The Torture Question
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 13 of 16
Finn- Do you ever intend to answer my question? In case you forgot it, the question is "Would you allow torture- as YOU define it- under certain circumstances?". I feel that unless we get a "yes" or "no" answer, we'll be dancing around endlessly.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I’ve always known you to be a very intelligent person, and I think you have a good head on your shoulders. So forgive me for saying so, but I think you might know how it fits, and find it intellectually or emotionally simpler to avoid it.
Finn, I really don't see how the current situation and your scenario are comparable.
Moreover the way it is phrased and presented means I either say yes, sometimes it's ok to torture people, or I say no it's ok to let people die.
There's a lesser of two evils there, because the situation is of the Terrorists making. That does not make it okay to torture them.
I also don't think it is at all necessary in the current case.
That doesn't mean that I think Americans are pure evil, or that anyone 'torturing' these people are doing it for some sadistic pleasure.
I doubt even the majority of Nazis did, either.
Note I'm still not saying US = Nazism, I'm not HOWARD, Finn.
Interrogation is fine, but what is happening in these camps, whether you say it is torture or not, transcends simple interrogation.
I do think that this sets us out on a very dangerous road. People don't turn into 'Nazis' in one fell swoop, it's one little bit at a time. One tiny step that doesn't seem that bad from where you came. One step after another.
Do I think it's likely that America will go down that road?
No.
Do I think that these camps are a worrying step down that road?
Yes.
So these people are either POWs who are protected by the Geneva Convention (and what is happening in the camps is in flagrant disregard of that) or they are 'Illegal Combatants' which surely means they deserve a trial, and protection of civil laws. Again, something they do not have.
Debate whether it is torture or not, but it is more than interrogation, and it is beyond the line that I would cast as reasonable. Maybe it’s warranted, maybe it is not, but these techniques are most often employed to ‘break’ a prisoner, not to glean information.
Information is nearly exclusively gleaned through agents or ‘turncoats’ from within not torturing the ‘faithful’ from without.
We do have to remember who we’re dealing with. We are dealing with people who are so fanatical they’ll walk into a café and blow themselves up. They are literally prepared to die for their cause. Even the soldiers we are fielding don’t want to die for the cause; they want the other guy to die for his. I have little doubt in my mind that those people will die before they will tell you anything. Even if you sat them down and proceeded too shoot each member of their family, one after the other.
Or we are dealing with innocent (and I believe that some of those held at these camps are innocent) people. They know nothing. No matter how long you interrogate or even torture them they can’t tell you what they don’t know. They may, eventually tell you what you want to hear.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, geezer, that was an offensive comeback.
you said "please post cites"
not "please post citations"
so I assumed you meant
"please post sites"
either way it was not correct, but obviously I know what cite means.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually it doesn’t. Unlawful combatants are exempt from right to a trial, except by military tribunal, and once declared unlawful combatants the sentence is often death. And this is a legal distinction set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention with solid roots going back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Terrorism, you see, has existed for many thousands of years; they were simply referred to as saboteurs or unlawful belligerents. And almost all civilized countries, including Britain, have agreed, that the response to terrorists in whatever century they are in or whatever they are called should be among the most harshest handed down in societies. In fact, it is probably safe to say that the treatment of unlawful combatants is the only thing that almost all the worlds’ nations over the last 2000 years have agreed upon.
Originally posted by citizen:
. . . or they are 'Illegal Combatants' which surely means they deserve a trial, and protection of civil laws. Again, something they do not have.
Which proves that no matter how different we are on the outside, on the inside, no one really wants the other guy to fight unfairly.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
I have to back you up here. Even if you don't want me on your side :)
1. Pro-torture is not an acceptable political position in the US of A.
2. This isn't torture is an argument of symantics and ignorance.
3. Any rationalization of the need to go beyond what the Geneva Convention allows is a de facto support for torture.
4. This is a view held by virtually no one in the GOP, and I would hope no one on the other side. The one acception is James Inhofe.
Inhofe is a militant extremist, who thankfully is soon retiring, and it is his view that the standards of human behavior are set by the enemy, and that in order to win you have to be as bad as they are. No one else on the Senate floor has supported this position.
I would like everyone in this argument to bear this in mind. If you are rationalizing what was done at Abi Ghraib and more importantly outside of it, in the surrounding area, by US forces, and worse by allied and Iraqi forces on our side, whose behavior we ARE responsible for if they are fighting on our side - If this is your position, then you are on the lunatic fringe with James Inhofe.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are also there, because they are members of PNAC and this is the PNAC position, but they are not elected officials, they are neocon socialist extremists bent on global domination.
I'm raising this point because someone raised the point on CSPAN last night, when this debate was taking place between lawyers. No one, republican or democrat, was supporting the pro-torture position. Someone spoke up and claimed it was a one sided argument. The complaint was kind of discarded out of hand. And rightly so, because this was essentially saying "If Hitler's viewpoint isn't expressed it's not balanced." But in reality, I think that there has to be reasonable support for the idea in order for it to merit discussion on that equal basis. The CIA doesn't support the idea that torture is a viable means of information gathering, so I'm not going to trust the word of a few extremists with no field or combat experience between the lot of them.
I remember reading a lot about other torture much more extreme that was going on shortly before abu ghraib broke, an d if digging some of this stuff up will end the argument, I'll do it, but otherwise I'm extremely busy right now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"Declaring" someone and unlawful combatant doesn't make them so.
Unlawful combatants are exempt from right to a trial, except by military tribunal, and once declared unlawful combatants the sentence is often death.
So, Finn, are you going to answer the question whether it is OK to torture people- as YOU define it- under certain circumstances? The reason why I keep asking is that I feel that until you're honest about your opinion people will continue to see you as "evasive" and the discussion will then consist of trying to pin down Finn's "real" viewpoint. As flattering as all that attention prolly is, it really stalls the conversation. Once we get past THAT point then we can start discussing the pros and cons of torture. Believe it or not, I don't intend a "pile on Finn" session.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually it does. The procedure varies slightly between countries, but it amounts to the same thing. A military tribunal, in the US that means three officers, reviews the status of the prisoner and declares that prisoner an unlawful combatant, based on criteria established in the jus in bello.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Declaring" someone and unlawful combatant doesn't make them so.
I’ve already answered your question. It’s not my problem that you don’t like the answer, but it hasn't changed so there's no point in restating it. I don’t think you’re actually interested in what I think, anyway.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, you haven't answered my question. I've been back and forth through your posts and you seem to say two or three things at the same time. Rather than RISKING "taking something out of context" or guessing what you mean, I would really appreciate clarification.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The answer is no. As I've already stated, quite honestly, I don't think torture works. Is your life complete now that you know what I’ve already told you?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
You keep making the distinction between "interrogation" and "torture." I think this whole argument can be clarified if we introduced the category of mistreatment.
See, here are some examples of "interrogation," from a veteran cop:
Quote:That's interrogation. Using subtle psychological manipulation to get folk to open up.
The first principle involved here is that humans generally tend to like people who are most similar to them in interests and beliefs. Accordingly, this type of interrogator may profess to have Neo-Nazi beliefs if talking with a Skinhead, or to enjoy bass fishing if interrogating a sport fishing enthusiast. Some interrogators go so far as to wear the same brand clothing as the suspect, if that can be determined in advance. The second principle involved is that once the suspect begins talking about any topic, it is harder for the suspect to stop talking about other topics--including crimes he may have committed. The final principle used at this stage is a combination of the first two. Suspects who like their interrogators and feel compelled to talk because they are already within the throes of conversation find it much harder to lie....
http://www.grayarea.com/police8.htm
Sleep deprivation, degrading someone's religion and identity, forced awkward positions, using dogs (even if they are muzzled)--those are examples of mistreatment. The pain is not severe enough to qualify as torture, but it is leaning in that direction.
Then of course, there is torture. Mutilation, electrocution, rape, etc. Some human rights authorities would consider some situations of mistreatment torture as well--though I can understand debate on that.
While all three share the same goal (getting information), legal interrogation is different in that it does not dehumanize, whether only a little or a lot.
I remember that you said early in this thread that you did not approve of what went on in Abu Ghraib and that you felt it was right those incidences were exposed and investigated. You simply stated that you didn't think most of those tactics were torture. I don't think yours is an unreasonable position, even if I do disagree.
What I do have a problem with is calling those tactics "interrogation." That implies that you find those tactics legitimate, if perhaps overboard. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's the impression I get as a reader.
If you would clarify that you disapproved of systematic psychological dehumanization and destruction of other human beings by calling those tactics "mistreatment" or "abuse," I don't think you'd get as much argument. I think that some of us are shocked to think you, level- headed Finn, could find these techniques valid, just because they aren't "severe."
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME