and sometimes will do even then).
A privateer attacks the ships and holdings of specific nations as he is contracted to act against (for example Drake and the Spanish).
Thats the one Im speaking about. It was a treaty between us and the Bey of Tripoli . In other words the ruler. You can call him a pirate if you like.Quote:
1815? Although I think that was payment of protection money rather than a treaty.
There were two revolutions: the first was the Februari Revolution wich saw the Romanovs deposed. The October Revolution was against the provisional government set up after the Tzar's fall, and was arguably more a coup d'etat by Lenin's "working class vanguard"; while they were numerous they only amounted to a fraction of the total populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
What distinguishes revolutions from rebellions is that the former is aimed removing and reinventing the socio-political order entirely rather then changing policy or replacing the governing elite. Ideologization of the proto-revolutionaries is vital because the "masses" have to be convinced that they're opressed, or beset by infidels etc. while their objective circumstances are not nearly as relevant.
You seem to be implying that the decision to resort to terrorism comes first, followed by the need to legitimize it with something - in this case, the Qu'ran and Sura. Just like a ideology allows for a revolution instead of just a rebellion, I'd argue that Islamic currents like Wahabism and Salafism contribute significantly to sectarian terrorism.
On that note, these two have their roots in broader Islam just like Marx-Leninism has its roots in Das Kapital and the Communist manifesto. To what degree Islamic scripture is "responsible" I can't say, moreso because my knowledge of it is anecdotal, but to say it has no role in causing terrorism equals sticking your head in the sand.
Even if Iraq were a Christian nation, I'd wager you the level of violence would still be comparable to what it is now as an Islamic nation.
Im sure you can back that up LOL. I doubt many here share that opinion. For starts what would they have against Israel?Quote:
Even if Iraq were a Christian nation, I'd wager you the level of violence would still be comparable to what it is now as an Islamic nation.
You think the insurgency in Iraq has anything to do with Israel?
What has this to do with the topic ? Is terrorism and torture limited to Iraq? What brought Iraq into the conversation anyway? Iran calls for the destruction of Israel because their Jews. How clear do I need to make myslef ? Do christians nowdays call for the destruction of jews or an end to Israel.Quote:
You think the insurgency in Iraq has anything to do with Israel?
Nice point, and one of the larger concerns I have. Unlike you, in times of war (side note: I wish the Bushies had had the stones to ask for and get such a full-on declaration btw), I am willing to have some limited "ends justifying means" come into play (e.g. individuals held in mental hospitals during WW2). But I am VERY concerned that we have the wrong end goal "feel tough/get revenge" in mind. That would be torture for torture's sake -- :shame: -- and would be a blot on our record.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Where is the data to suggest that these means are better than more normal means at producing the only worthwile/moral end -- valuable information? Have any of you seen such data? Any former interrogators out there who can confirm these tools as valid?
Having spoken with several who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan, I know of a minority sentiment among our troops that would obviate the need for Guantanamo Bay's incarceration facility. I admire their restraint in very difficult circumstances. Are tales of "harsh measures" being used to placate this sentiment? Would that be a good thing?
Err, the recent debate on torture has come about due to US actions in the WoT which, like it or not, somehow involves Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Besides which you brought Israel into the discussion.
My mistake was my bad old eyes i read Iraq as Iran :oops:Quote:
You could have saved a bit of time by simply typing "I agree Kralizec"!
But how can anyone support his statement
On what basis? Its mere conjecture. Woulndt most here wager against him?Quote:
Even if Iraq were a Christian nation, I'd wager you the level of violence would still be comparable to what it is now as an Islamic nation.
Uh, because popular resentment to occupation is a UNIVERSAL effect, not religious. I thought you were somewhat of a student of history...
More than some what. I agreed that it was , whats your problem? Of course though we should ignore Muslim occupation because it was good.Quote:
Uh, because popular resentment to occupation is a UNIVERSAL effect, not religious. I thought you were somewhat of a student of history...
Actually, you could make an argument that resistance to Muslim aggression was one of the catalysts for the rise of nationalism in Europe that led to European domination of global affairs for more than 400 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Your statement Sir GoO would indicate that you are wagering against Mr Z and not agreeing with him. I'll take the wager that Zaknafien is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Lets use WWII as an example.
French Resistance (Secular/Catholic state)
Okinawa (Shinto/Buddhist state)
Britain (Secular/Anglican state)... wasn't taken over but Churchill's speech was pretty much a description of what would have happened.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: