The Torture Question

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 5 of 16

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

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.

You make my point for me right here without even realizing it. Torture is dependent on the one being tortured. Look at it this way. Here's 7% - American, male, etc. - so you decide to try to torture me with porn. That's right, porn. You force me to watch it 24 hours a day, non-stop. Am I being tortured? Nope. In fact, I'm having a blast. But, take someone whose cultural beliefs are that porn is the devil ("everything's the devil with you, momma"), and you have a different story. Canttakesky's argument is valid - any means that is employed to psychologically break someone down, if taken to its conclusion, IS torture. In a culture that finds sexual humiliation to be the lowest degredation of a person, some naked pictures are like hot pokers to them. Just not to us, so we don't see it.

Quote:
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.

They are westernized. That's my point. I know many Moslems myself (I used to have a daily chess game with an Egyptian immigrant while I was earning my BA), but they are all westernized. They drink, they smoke, they cuss, they skip prayer. They are no longer of their home culture, they are ours. A Saudi-American, who has lived here for ten years is going to have a completely different mindset than a Saudi that has lived his whole life in Saudi Arabia. The Americanized Saudi is going to find himself having a harder time getting worked up over the same stuff his counterpart does. They are no longer culturally identical.

Now, I'm not saying, as I'm sure you seem to think I am, that we should kiss terrorist ass. But, from the things I'm reading, we can't be sure we're even holding terrorists, and the things we are doing are making more people want to go out and BECOME terrorists. That's a serious problem. That's why we need new, clear rules, and if being a little relativistic prevents moderates from becoming nutbags, put me on the relativist page.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
In a culture that finds sexual humiliation to be the lowest degredation of a person, some naked pictures are like hot pokers to them. Just not to us, so we don't see it.

So what are hot pokers like to them, then? I don’t think it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusions of fanatics.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
They are westernized.

I also don’t think that the Arab and Moslems cultures are necessarily so incapacitated with religious fanaticism that they are incapable of reason. I think the Moslems who find “porn” as “painful” as a hot poker are not representative of their culture. I think they are fanatics, even within their own culture. Delusional. Fruitcakes, to use a word I like. I don’t think islamofacist terrorists are representative of the Arab or Moslem culture or religion anymore then I think Nazis are representative of the German culture. And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of the same ability to reason as I am. I don’t that Western people are any smarter then Eastern people, and if Western people can tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture, then so can Moslems. So strictly speaking I don’t think it has anything to do with culture. I think that is an oversimplification. I don’t think that it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusion of fanatics, and I don’t think it is fair to use the Arab and Moslem culture as an excuse for fanaticism and terrorism. Clearly many do both, but I don’t have to agree with it.

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

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I also don’t think that the Arab and Moslems cultures are necessarily so incapacitated with religious fanaticism that they are incapable of reason.

I don't either. But detaining and torturing their countrymen who may not be terrorists isn't really reasoning with them, now is it? What it's doing is pissing them off.

Quote:
I think the Moslems who find “porn” as “painful” as a hot poker are not representative of their culture. I think they are fanatics, even within their own culture. Delusional. Fruitcakes, to use a word I like.

Heh. I use that word too, oddly enough. I think we're in disagreement over what I'm implying about norms. Yes, the terrorists are a minority population of true fruitcakes, unrepresentative of the majority. The problem is, it doesn't take much of a deviation from a norm to turn someone into a nutjob. Look at the effect 9/11 had on the US. There was an incredible lurch to the right that left many moderates as "the new left." You have to avoid turning the moderates into nutjobs, and desecrating objects and torturing civilians is what does it. Flushing a Koran might be the spark that makes 100 moderates into martyrs, and that's not a good thing; when all you need to avoid it is to not use someone's religion to torture them (especially if you aren't getting any tangible results from the process).

Quote:
And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of the same ability to reason as I am.

Don't assume that all people have the same capacity for reason. Look at some of the things we debate in this country.

Quote:
and if Western people can tell the difference between defacing a Koran and torture, then so can Moslems. So strictly speaking I don’t think it has anything to do with culture. I think that is an oversimplification.

Chew on this then. We have people in America- rational, thinking people- with the ability to reason, that would near murder someone that burned a flag. At least 2 or 3 times a year there is an article about a protester that gets the crap knocked out of him for lighting a flag on fire. We go ballistic when we see on the news the Palestinians burning our flag, and normally rational people start talking about nuking the whole lot of them. Now I ask you - isn't that what we are doing to them in reverse? Only we aren't using a flag, we're using their holy book. It's the kind of thing that makes normally rational moderates blow a gasket.

Quote:
I don’t think that it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusion of fanatics, and I don’t think it is fair to use the Arab and Moslem culture as an excuse for fanaticism and terrorism. Clearly many do both, but I don’t have to agree with it.

I'm not using Arab culture as a justification for terrorism, and I'm only holding the US responsible insofar as their actions are an indirect cause. If it's against the rules for you to hit me, but I keep calling your sister a whore, when you hit me you legitimately break the rules. But me claiming my actions had nothing to do with it is ridiculous.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:50 AM

Finn,

This Frontline program exposes the paper trail and systematic policy changes that fostered the abuses that began at Gitmo and were found later at Abu Ghraib. It details which kinds of tactics were authorized and just how far soldiers took liberties in a climate of dehumanization. It might just change your mind on whether the media lost perspective in their reporting, or whether indeed, torture is now authorized by the state. I would be curious to know if the interviews and documentation in this film was sufficient to change your mind.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This Frontline program exposes the paper trail and systematic policy changes that fostered the abuses that began at Gitmo and were found later at Abu Ghraib. It details which kinds of tactics were authorized and just how far soldiers took liberties in a climate of dehumanization. It might just change your mind on whether the media lost perspective in their reporting, or whether indeed, torture is now authorized by the state. I would be curious to know if the interviews and documentation in this film was sufficient to change your mind.

It might. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve changed my mind about something. My guess is that the show probably details stuff I already know, but assessed from the assumption that certain things constitute torture, and whether or not it changes my mind about the policies of the current military and administration will probably be heavily dependent on whether they can sell me their particular definition of torture. I can’t seem to access it online. I’ve tried several times, and I’m reluctant to spend too much time searching for it, elsewhere. But if I can watch it I will.

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

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"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.

Sorry, couldn't let a Duh comment hang in the air...
"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."
Folks, clearly meaning some, even a minority.
The statement means:
What does it say about us as a nation if some people can have such a warped and anti-freedom view?
[My Interpretation]
Not:
One person said it so all Americans are evil freedom hating Nazis. [Which seems to be your interpretation]

Finn.
Let’s spin your argument around.
Let’s assume there’s a culture that sees nothing wrong in mutilating oneself, or others, cutting skin with a knife etc.
These people capture an American soldier and mutilate him/her.
This, of course, is not torture. Just because the soldier sees it as torture doesn't mean this other culture should bow to his or her delusion, does it?
These people can't hold themselves to account for other cultures delusions, now can they?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn.
Let’s spin your argument around.
Let’s assume there’s a culture that sees nothing wrong in mutilating oneself, or others, cutting skin with a knife etc.
These people capture an American soldier and mutilate him/her.
This, of course, is not torture. Just because the soldier sees it as torture doesn't mean this other culture should bow to his or her delusion, does it?
These people can't hold themselves to account for other cultures delusions, now can they?

You mean sort of like a culture that thinks it is okay to rape someone to death, eat their flesh and sew the victims' skins into their clothing, and not necessarily in that order?

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

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
don’t think it is fair to hold the US responsible for the delusions of fanatics.

No, the US is not responsible for delusions. But the US is responsible for finding which buttons to push, and for pushing them systematically for the express purpose of causing acute pain and suffering.

It would be like dumping a cupful of spiders on someone with a severe spider phobia. No, you're not responsible for the phobia, but you sure are responsible for dumping the spiders deliberately to be cruel. Maybe this person deserved it, and maybe you have a very noble reason to be cruel--but it is still cruel.

For me, it is disingenuous to disown responsibility for intentionally inflicting pain on the prisoners, just because the same action would not cause *us* pain. We know it causes *them* pain--that's why we did it! It is better to accept responsibility for that difficult choice and defend why we believe limited amount of torture is necessary.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
It would be like dumping a cupful of spiders on someone with a severe spider phobia. No, you're not responsible for the phobia, but you sure are responsible for dumping the spiders deliberately to be cruel. Maybe this person deserved it, and maybe you have a very noble reason to be cruel--but it is still cruel.

No. It wouldn’t, because dumping a cupful of spiders on someone is doing something to that person. It directly influences the person through physical contact. Defacing a Koran, on the other hand, does not directly influence the person, and in fact, is as much the right of the defacer, if we are to accept freedom of expression, as the detainee to hold a fanatical belief in the Koran. They are completely different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For me, it is disingenuous to disown responsibility for intentionally inflicting pain on the prisoners, just because the same action would not cause *us* pain. We know it causes *them* pain--that's why we did it! It is better to accept responsibility for that difficult choice and defend why we believe limited amount of torture is necessary.

How do we know it causes them pain? Because we think their fanatical opinions constitute a “red hot poker?” Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it is just something the detainee is trained to say in order to illicit a more tolerable form of interrogation. When you elevate someone’s disapproval of your religious opinion to the level of torture you are buying into a level of fanaticism that brings with it many wholly unknowable and largely academic aspects. I think the US may believe that it causes them pain, and I don’t disown responsibility for that at all, but I also don’t elevate religious disapproval to the level of torture.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It directly influences the person through physical contact.

Oh, interesting. The Sticks-and-Stones standard. So you would say physical contact is necessary to inflict the severe / acute suffering involved in torture.

So if you were a prisoner, and the interrogator masturbates on the picture of your 5 year old daughter while mouthing obscenities, that would infuriate and scare you, but it wouldn't be torture.

Hmmm. I can live with that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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