So, Just What *Is* Torture?
POSTED BY: perfessergee
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:55
VIEWED: 11212
PAGE 4 of 10
Quote:This is one of those made-for-TV movie plots where you've captured one of the "hostage takers" who knows where the hostages are but won't tell. This is really stupid. If I were a hostage-taker and part of my group was captured, I'd move, making anything that my compatriots knew irrelevant.
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?
Quote:So, really, it's not about finding out information it's about payback. What do you hope to accomplish with that? I'm serious.
Well based on our history of what we allow....we have a lot of payback to dish out.
BTW, if were absolutely vital to find something out, you could use lie detectors. There are also certain individuals who know EXACTLY when someone is telling a lie. There are tricks (showing fake TV news etc.). I should add sodium pentothal to the list of possibilities although in general it doesn't work very well. They guys who vote for torture do it because they like torture, not because it's useful to extract good information.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ALL ABOUT TORTURE
I'm guessing the majority of people here have never been tortured, and have never committed torture. So we're all just arm-chair warriors on this issue. But anyway, I'll chime in with things I *think* I know about torture.
1) Effectiveness of torture: The average person, when confronted with a sufficient amount of discomfort for a sufficient length of time, will tell you what you want to know (or, at least, what you want to hear.) There will be people at both extremes. There will be those who will never talk, and there will be those who talk even with little or no torture. I don't buy into the commonly held belief by the anti-torture crowd that torture isn't effective at gaining cooperation. If you drive a corkscrew into my privates, I'll probably tell you anything you want to know. I'll probably feel guilty about it. Later.
2) Usefulness of torture: So, you can eventually break someone. Yippee. How useful is that? Well, my understanding is that soldiers are actually told that they can 'break' under interrogation after a few days have passed. Why? Because once you've been confirmed captured, any knowledge you have will be quickly made useless. Plans will be re-drawn. Pending operations will be completed or changed. There is very little spectacular knowledge that the average soldier holds in a war. What little spectacular knowledge he has, will likely expire quickly. Intelligence goes sour faster than milk.
So, given these two factors, would I torture? Not usually. I would have to believe that someone had some unlikely spectacular knowledge for me to go ahead and torture them. I mean, it would have to be like an episode of "24" where I need to know where the nuke is and I need to know now. This isn't common. It's not even particularly likely. Therefore, torture should be so rare that we never hear of it. When it happens, it should be part of a secret operation of doom and the person who was tortured should probably not ever see the light of day. I mean, if it's not THAT serious, then why are you torturing them at all? If it is THAT serious, why am I hearing about it? Ought to be classified and concealed up the yin yang.
Finally, my definition of torture: Discomfort applied to a subject in an effort to obtain a desired result.
This makes the schoolyard bully, who twists your arm in order to get you to cough up your lunch money, a torturer.
It also makes a wrestler a torturer.
The schoolyard bully is a criminal torturer. He inflicts torture on an innocent victim for his own pleasure or benefit.
The wrestler is a sportsman torturer. His opponent and he agreed to enter into a friendly game of mutual torture to see who could torture whom to the greatest effect.
So, what is the soldier who tortures another soldier for information? It depends on the unlikely presence of a ticking nuke somewhere.
And that's really how I see things.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hero, I feel that I simply must steal your new Mustang, is that okay?
I pwomise to feel bad about it.....
If a life depended on it the government would be well within its rights to confiscate your vehicle.
Like on TV shows when Roscoe confiscates the guys bicycle after wrecking his police car...
As for my Mustang, if you feel you must you must, I however feel that your threat warrants preemptive action on my part...the bombing starts in five minutes.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Folks, it's been very interesting reading the posts on this thread, but the original question remains largely unanswered. SergeantX did a better job than me of phrasing it, but in case it really wasn't clear before, let me try again: "What kind of treatment of prisoners under your control is acceptable according to your ethical values?". My point was that if it's treatment that you would object to if it were applied to your own child in a comparable situation, then it's torture, and you're a hypocrite if you would approve of it being applied to anyone else.
I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the question, most particularly from those who've repeatedly claimed (not just in this thread, but in many others on the RWED boards) that the way we have treated Afghani and Iraqi prisoners is not a matter of ethical concern. There have been several new scenarios raised in this thread that are irrelevant to the question, which makes me think that some respondents are dancing around the issue, and are trying to rationalize behavior that Americans should rightly be ashamed of. Do you think that Americans ought to have the same moral standards as thugs, tyrants and terrorists, or do you think that we should have a higher standard for ourselves? Personally, I'm voting for the latter.
perfessergee
EDIT to add: Claiming that someone else is doing worse things than you are is in no way a valid argument that your own actions are morally acceptable. Think about it for a moment or two.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Acceptable treatment:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
again: "What kind of treatment of prisoners under your control is acceptable according to your ethical values?".
Do you think that Americans ought to have the same moral standards as thugs, tyrants and terrorists, or do you think that we should have a higher standard for ourselves?
*Feed them food - it doesn't have to taste great.
*Shelter them - behind bars, of course, but they should have blankets and beds of some kind, etc.
*Restrain them - if they try to escape or attack a guard.
*Give medical attention to wounded
*Torture them - if there is a ticking nuke, and they know it's shut down code OTHERWISE TORTURE IS ABSOLUTLY UNNACCEPTABLE! No 'humiliation', no rubber hoses, no nude photos; all of these actions point toward sickness.
NO MATTER WHAT 'they' do, we must have a vision of ourselves that precludes living down to the level of mad beasts. POW's are humans first, if we lose sight of that, if policy allows for that, then evil has crept into the system, and evil deserves to be defeated.
My U.S. is better than that Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's of interest to peruse bits of the document we're circumventing over there--
Article 3
. . .
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
. . .
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Let's not get into the whole "who is and who isn't a POW" thing. The "Detaining Power" is us, no matter where we do the detaining.
Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
And we just love that whole "intimidation" thing. Anyone seen the photos with the dogs?
Article 14
Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. . . .
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.
I guess the ones cowering from the unmuzzled dogs didn't want to give their names, huh?
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Article 21
The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.
Ever been chained in a hot room in the fetal position for your health? I thought not.
Article 30
. . . Prison
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow R1Z, them is a WHOLE lot of words there for policy-makers to ignore.
Luckily, there's only a few bad apples in the Pentagon, and Langly, and the White House, and Abu-whatzis etc.
Disgusted Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the question, most particularly from those who've repeatedly claimed (not just in this thread, but in many others on the RWED boards) that the way we have treated Afghani and Iraqi prisoners is not a matter of ethical concern. There have been several new scenarios raised in this thread that are irrelevant to the question, which makes me think that some respondents are dancing around the issue, and are trying to rationalize behavior that Americans should rightly be ashamed of. Do you think that Americans ought to have the same moral standards as thugs, tyrants and terrorists, or do you think that we should have a higher standard for ourselves? Personally, I'm voting for the latter.
perfessergee
EDIT to add: Claiming that someone else is doing worse things than you are is in no way a valid argument that your own actions are morally acceptable. Think about it for a moment or two.
Hey, Perfesser. I asked a similar question in my thread, "How Would They Do It?" I asked how Radical Islam would win this so-called war we're in and I got a lot of thoughtful posts from lefties and moderates, but nothing but a few snarky quips from the likes of Hero, et al.
You see, Perfesser, it's all a lot of b.s. There is no need to justify torture when you want people tortured. There is no need to justify war when you want to destroy a country. These people simply have it in them to do these things. As G1223 put it, "...we have a lot of payback to dish out." That's why the neo-cons got their think tank lawyers dreaming up loopholes in the geneva conventions. They want to do these things and they want to get away with it. And a ton of people in this country want to help in any way they can. A lot of Americans simply want to brutalize another people. The fact that they can't come right out and say it most of the time is prolly because they have at least an ounce of humanity left in 'em.
"Make somethin' up. Don't tell 'em what I did."
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This mentality usually comes from being abused as a child, dad pounds on you, bullys pick on you, thugs mug you...therein grows the need for Uber-justice, ie, payback.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
As G1223 put it, "...we have a lot of payback to dish out."
A lot of Americans simply want to brutalize another people.
I personally skipped the mental bs and learned martial arts as a child, not only eliminating my fear of the bully, but a political neurosis (hawk-tendancies) later in life.
People that advocate torture? Mr. T put it well:
"I pity da fool!"
BA Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Idi Amin had two prisoners - a husband and wife - brought naked in from of him and said - have sex with each other and if it pleases me nothing will happen to you. So they did.
US troops had naked Iraqi men brought in front of them and said - masturbate each other and we won't beat you. So they did.
To all those who say it's only pranks, tell me - what's the difference?
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME