So, Just What *Is* Torture?
POSTED BY: perfessergee
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:55
VIEWED: 11212
PAGE 1 of 10
Folks, I posted a slightly different version of the following at the end of a rather long thread that was winding its way down. I've seen many arguments on the RWED boards as to what constitutes torture and who might be practicing it, but few, if any definitions. I came up with my own definition, which I throw out for your consideration (and, no doubt, vituperation!):
As for useful descriptors of what constitutes torture, I think one ought to ask the question: "Would you willingly allow it (any particular action) to be applied to your daughter (or son) following the justification that she/he might thereby be induced to supply some useful information to an enemy?". If you can't honestly answer "yes", that your own children should be subject to it at the behest of your enemies, then it's torture.
Seems pretty simple to me...........
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As much as I'd assume were of like mind on the notion of US treatment of detainees, I can't see how your definition would really work. I wouldn't want my son or daughter imprisoned, handcuffed or interrogated at all but I wouldn't necessarily call such treatment torture.
Perhaps, if you'll allow me to rephrase your definition, you're suggesting that if the situation were reversed, if a foreign power takes American POW's, what kind of treatment would we be willing to tolerate?
This was the major concern of the top military JAG officers when the Bush administration first changed the directives on prisoner interrogation and tried to work around Geneva convention standards by reclassifying the prisoners. It's nasty business and likely to come back to haunt us.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge, thanks for clarifying my imprecise language. You have identified exactly what I'm getting at - what if your child were a prisoner of war, subject to some enemy force? No one would willingly allow their child to be captured and imprisoned, but what if they were? From there, let's go with your language.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm glad you brought this back up in a new thread, perfessergee, because I think it gets at a really important point with regards to torture. And I think your restatement, Sarge, better gets at that point. That point is simply that when our troops are captured we want them treated a certain way. We want them to not be abused. The only information they need to supply is name, rank and serial number. If we're unwilling to extend those same protections to our prisoners then we're opening the door to not having a leg to stand on if our troops get the shaft.
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this. I understand why there is civilian control of the military. But it seems like this particular batch of civilians has run roughshod over the concerns voiced by our military a number of times. We have a bunch of amateurs who are attempting to implement a plan based on speculation (the PNAC plan - which is essentially a white paper and would've remained theoretical absent 9/11, at least in my opinion). And they are neglecting the advice and concerns of the professionals who they are ordering to carry out their ill thought out plan. Does that seem right to you? Somewhere in this rant is the difference between political goals and military goals and the problems in using a military force to achieve political goals. Eh. I'm rambling. I'm just generally frustrated with seeing a precision instrument in the hands of an unskilled laborer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Perhaps, if you'll allow me to rephrase your definition, you're suggesting that if the situation were reversed, if a foreign power takes American POW's, what kind of treatment would we be willing to tolerate?
SergeantX
Well based on our history of what we allow.
During The Korean War we allowed beatings starvation and psychological torture of our POW's while not doing the same to the North Korean and Chinese POW's.
We did not have any control over those holding our people. We held the moral high ground and did nothing in response to the cruelty shown our troops.
The same happened in Veitnam and still nothing was done. Those beaten POW's during the gulf war were not beaten by their CO and fellow soldiers but by the Iraqi troops and interrogators.
So based on how we allow things to happen we have a lot of payback to dish out. I think we have not taken the prisoners as a whole and worked the half tyo death and then beaten on them as a finish to a day's fun in the Gitmo sun.
We have people who boo hoo when the nasty soldier asked questions in a harsh way. Let alone ask it with a implied level of violence for not answering. These same weeping sisters cry that sleep deparvation or messing with their bodies alarm clock is torture.
When it comes to getting answers the question is are you willing to allow 10,000 people to die because you will not ask a question of a person who might just be able to give the answer.
For me I think saving those lives is worth a lot more than a terrorist having his rights walked over.
Now if you are wanting to discuss the person actually being a terrorists then that is a debate worth having. That can be done by the courts but I do not want a teror suspect released because of technocalities but for actual innocence.
TANSTAAFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm becoming convinced that nothing displays the lunacy of this administration's policies better than the childish rants of its supporters.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to ask the question a slightly different way. Your son or daughter has been captured by an enemy who likes to release videotapes of showing them sawing the heads off of their helpless captives. We have people in custody who may have information that would allow us to rescue your child. How far should we go to get that information?
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" "
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, Bill O'Reily actually had the gall to tell John McCain that what was going on in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was not torture. I think Mr. McCain has a little better understanding of the definition of torture than some half-baked political pundit.
As we learned in Vietnam, people will break and spill their guts. There is a finite limit to the amount of pain a body can endure. Problem being it takes time to wear down a person's spirit. A bully can't do the job because they get a charge out of the power they have over someone else. A sadist can't do it because they get a thrill out of inflicting pain. You need a professional. Someone who can dish out small doses of pain on a regular basis. Someone who is willing to use discomfort over time.
The North Vietnamese had a very effective means of torure. They would force someone into a cage too small to even sit up straight. The person would be forced to sit curled over, or lie down in a ball. After a while it became agonizing to not be able to stretch out. Add to this the discomfort of having to live in your own filth and you can see how our airmen, marines and soldiers cracked.
Beating someone with billy clubs and rubber hoses until they die isn't the same sort of dispassionate torture. It is brutality and it can be and has been fatal. So, no, what has been going on at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib isn't torture. It is brutality and murder.
I am not willing to sacrifice eveything that made this country identifiably American just to be safe from terrorists. Someone earlier said that brutalizing a foreigner was better than losing 10,000 people in another attack. I say that person is a fear monger or a coward. Being willing to sacrifice concepts like justice and mercy is certainly a sign of weakness. And doing so is just as disrespectfull as shitting on the grave of everyone who died on 9/11.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm becoming convinced that nothing displays the lunacy of this administration's policies better than the childish rants of its supporters.
SergeantX
Mean you can hear it over the same childish rant of your side? Wow nice to have selective hearing. I knowe you must have that as you asked about torture and I gave you a history lesson of how the world has treated our POW's.
I also expressed myself as to how the people holding us back from saving those lives are using everything to defend the guy who could if he was loose would kill them and their familes. Because he will send you to hell and he will get a dozen or so virgins in paradise.
TANSTAAFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME