Torture-- Let's Get Real

[Ironside]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A.Saturnus]

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

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

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[Xiahou]

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

Geez man, that's not waterboarding... where did you hear that? It's when you put someone on a board, tilt it upsidedown, with their head partially submerged (not the face). Then, you place a damp cloth over the nose & mouth and proceed to pour water on their face. As some water seeps through, and due to the overall situation (upside down, partially submerged, ect) it apparently creates a very real and very frightening sensation of drowning without significant risk of actually drowning (since the lungs are actually elevated above the head and water cant easily flow into them). I'm not saying that's much nicer, mind you, but lets be accurate at least.

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

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

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

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

The same thing happens in the US under coercive police interrogations- I've seen video of police officers lying/threatening/browbeating someone until they confess, only to be freed later. Clearly, torture for the purposes of making someone confess to doing something is going to regularly give false results.

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

[Soulforged]

The same thing happens in the US under coercive police interrogations- I've seen video of police officers lying/threatening/browbeating someone until they confess, only to be freed later. Clearly, torture for the purposes of making someone confess to doing something is going to regularly give false results.

The police acted wrong. And you're wrong about the use of torture, it's irrelevant if you can get results or not, the probability of the result being -how can I call it?...- "biased" or totally created out of the nothing, is enough for any court to dismiss it, and it's enough for the law to presume it like biased or created. You can argue about how many cases it worked, but it will be for naught.

[Xiahou]

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

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

I think that's what is really unfortunate here. The Bush administration has had many opportunities to refine and limit the scope of their use of coercive interrogations so as to protect it's use for the high-value targets. Yet, they missed opportunity after opportunity thinking they could keep their carte blanche and now they've been stuck with the McCain ammendment because of it. A big screw up by the administration, imo.

[Lemur]

The Bush administration has had many opportunities to refine and limit the scope of their use of coercive interrogations so as to protect it's use for the high-value targets.

If you've been reading any of the first-hand accounts from guys who were conducting/facilitating interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan, you must know that this lack of clarity has hit the ground. Some guys use dogs. The SEALS get a lot of props from the other interrogators for inducing hypothermia without killing the subjects. (Well, they did kill and photograph one, but we'll have to chalk that up to the odds.)

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

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

[master of the puppets]

lol, iron pokers will do the job too

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

hooray for torture.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

lol, iron pokers will do the job too

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

hooray for torture.

Cattle prods are fun, are they not?

[Del Arroyo]

Cattle prods are fun, are they not?

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

DA

[Duke John]

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

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

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

...

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