The Torture Question

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 7 of 16

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured.

Not quite. As the report states over and over again, what Rummy is looking for is actionable intelligence.

From the Afghani prisoners in Gitmo he was looking for information about ben-Laden and possible terrorist attacks on the U.S. and U.S. interests. Remember that this wasn't that long after 9/11 and that Rummy is the man responsible for protecting the United States.

From Iraqi prisoners he was looking for Hussein, major Baathists, info on insurgent attacks, and WMD(OK, who'll cast the first smarmy remark?)

The slippery slope probably began with the realization that the Taliban in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Iraq didn't meet the usual description of "legal combatants". This, combined with the perception that they might have information about plans, tactics, whereabouts of leaders, etc. that might save lives later on probably led to the more aggressive methods of interrigation.

I don't doubt that the savagery of both the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents actions also had something to do with it. It's not hard to de-humanize an enemy who'll murder whole groups of prisoners of war, slaughter non-combatants complete with video tape, routinely defile the bodies of the dead, put bounties on the heads of members of different religious sects, etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:20 PM

Sorry, this is a serious topic...

Just never saw Finn bat one outta the park like that...

Chrisisall

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The point is that Rummy wants these people tortured.

Not quite. As the report states over and over again, what Rummy is looking for is actionable intelligence.

Are you suggesting that Rummy is so naive that he had no idea how folks would be going about seccuring that actionable intel? His interest in circumventing the Geneva Conventions suggests otherwise.

I keep thinking that the only way y'all would accept that Rums' & co. were culpable is if they specifically stated in a national press conference that they were responsible. Everything else is hearsay, spin, and partisan bias. Grrr. Arrgh.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

LIMINALOSITY

Monday, October 24, 2005 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
(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)

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.

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

Thanks for the insertion of this information, and your well stated viewpoint.

My opinion, only mine: Any group that claims the high moral ground for all its members is in an undefensible position, and the US has been setting up camp in that zone for quite some time; long before Rummy decided to have the Geneva Conventions reinterpreted in the spirit of this 'pull civilians from their bedrooms' variety of warfare.

I object to the title of the Frontline piece including the word Question. To me there's no question that the methods mentioned in the Frontline piece, and in some of the posts above are methods of torture, including desecration of objects another culture finds sacred, and treating a prisoner in ways the prisoner would find sinful or immoral if they chose to commit the acts themselves. I see these acts as torture, aside from causing physical pain. To my way of thinking, the debate begs the question: have we turned into the monster we've claimed to protect the rest of the world from for more than a century.

Gvmts claiming authority over other gvmts (or its own citizens) while maintaining that keeping secrets in servive to a larger agenda is reasonable, leads me to reflect on the current corporate climate, which also suffers from an epidemic of social personality disorder. OT maybe, but part of the same pathology.

Add to this the idea that torture does not work to gain information from a prisoner and I wonder what, aside from a kind of twisted revenge for 911 could possibly the administration's point in ratcheting up the level of insanity to the point where we have camps in Cuba and Iraq dedicated to the torture of prisoners. GW, Rummy and the rest of them must have heard torture doesn't work, they do have advisors.

The choice of venue and the methodology used in maintaining the atmosphere of uncertainty and fear for all participants couldn't have been more brilliantly planned by an evil genius either, on multiple levels: the torture pa

GEEZER

Monday, October 24, 2005 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Are you suggesting that Rummy is so naive that he had no idea how folks would be going about seccuring that actionable intel? His interest in circumventing the Geneva Conventions suggests otherwise.

I'm suggesting that Rummy doesn't care how actionable intel is developed. If it could be obtained via the soft cushions and comfy chair route (No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition!), that'd probably be fine with him. I'm also suggesting that he believes he can make a reasonable case that the Afgan and Iraqi prisoners are not lawful combatants, and therefore outside the conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war.

And although I haven't gotten into it here, I'm not so sure I would consider most of the approved coercive techniques described in the Frontline story as "torture". Much of the physical abuse that has occurred and resulted in charges is beyond what was authorized.

I still think a lot of the problems with interrogation occurred because the military was not prepared to handle prisoners who were not members of an established military force and who would play by the rules. They had to consider that anyone they captured might have information on possible terrorist attacks against civilian populations. This required many more in-depth interrogations and there just wasn't the staff for it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So in general, I do think that torture should be defined as some extreme physical act, not so such much because the effect of torture cannot be indirectly induced, but because it is difficult to quantify it otherwise.

I have agreed with you before that I could live with the "sticks and stones" standard that some sort of physical impact is required to define torture ("Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me."). After all, people have to assume responsibility at some point for choosing to feel pain when pain is not physically administered.

After thinking about it for several days, I have come to change my mind. The "sticks and stones" standard does not take into account the helplessless of being physically imprisoned to begin with.

Out in the real world, if someone infuriates me on purpose, I can physically remove my self from the offensive situation. I can complain to my friends for emotional support, and file grievances with authorities for hope of justice. A prisoner has none of those recourses. He must endure.

Here is a good description of how torture works.

Quote:
Although torture is usually thought of in terms of its physical impact (pain and damage), the psychological impact is often greater and tends to remain with the victim long after the actual activity is discontinued.

The process of psychological torture is designed to invade and destroy the belief of a victim in their validity as a human being, to destroy presumptions of privacy, intimacy, and inviolability assumed by the victim, and to destroy their unspoken trust that these things can save them. Beyond merely invading the victim's mental and physical independence on a one-to-one level, such acts are made further damaging via public humiliation, incessant repetition, depersonalization, and sadistic glee.

The CIA, in its "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983" (reprinted in the April 1997 issue of Harper's Magazine), summed up the theory of coercion thusly:

"The purpose of all coercive techniques is to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist. Regression is basically a loss of autonomy, a reversion to an earlier behavioral level. As the subject regresses, his learned personality traits fall away in reverse chronological order. He begins to lose the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to deal with complex situations, or to cope with stressful interpersonal relationships or repeated frustrations."

Psychologically, torture often places the victim in a state where the mind works against the best interests of the individual, due to the inducement of such emotions as shame, worthlessness, dependency, and a feeling of a lack of uniqueness. These and other mental stresses can lead to a mutated, fragmented, or discredited personality and belief structure. Even the victim's normal bodily needs and functions (e.g. sleep, sustenance, excretion, etc.) can be changed and made to be construed as self-degrading, animalistic, and dehumanizing.

Torture robs the victim of the most basic modes of relating to reality and, thus, is the equivalent of cognitive death. Space and time are warped. The self ("I") is shattered. The tortured have nothing familiar to hold on to: family, home, personal belongings, loved ones, language, name. They lose their mental resilience and sense of freedom. They feel alienated — unable to communicate, relate, attach, or empathize with others.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/ps/psychology_of_tortu
re.htm

While degrading the Koran in and of itself may not be tortuous, its purpose is part of a systematic effort to "invade and destroy the belief of a victim in their validity as a human being"--that is, in the vernacular, to cause a "nervous breakdown" in the victim. The pain inflicted by this attack on the victim's validity and identity is synergistically augmented by the physical imprisonment, loss of auton

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:51 PM

The point was made before that when you torture people you introduce them to what THEY are afraid of, not what YOU are afraid of. Physical pain or the fear of death are what most people recognize, but those aren't the only means of torture. One of the easiest ways to gain an elder's compliance in Africa to waterboard his first grandson. People who fail to recognize other means of torture would be incredibly ineffective.

Geezer makes a strong argument that torture was at least tacitly condoned at the highest levels when he says that Rummy didn't care HOW the info was obtained. That's pretty much tacit approval in a nutshell.

Just a few specific comments: First Finn says:

Quote:
Furthermore the issue of torture is very subjective. What some seem to consider torture, I do not

But after recognizing the subjectivity of torture he then goes on to use his own responses as the yardstick.

Quote:
It would certainly infuriate me and one could argue that it might be cruel and unusual, but it wouldn’t necessarily constitute torture.

As far as the ability of people to view torture "reasonably" (ie. the way he does) first he says

Quote:
We are fighting an enemy that is very fanatical and driven to fits of inhuman psychopathic and/or suicidal fanaticism that will be inflamed by even the notion that the US defaces a Koran... As long as there are fanatical fruitcakes with aspirations of mass murder...

and then he says

Quote:
And even if fanatics are representative of the Moslem culture, they are still human beings capable of...reason

Well, apparently not?

As far as government accountability, Finn says

Quote:
On the other hand I do find it despicable that the issue of torture in the news seems to be more often a political tool to attack an administration for reasons that have nothing to do with torture.

That implies that the government should be held accountable for torture that it commits or condones. But then he goes on to say that even discussing torture

Quote:
is not only despicable but may be ethically tantamount to negligent homicide.

So the government is not to be held accountable at all? I think Finn is a very confused man, and has mixed up reasoning with rationalization.

Please don't think they give a shit.

GEEZER

Thursday, October 27, 2005 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer makes a strong argument that torture was at least tacitly condoned at the highest levels when he says that Rummy didn't care HOW the info was obtained. That's pretty much tacit approval in a nutshell.

Well...not quite.

Quote:
I'm suggesting that Rummy doesn't care how actionable intel is developed. If it could be obtained via the soft cushions and comfy chair route (No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition!), that'd probably be fine with him. I'm also suggesting that he believes he can make a reasonable case that the Afgan and Iraqi prisoners are not lawful combatants, and therefore outside the conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war.

And although I haven't gotten into it here, I'm not so sure I would consider most of the approved coercive techniques described in the Frontline story as "torture". Much of the physical abuse that has occurred and resulted in charges is beyond what was authorized.

I think the government (Rummy) is presenting the case that their aggressive techniques aren't "torture" under current rules. First, because they are not limited to the Geneva rules on POWs because the people being interrogated are not lawful combatants. Second, because the approved techniques don't reach the torture threshhold of "severe physical or mental suffering".

They might also factor the previous actions of the detainees into the equation. Perhaps they consider that people who regularly torture, kill and mutilate their prisoners might not find sleep deprevation or barking dogs too severe.

And for the nth time, note that charges have been filed against interrogators and MPs who have stepped outside the rules by either physical assault or severe degradation.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:39 PM

Actually Geezer, the statement stands on its own. If Rummy doesn't care "how" actionable intelligence is gathered then he would allow torture. It doesn't matter whether the victims were actually illegal combatants (or not) or whether the tehcniques amounted to torture (or not). It is simply a matter of how far he would be prepared to go. According to you, that would be... all the way. Maybe you would like to w/draw that statement.

As far as the victims being illegal combatants, you're making the totally unwarranted assumption that everyone who was ever detained was in fact an "insurgent" or "illegal combatant" who "regularly torture, kill and mutilate". That's ignoring the readily available evidence that many innocent people were turned in for reward, swept up by accident, or detained for unrelated violations. While the Geneva Convention doesn't say much about "illegal combatants" it DOES say something about civilians. I know that you like to see things in a light most favorable to the administration, but don't you realize how far you've gone down the path of ignoring reality?

Regarding torture: I can't view the pbs program because my vars PCs won't play it. Perhaps you can tell me what it refers to and at what point you consider coercion to be "torture".

Please don't think they give a shit.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually Geezer, the statement stands on its own. If Rummy doesn't care "how" actionable intelligence is gathered then he would allow torture. It doesn't matter whether the victims were actually illegal combatants (or not) or whether the tehcniques amounted to torture (or not). It is simply a matter of how far he would be prepared to go. According to you, that would be... all the way. Maybe you would like to w/draw that statement.

As far as the victims being illegal combatants, you're making the totally unwarranted assumption that everyone who was ever detained was in fact an "insurgent" or "illegal combatant". That's ignoring the readily available evidence that many innocent people were turned in for reward, swept up by accident, or detained for unrelated violations. I know that you like to see things in a light most favorable to the administration, but don't you realize how far you've gone down the path of ignoring reality?

Thanks, as always, Signy, for the clarity. What M. Du Geez is into here is nothing less than Orwellian doublethink. What makes it "not torture" is that Rummy & co. deny that it's torture. That's all. If they were to say that it was torture tomorrow, Geezer would be right there with, "Well, of course it is torture." For Geezer et al this is a war of perception, not of actuality.

By Geezer's reasoning, George Bush has never sanctioned even the killing in this war. Bush just wanted them to take Baghdad, never said anything about how! That was up to the soldiers.

See, this is the creepiest part about this new-fangled conservatism; it clings to this tiny, tiny philosophical thread: absolute personal responsability. Every man is responsable for his own actions and his own actions alone. In this philosophy, individual will is absolute. That's where the buck stops, right at your own two hands. In this sense Bush isn't even involved with the war in Iraq 'cause he's never been there; you can't blame him for a single thing. He's just the spokesperson for our brave boys who heroically decided to oust Saddam a couple years back. Y'know, Bush is just helpin' 'em out best he can. He might as well be reading the weather forcasts. That's why he never lied, he's just the messenger; if what he said wasn't true, it was because he was given bad information. All he was responsible for was reading the teleprompter and he always does a bang-up jop of that.

It's this really disturbing microscopically distinct world they live in. When the chips are down, nothing is connected to anything else, period. They create these grand shaping myths about good and evil, a War on Terror, a diabolical enemy bent on destroying us; and then compartmentalize it to the point that no one in the administration has any responsibility for anything(Osama who?). Signy, you talk as if Rummy was over there wielding the broom handle himself!

Geezer, Himmler called, he wants his sophistry back.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE