The Torture Question

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 4 of 16

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.

Who did that, and when. I see no statements, by anyone, who say such a thing.

Your statement was paramount to accussing cant of wanting to barr freedom of speech, by simply dispairing at such a bizzare and blinkered opinion as Mr Moran's, which I didn't see as the case.
Furthermore, I dispair that anyone can be so blind to the logical extent of their position.
Frankly Mr Moran's comments do invite the idea of a fascist system, if they were more prevelant within American society.
Cant's comments were not indicative of trying to gag Mr Moran or anyone like him, but of disparing at someone with such an idiotic view.

Extending that to be a bad reflection on the entire nation is too much, but it's not the same thing as saying "these people shouldn't be allowed to speak". I'd still say cant wasn't tarring all of America with that brush, as cant said some folks...

Saying such a thing would, in essence, make 'us' as 'bad' as him.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Slippery slope alert. Next might be: "Just because we find slavery (or subjugation of women, or genital mutilation of teen girls, or religious intolerence) a socital evil doesn't mean someone else's definition is a prefect match.

There are some things about which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There's others that are just wrong.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms. If you take moral relativity out to its far end (which I am in no way justifying, let me make myself perfectly clear), then yes, you get that aspect. On the other hand, you two lads fall into the same range with moral absolutism. They're two sides of the same coin. You don't like our way? Hahaha, too bad, we're right and you're wrong, so we'll desecrate and torture all we want, and if you have a problem with it it's irrelevant because our way is always 100% right (which is 100% wrong, and frankly, evil).

There has to be a middle ground, and your way isn't cutting it either. Even you admit that all 'our way or the highway' does is fan the flames of hatred in the Moslem world. What I'm saying is that since they seem to get all shades of wound up over us dicking with the Koran, maybe we ought to stop dicking around with the Koran, not that we ought to let them go around raping at will.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

GEEZER

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Tarring the entire country with Mr. Moran's jingoistic brush is a bit simplistic.

Who did that, and when. I see no statements, by anyone, who say such a thing.

"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."

Duh.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms.

When the cultural sensitivity relating to a religion extends to the determination that anyone who doesn't believe in their particular form of religion is less than human and that killing them insures you a place in heaven...I have a problem with that. I have just as much problem (or maybe not quite, since they aren't out to actually kill me) with the folk who propose "intelligent design" and are sure (their) god hates gays, contraception and abortion.

I'm beginning to wonder if any evangelical religion hits a violently expansionist phase about 1200 years after its inception. Consider that the crusades, with their fanaticism and various abominations, started around 1200 A.D. (give or take a century). Islam started about 866 A.D. It's time for their "Crusades", eh?.

Totally off topic, there's a wonderful statement in the November Smithsonian, from Edward O. Wilson, who proposed most of human behavior derives from biology and natural selection. He noted that "...the religious right's increasingly vocal opposition to Darwinian theory is rooted in a "dislike of human sociobiology", especally the idea that human values flow from biology rather than from a nonphysical soul." I couldn't have put it better myself.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:50 AM

OOPs.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:23 AM

Quote:
Now answer, Finn, should the culture of the tortured be taken into account?

Another way to ask this question: When does intimidation and degradation cross the line and become torture?

(The UN defines torture as: "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT750042000)

Intimidation and degradation is very much subject-defined. Interrogators find what subjects are afraid of and push that button. Whether that fear is a result of a cultural, personality, gender, racial or age sensitivity is moot.

The question is: at what point does the button pushing become torture? When is the pain too severe?

It is in answering that question that our cultural biases come into play. Westerners cannot fathom mere religious violations to constitute "severe" pain or suffering. You ask a devout Arab Muslim though, and they can well imagine the severity of the subject's suffering. More to the point, so can the interrogators. That is why they picked that tactic to begin with--they are *trying* to cause suffering just severe enough to cause the subject to break and give them what they want. Obviously, if the suffering is indeed severe enough to break the subject, then it should be severe enough to be labeled torture.

But the amount of pain required to break the will of subjects varies greatly from person to person. Should someone not be considered tortured simply because he can endure more pain than others? Amnesty International proposes that the intention to break a victim coupled with acute suffering should be sufficient. AI proposes that 4 elements make up torture:

Quote:

1. the involvement of at least two people, the torturer and the victim;
2. the infliction of acute pain and suffering;
3. the intention to break the will of the victim;
4. systematic activity with a rational purpose.
(see link above)

To answer the original question, I would say: If acute intimidation and degradation was inflicted systematically with the intention of breaking an individual for punishment/ information, it is torture. Obviously, I would say all those humiliation tactics used at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are torture. Much of that torture may be milder than other instances, but they are torture nonetheless.

The REAL question for me is not the definition of torture, but whether torture is ever justified. Should a society tolerate or endorse mild forms of torture in order achieve greater objectives such as saving lives? THAT is the real moral dilemma we are wrestling with.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...I can certainly understand and even agree with the necessity of keeping certain things secret. “Torture” is one of those things that should be dealt with very carefully, especially during wartime.

The tactics used by our military in this war constitute torture by standards set by the UN and human rights organizations. However, I understand that you don't see those tactics as torture. So questions on secrecy:

1. Would you support keeping what you know so far of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo interrogations secret until after the war is over?

2. What activities would you consider to be enough torture to warrant public exposure during wartime?

Quote:
...I do find it despicable that the issue of torture in the news seems to be more often a political tool... Since this is likely to inflame threats against our military men, citizens and US supporters abroad..., it is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.

I would like to know if you think this Frontline program is despicable or ethically tantamount to homicide after you've seen the program. Do you think programs like this should be suppressed until after the war so as not to inflame threats against our soldiers?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Canttakesky:
"What does it say about us as a nation that we have folks who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret."

Let me rephrase.

What does it say about us as a nation that we have a significant percentage of citizens who not only support state-authorized torture, but also want to keep it secret?

I could write Mr. Woran off as a loony. Every nation has those. But his sentiments are shared by a good number of others who also wrote Frontline, even if his wording was more hysterical than the rest.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Actually, the slippery slope started when you and Finn equated cultural sensitivity regarding religious artifacts with genital mutilation and rape rooms.

Actually that is an equation you made. All I said is that I don’t think defacing the Koran is torture. You’re the one who seems to insist that torture is dependent on the religious fanaticism of the detainee, and that the US should be held responsible for the fanaticism of its enemies.

I don’t know many Moslems outside this country, but I know many in the country, and they would likely be offended by the claim that they or their culture can’t tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
1. Would you support keeping what you know so far of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo interrogations secret until after the war is over?

2. What activities would you consider to be enough torture to warrant public exposure during wartime?

1. I think Abu Ghraib was newsworthy. I think it went to too far and exposing it and prosecuting the offenders was the right thing to do. I think however that it is important to keep things in perspective and accusing the US of being a “torture nation” as some have is not perspective. I haven’t looked into it lately, but I don’t remember anything at Gitmo that would constitute torture.

2. That’s a difficult call. One needs to carefully weigh the importance and confidence of the evidence against the lives that will be lost as a result of exposure. Certainly not the continued release of images that provide nothing substantive on a particular event already exposed, or dubious or unsupported claims. Solid evidence of the use of electrodes or instruments designed to inflicted physical pain might be newsworthy. Somewhere in between may be a judgment call.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I would like to know if you think this Frontline program is despicable or ethically tantamount to homicide after you've seen the program. Do you think programs like this should be suppressed until after the war so as not to inflame threats against our soldiers?

I haven’t seen it, so I can’t comment. I don’t know when I’ll have time to sit down and watch it. I certainly don’t think that information should necessarily be suppressed, although at the government level sensitive information should be controlled. I’d like to think that we have a responsible media that is capable and willing to provide its own policing and can make responsible judgments about what can and should be released. The freedom of the press is a hallmark of American liberty and abusing it, from either end, can have serious implications.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I have just as much problem (or maybe not quite, since they aren't out to actually kill me) with the folk who propose "intelligent design" and are sure (their) god hates gays, contraception and abortion.

I'm with you 100% on this one. There's that bizarre sect out of Kansas that protests at soldier funerals with signs like "God kills Marines because they support a country with fags in it" and such. Crazy people. Far-right-wing Evangelical Xtians who believe the rapture is only a glass parking lot away make me very nervous. There's a group in (I believe it was) New Hampshire that constructed a prop missile and had its members dress in fatigues for a "spiritual warfare" project, supposedly "in support" of our troops. I'm sorry, but folks like that are only our constitution away from Taliban-ing themselves. And that's the kind of moral absolutism I'm talking about - The "I know for 100% certain God Hates Fags and I'll show you" crowd.

Quote:
I'm beginning to wonder if any evangelical religion hits a violently expansionist phase about 1200 years after its inception. Consider that the crusades, with their fanaticism and various abominations, started around 1200 A.D. (give or take a century). Islam started about 866 A.D. It's time for their "Crusades", eh?.

You know, I don't think it's a 1200 year itch, but I do think it comes in cycles, and this is their turn. I think it happens when society moves on from religion, and the faithful can't immediately orient themselves to the new way of doing things. With Islam, it has existed for years with an anti-female, anti-Jewish mindset that is now completely incompatible with the structure of the modern world; the faithful go into violent 'seizures' until the religion as a whole comes into alignment. I worry the same thing is due to happen (though nowhere near as violently) with regards to Xtianity and science.

Quote:
Totally off topic, there's a wonderful statement in the November Smithsonian, from Edward O. Wilson, who proposed most of human behavior derives from biology and natural selection. He noted that "...the religious right's increasingly vocal opposition to Darwinian theory is rooted in a "dislike of human sociobiology", especally the idea that human values flow from biology rather than from a nonphysical soul." I couldn't have put it better myself.

I'll have to look at that - sounds interesting.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE