Of and relating to "Torture" in a War on Terror

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I tried to do a poll on this over a year ago -- miserable failure. So I will start from the other direction -- querying you first -- and build a poll from there.

Please contribute your thoughts on:

1. What are permissable interrogation techniques/conditions of confinement? (Please name some specifics here -- part of soliciting the details is to note what one person means as opposed to another when using a given term).

2. What techniques are always inappropriate (what is torture)?

3. What techniques are conditionally appropriate (if any)?

4. Are different techniques/levels of severity appropriate when dealing with different suspects/subjects? E.G. domestic alleged and convicted criminals, foreign nationals accused of a crime, enemy combatants, irregular enemy combatants, terrorists, suspected terrorists etc.

5. What larger Law/Treaty/Cultural Norms do you see as relevant to this discussion, if any?

Feel free to cite sources in support.

Thanks in advance for your assistance?

[Tribesman]

The important bits
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person.
...........

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Anyone who supports or tries to justify torture is a sick who is a disgrace to humankind

[ShadeHonestus]

Anyone who supports or tries to justify torture is a sick who is a disgrace to humankind

Likewise as anyone who buries their head in the sand of ignorance is a sick -whatever foul language you subscribe to enter that word here - who is a disgrace to mankind.

[Tribesman]

Likewise as anyone who buries their head in the sand of ignorance is a sick

You have tried to justify torture because of "circumstances" , your ignorance is as astounding as your barbarism , though of course barbarism and ignorance do go well together .
read this bit again No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

when did your government ratify this ?

[ShadeHonestus]

You have tried to justify torture because of "circumstances" , your ignorance is as astounding as your barbarism , though of course barbarism and ignorance do go well together .
read this bit again No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

when did your government ratify this ?

So very self-righteous indeed, sounding very much like a...fundamentalist. Haven't you decried all fundamentalism at one point or another...above is a mirror.

[Papewaio]

Likewise as anyone who buries their head in the sand of ignorance is a sick -whatever foul language you subscribe to enter that word here - who is a disgrace to mankind.

I think the ignorance is on your part. The whole aim of Al Qaeda was to take down the West. What utter brilliance it takes to then play their game by their rules. By playing the game of torture we only help their propaganda machine and prove them correct that we are the barbarians.

A: Why torture terrorists?
B: Because they will destroy our way of life.
A: So to stop them destroying our freedoms we will take away their rights and freedoms for security.
B: Correct.
A: Don' we lose our freedoms too?
B: If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide?
A: So to stop my freedoms from being destroyed I have to give them all up?
B: Correct.
A: So how do we know they have done the bad things.
B: Their neighbours told us.
A: The ones we paid money to tell us who the bad guys are.
B: Right.
A: But what if the neighbours were the terrorists and sold out the good guys?
B: We use intelligence to figure that out.
A: The same intelligence that figured out 9/11 was going to happen?
B: No, a different intelligence.
A: Which is?
B: Well we torture the illegal combatants until they tell us the truth.
A: So you torture them to figure out if they really are the bad guys?
B: Correct.
A: But what if they don't cooperate?
B: We torture them some more until they do.
A: So how do you tell if they are good guys who don't know anything.
B: We only torture those who are in prison.
A: But I thought we hadn't determined yet if they were actually bad guys.
B: Well if they are in prison they must be.
A: Ah, I see its like the witches in the middle ages. You tie a rope to their feet, throw them in water and if they float back up they are a witch and get burned at the stake.
B: What happens if they stay down?
A: They drown.
B: Hmm, gives me a good idea for the next round of water torture. If they refuse to talk and drown they must be a terrorist. Brilliant, thanks you really help me think properly with my gray matter.

[ShadeHonestus]

Papewaio

Asking yourself questions and answering them without subtracting bias and adding reality are an exercise in what exactly beyond self grandizement of one's argument which lends itself to run away scenarios and the 'chicken little" attitude.

A: Why torture terrorists?
B: Because they will destroy our way of life.

A: Why use enhanced techniques on those terrorists we've detained which we strongly suspect have knowledge of particular information.
B: To save lives, including yours.

A: So to stop them destroying our freedoms we will take away their rights and freedoms for security.
B: Correct.

A: So to stop them from killing us we will take away their rights.
B: Give them a legal definition to afford them rights. Give our people legal definitions to protect us. Moments earlier this could have been a person on his cellphone giving the go word to set up a cell in New York. Suddenly as a detainee he wears a halo and appreciates your arguments so much that if he had flown the planes into the WTC he would swerved to avoid hitting you.

A: Don' we lose our freedoms too?
B: If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide?

What freedoms are compromised again? By given legal pretext for interrogation techniques, suddenly we forget? Or are you afraid the local cop will torture you for your milk money?

A: So to stop my freedoms from being destroyed I have to give them all up?
B: Correct.

A: So to stop my freedoms form being destroyed I have to accept legal definitions and accept the culpability of our intelligence agencies through the decades? Not to mention I have to accept my own responsibility to take part in government?
B: Correct.

A: So how do we know they have done the bad things.
B: Illegal wire taps that allows bush to eavesdrop on your porn calls. 1-800-976- SLUT

Fixed.

A: The ones we paid money to tell us who the bad guys are.
B: Right.

You must have been a champion of the torreceli act or whatever the hell that moron from New Jersey was.

A: The ones we discover shooting at us with AK's or planting roadside bombs, or identified by those higher up in theaters of conflict not to mention our intelligence network as a whole.
B: Right.

A: But what if the neighbours were the terrorists and sold out the good guys?
B: We use intelligence to figure that out.

Too gd ridicoulous. Its like me saying flower power will cause me to choke on daisies.

A: The same intelligence that figured out 9/11 was going to happen?
B: No, a different intelligence.

Actually is quite different or haven't you followed the changes in that community under previous administrations and through this one.

A: Which is?
B: Well we torture the illegal combatants until they tell us the truth.

Yes, we have mobile "torture" trucks that go wherever an enemy combantant is found.

A: So you torture them to figure out if they really are the bad guys?
B: Correct.

Absolutely, we do this all the time especially when they won't answer us when we just ask them if they are. /sarcasm off grow up.

A: But what if they don't cooperate?
B: We torture them some more until they do.
A: So how do you tell if they are good guys who don't know anything.
B: We only torture those who are in prison.
A: So how do you tell if they are good guys who don't know anything.
B: We only torture those who are in prison.
A: But I thought we hadn't determined yet if they were actually bad guys.
B: Well if they are in prison they must be.
A: Ah, I see its like the witches in the middle ages. You tie a rope to their feet, throw them in water and if they float back up they are a witch and get burned at the stake.
B: What happens if they stay down?
A: They drown.
B: Hmm, gives me a good idea for the next round of water torture. If they refuse to talk and drown they must be a terrorist. Brilliant, thanks you really help me think properly with my gray matter.

Wow your grasp of "torture" and intelligence procedures is right out of a monty python manual isn't it? Really shouldn't you be calling for every politician who has been in office since 1941 to be hanged for conducting such an apparatus. I mean this is factual right?

[Tribesman]

Shades can't read .....No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

he still tries to justify it
example....B: To save lives, including yours.
chicken little indeed , a whole hatchery of them screaming that the sky is falling in
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever simple isn't it .

[AntiochusIII]

I thought waterboarding is a summer sport...

Oh , what did I just sign up for?

[Papewaio]

Papewaio

Asking yourself questions and answering them without subtracting bias and adding reality are an exercise in what exactly beyond self grandizement of one's argument which lends itself to run away scenarios and the 'chicken little" attitude.

A: Why use enhanced techniques on those terrorists we've detained which we strongly suspect have knowledge of particular information.
B: To save lives, including yours.

How PC of you. Its not torture it's enhanced information gathering techniques. And no they haven't saved my life, they if anything are leading to an environment that diminishes it.

A: So how do we know they have done the bad things.
B: Illegal wire taps that allows bush to eavesdrop on your favourite calls. 1-800-976-

Fixed.

Sorry I can't come to the phone right now I'm too busy...

You must have been a champion of the torreceli act or whatever the hell that moron from New Jersey was.

A: The ones we discover shooting at us with AK's or planting roadside bombs, or identified by those higher up in theaters of conflict not to mention our intelligence network as a whole.
B: Right.

You do know how terrorist cells work right? Those that do the job aren't generally the ones who know where the next ones will occur. If a airman doesn't know where his next mission and ground target will be, what are the chances that a suicide bomber or one step up a bomb layer know where the next targets are going to be? Likewise if you do catch someone higher up the targets will change, thats the whole idea of warfare, its fluid. Its not like a board game with everyone holding cards and a list of targets for the next turn.

Too gd ridicoulous. Its like me saying flower power will cause me to choke on daisies.

Invoking a better time

Actually is quite different or haven't you followed the changes in that community under previous administrations and through this one.

That they still don't have enough organic assets that can speak the languages they are intercepting? That stopping terrorism is best served by good police work and building up viable conduits into the community... as per the British experience.

Yes, we have mobile "torture" trucks that go wherever an enemy combantant is found.

Why bother with torture trucks when you can fly them from non-cooperative countries into ones that use torture umm enhanced interrogation techniques. Gees get with the times, its much better to outsource, how protectionist '84 of you.

Absolutely, we do this all the time especially when they won't answer us when we just ask them if they are. /sarcasm off grow up.

Same difference.

Wow your grasp of "torture" and intelligence procedures is right out of a monty python manual isn't it? Really shouldn't you be calling for every politician who has been in office since 1941 to be hanged for conducting such an apparatus. I mean this is factual right?

Actually it is more Yes, Minister.

[PanzerJaeger]

Anyone who supports or tries to justify torture is a sick who is a disgrace to humankind

So righteously indignant.. awesome!

[Redleg]

1. What are permissable interrogation techniques/conditions of confinement? (Please name some specifics here -- part of soliciting the details is to note what one person means as opposed to another when using a given term).

Standard police interrogation techniques should be more then enough. The individual isolation lockup cell is also an acceptable technique.

2. What techniques are always inappropriate (what is torture)?

By my simple definition anything that uses the application of pain to gain information.

3. What techniques are conditionally appropriate (if any)?

Sleep depreviation does not seem to be torture in my mind - however there is a point that it causes harm to the human body - so one can not exceed that point.

4. Are different techniques/levels of severity appropriate when dealing with different suspects/subjects? E.G. domestic alleged and convicted criminals, foreign nationals accused of a crime, enemy combatants, irregular enemy combatants, terrorists, suspected terrorists etc.

Different levels of security yes. Isolation can be a useful tool in gathering information - some simple manipulation of the environment such as changing the time for food and light to cause confusion does not strike me as torture.

5. What larger Law/Treaty/Cultural Norms do you see as relevant to this discussion, if any?

The United States signed a treaty about torture - we should honor that treaty