This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Torture

edited January 2009 in Politics
We all know that GWB has said that "We don't torture." Today, however, an administration official bluntly admitted that we do, in fact, torture. Conservatives seem to think that some of the action and exposition on the TV show 24 justify torture. What do you think?
«13456

Comments

  • Torture is never acceptable, nor is it ever useful.

    That is all.

    Perhaps our conservative friends should spend more time in reality and less in a televised fantasy world. Just a thought.
  • Torture is never acceptable, nor is it ever useful. That is all. Perhaps our conservative friends should spend more time in reality and less in a televised fantasy world. Just a thought.
    QFT. I don't think anything else needs to be said on the subject.
  • Torture is never acceptable, nor is it ever useful. That is all. Perhaps our conservative friends should spend more time in reality and less in a televised fantasy world. Just a thought.
    QFT. I don't think anything else needs to be said on the subject.
    What about the fact that the U.S. has been torturing people and now the administration admits it? Should the people responsible be prosecuted or are we just going to try and forget it happened?
  • Should the people responsible be prosecuted or are we just going to try and forget it happened?
    Yes, and I sure as hell hope not. I wanna see Cheney in the Hauge.
  • Torture is never acceptable, nor is it ever useful. That is all. Perhaps our conservative friends should spend more time in reality and less in a televised fantasy world. Just a thought.
    QFT. I don't think anything else needs to be said on the subject.
    What about the fact that the U.S. has been torturing people and now the administration admits it? Should the people responsible be prosecuted or are we just going to try and forget it happened?
    Prosecute the hell out of the people who ordered the torture to be performed. Send them to jail for a very long time. At the very least, remove them from a position of command.

    There is no excuse.
  • Torture is never acceptable, nor is it ever useful. That is all. Perhaps our conservative friends should spend more time in reality and less in a televised fantasy world. Just a thought.
    QFT. I don't think anything else needs to be said on the subject.
    What about the fact that the U.S. has been torturing people and now the administration admits it? Should the people responsible be prosecuted or are we just going to try and forget it happened?
    Prosecute the hell out of the people who ordered the torture to be performed. Send them to jail for a very long time. At the very least, remove them from a position of command.

    There is no excuse.
    Even if those people are Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush?
  • Even if those people are Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush?
    If there were incontrovertible evidence that they explicitly authorized it or knowingly turned a blind eye, I would consider it nothing less than treason.
  • Even if those people are Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush?
    If there were incontrovertible evidence that they explicitly authorized it or knowingly turned a blind eye, I would consider it nothing less than treason.
    What he said.

    For reference, if you could provide incontrovertible evidence that Obama had ordered a torture, I would similarly support his prosecution.

    I would not blame the one who was ordered to perform the torture: blame the commander, not the commanded.

    The whole point of setting a standard of acceptable behavior is to conform to that standard. If you ignore a standard when it's convenient to you, why even bother setting it in the first place? You're not fooling anyone.
  • edited January 2009
    Even if those people are Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush?
    If there were incontrovertible evidence that they explicitly authorized it or knowingly turned a blind eye, I would consider it nothing less than treason.
    Is the standard of proof "incontrovertible evidence"? I'm pretty sure the standard of proof would be "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the standard were "incontrovertible evidence", very few defendants would ever be convicted of anything.

    From the second article:
    The harsh techniques used against Qahtani, she (Susan Crawford, the Bush official who said that the abuse of Qahtani was torture - my edit) said, were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "A lot of this happened on his watch," she said. Last month, a Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded that "Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there." The committee found the interrogation techniques harsh and abusive but stopped short of calling them torture.
    Of course, the Senate Armed Services Committe doesn't make the bald statement, "Rumsfeld ordered torture", but Judge Crawford does. That would support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask some questions, because in honesty I am of two minds on the issue:

    1) Is there scientific proof that torture does not work, or that its success rate is too low to be statistically useful?

    2) Emotional and moralistic concerns aside, can you see using torture in the ticking bomb situation?

    3) What if this were not a governmental question? If I kidnapped the person you love most, would you as an individual break my fingers one by one until I told you where they were being held?

    4) Seeing as there is no effective international court, or any real agreement as to who can enforce international law, is there anything anywhere that makes torture actually illegal when used in the name of national security?

    5) Torture really is an emotionally loaded word. Take a step back. If we have perfect information that a specific person has willfully killed or threatens to kill innocent people, probably in a gruesome way, and in order to inspire deep fear in and disrupt the lives of a populace, shouldn't we have different standards for their treatment?

    Go to it, people. Convince me.
  • Of course, the Senate Armed Services Committe doesn't make the bald statement, "Rumsfeld ordered torture", but Judge Crawford does. That would support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Well, my personal , visceral, opinion is that Rumsfeld, if not Cheney himself, is guilty of what I can only describe as war crimes. I would love nothing more than to see him prosecuted.
  • Emotional and moralistic concerns aside, can you see using torture in the ticking bomb situation?
    Saying "morals aside" in a question like this is tantamount to saying "math aside, what's 1+1?" That aside, there are numerous reasons to avoid torture even in this sort of situation. Efficacy is not proven, you lose the "moral high-ground card" in future negotiations, you endanger your own troops/citizens should they fall into enemy hands, and so forth.
    What if this were not a governmental question? If I kidnapped the person you love most, would you as an individual break my fingers one by one until I told you where they were being held?
    No. Unlike certain parties in our government, I have a strong moral code.
    Seeing as there is no effective international court, or any real agreement as to who can enforce international law, is there anything anywhere that makes torture actually illegal when used in the name of national security?
    You've just effectively said "If a law isn't being enforced, everyone should break it." It is illegal under international law, but the US is among many nations to refuse to subject itself to international war-crimes arbitration. I feel that we should do just that.
    If we have perfect information that a specific person has willfully killed or threatens to kill innocent people, probably in a gruesome way, and in order to inspire deep fear in and disrupt the lives of a populace, shouldn't we have different standards for their treatment?
    Why? That implies that justice means punishment or revenge, as opposed to reversal of damage and prevention of future damage. Punishment should only be used in the pursuit of the latter two in an enlightened society. Revenge is a pathetic and visceral emotion which we as humans must transcend.
    Is there scientific proof that torture does not work, or that its success rate is too low to be statistically useful?
    I recall reading that Israel stopped using torture in the 1970s after their operatives determined that it provided nothing of value and in many cases hurt further information gathering. I'll have to find the articles about it.
  • Before we get all wound up, let's take a step back.

    What law would apply here? Let's look at the specific law to see what the elements and/or the definitions are. Without that, any discussion of prosecuting people is rather meaningless.

    All Crawford is saying is that a criminal prosecution against the "tortured" subject should be dismissed because the "confession" is so tainted that it would have no value in court. They are not saying that the torture in and of itself was a crime. Morally unjustifiable, yes. A crime, no.

    I think we're forgetting what Crawford's role is. It isn't to investigate criminal acts of torture and prosecute the persons who did it. It's to decide if there is sufficient evidence to send cases to trial. Huge difference.

    Perhaps it is a crime. Let's at least figure that out before we assume it is.

    The article says that the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the techniques used did not arise to the level of torture. So there is a lot going on here that needs to be sorted out.

    Let me be clear... torture is almost always wrong. If there is an immediate threat and it would have a direct benefit of saving lives, then I am open to discussion. But the presumption is ALWAYS against torture.

    Straw man time...
    A guy plants a bomb in a major city. Authorities know for sure that the bomb has been planted and that scores of lives will be lost in the explosion. They have 60 minutes to find the bomb. They have the bomber in custody. The guy won't talk. What do you do?
  • No. Unlike certain parties in our government, I have a strong moral code.
    I would kill a person to find my wife.
    Saying "morals aside" in a question like this is tantamount to saying "math aside, what's 1+1?"
    This is not a very good comparison. We're talking about the balance between moral reprehensibility and efficiency here, not an absolute physical law. In ethics, there are very few black and white concepts. This is one that I believe has a great deal of gray to wade through.
    You've just effectively said "If a law isn't being enforced, everyone should break it." Itisillegal under international law, but the US is among many nations to refuse to subject itself to international war-crimes arbitration. I feel that we should do just that.
    No, I've just effectively said that there is no such thing as international law because there is no such thing as a presiding international body to make the law. Right now, what we call "international law" is little more than reed-thin treaties, and there is nothing illegal about breaking a treaty.
    Why? That implies that justice meanspunishmentorrevenge, as opposed to reversal of damage and prevention of future damage. Punishment should only be used in the pursuit of the latter two in an enlightened society. Revenge is a pathetic and visceral emotion which we as humans must transcend.
    Torture isn't punitive. Torture is preventative. The question is one of where do the boundaries between efficacy and moral absolutes exist.
  • A guy plants a bomb in a major city. Authorities know for sure that the bomb has been planted and that scores of lives will be lost in the explosion. They have 60 minutes to find the bomb. They have the bomber in custody. The guy won't talk. What do you do?
    If they took the bomber into custody for planting a bomb, then they have to be able to connect the bomb to him somehow. They should be able to find the general area in which the bomb is located, and then throw all of their resources at it. All the while, you continue interrogating the suspect.

    At no point do you torture him.
  • Do the needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the few? What if torturing one person saves the lives of 100 people? 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people?
  • Do the needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the few? What if torturing one person saves the lives of 100 people? 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people?
    OK, so you torture the guy. You put him through hell, and finally, you break him. "The bomb is in [Building X], on the 3rd floor." Feeling successful, you pull your search team out of [Building Y] and send them over to [Building X].

    Oops. Your homicidial maniac lied to get you to stop hurting him. The bomb was in [Building Y].

    The issue with torture as a form of information-gathering is that you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the information you're being given is truthful or not. The person being tortured will tell you anything to get you to stop. Since you can't authenticate the information (at least in so little time), it's white noise, and acting on it is pretty much the same as not acting on it. It might lead you down the right path, or it might completely waste your time or lead you to make a tactical error.
  • Isn't a 50 percent chance better than a zero percent chance?
  • Isn't a 50 percent chance better than a zero percent chance?
    You're assuming that your chance of otherwise getting the information is zero. You're also assuming that the information will raise your chances of finding it. I'm saying that you cannot assess the impact of the information on your ability to respond to a situation, so it's worthless. What if your chances are 73% right now, but responding to torture-generated information reduces those to 10%? To 0%?

    You can't know the truth of information gained via torture, so it's impossible to assess its ability to help you. Actually, its mere existence tends to make you doubt the information you already have, so if anything, it's detrimental to truth gathering.
  • I'm pro tickle torture. But that about it.
  • edited January 2009
    Do the needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the few? What if torturing one person saves the lives of 100 people? 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people?
    What if torturing that person doesn't yield results, but you have access to his family? Would you torture his wife? His mother? His child?

    Read that article I cited. The "ticking time bomb" is a literary device. You won't encounter it in real life. This isn't 24. Also, there's no evidence whatsoever that the person Judge Crawford said was tortured had any knowledge of any sort of ticking time bomb.

    BTW,
    As used in this chapter
    (1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
    (2) severe mental pain or suffering means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from
    (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
    (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
    (C) the threat of imminent death; or
    (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
    (3) United States means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
    (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
    (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
    (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
    18 USC §§ 2340, 2340A

    If someone had the will to do it, Rumsfeld could certainly be indicted under this. Bush and Cheney probably could be indicted under this as well. They would stand a good chance of being found guilty if the case was presented to a jury. The only problem is that I don't think anyone has that kind of political will. It'll just disappear down the memory hole and people will continue thinking that "The U.S. doesn't torture . . . well, we probably will if there's a ticking time bomb, . . . or if we really want to, but the U.S. hardly ever tortures . . . because it's almost always wrong . . . except when we say it's right."
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
    Is truth serum real, and if so is it torture?
  • JayJay
    edited January 2009
    I understand the outcry against forms of physical torture but if a mind altering drug could be shown to have very high success rates with minimal to no after effects or extremely uncomfortable effects during use would this be acceptable?

    *edit*
    *looks above* Damn you Jason.

    Also, if the drug has extremely uncomfortable effects on the person during its use or causes permanent damage I would imagine it be no different than traditional forms of torture from a moral standpoint.
    Post edited by Jay on
  • (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
    Is truth serum real, and if so is it torture?
    Technically, it sounds like it to me.
  • edited January 2009
    If someone had the will to do it, Rumsfeld could certainly be indicted under this.
    It won't happen because the public wouldn't support it. John Q. Factory Worker isn't terribly upset by what's happened in Cuba.

    Yet another reason why this two party system of ours is so frustrating.

    It might be impossible to prove intent since the people involved sought legal advice. More than once.
    Post edited by Kilarney on

  • The issue with torture as a form of information-gathering is that you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the information you're being given is truthful or not. The person being tortured will tell you anything to get you to stop. Since you can't authenticate the information (at least in so little time), it's white noise, and acting on it is pretty much the same as not acting on it. Itmightlead you down the right path, or itmightcompletely waste your time or lead you to make a tactical error.
    Which is why a competent torturer does not stop until the subject is completely and utterly broken, which is why torture in a "ticking time-bomb" situation does not necessarily work but in a situation where this is time to spare, such as a war, it possibly can.

    What if torturing that person doesn't yield results, but you have access to his family? Would you torture his wife? His mother? His child?
    Smart torturers use a subject's family as leverage against them; while a person may willingly accept physical/mental pain to themselves, the threat of suffering to their family can quickly loosen their lips.
  • edited January 2009
    It might be impossible to prove intent since the people involved soughtlegal advice.More than once.
    They received advice about waterboarding. Judge Crawford did not say Mohammed al-Qahtani was waterboarded.
    Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot's 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.

    "For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

    At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

    The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.
    Source.

    The issue with torture as a form of information-gathering is that you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the information you're being given is truthful or not. The person being tortured will tell you anything to get you to stop. Since you can't authenticate the information (at least in so little time), it's white noise, and acting on it is pretty much the same as not acting on it. Itmightlead you down the right path, or itmightcompletely waste your time or lead you to make a tactical error.
    Which is why a competent torturer does not stop until the subject is completely and utterly broken, which is why torture in a "ticking time-bomb" situation does not necessarily work but in a situation where this is time to spare, such as a war, it possibly can.
    Is this supposed to be some sort of endorsement of war-time torture?

    What if torturing that person doesn't yield results, but you have access to his family? Would you torture his wife? His mother? His child?
    Smart torturers use a subject's family as leverage against them; while a person may willingly accept physical/mental pain to themselves, the threat of suffering to their family can quickly loosen their lips.
    Yeah, I guess that's pretty "smart". What happens if threats don't "loosen their lips"? Will the "smart torturer" begin torturing family members of the interrogation subject?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited January 2009
    They received advice about waterboarding.
    Read the second article again. It was not limited to waterboarding.
    Lawyers for the Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its officers could legally use waterboarding and other harsh measures while interrogating al-Qaeda suspects, as long as they acted "in good faith" and did not deliberately seek to inflict severe pain, according to a Justice Department memo...
    I'd be curious to see the extent of what was covered in the legal opinions.

    We should have an independent system for legal review. This way, the administration could act without fear of prosecution, but the boundaries would be set by an independent body.

    For all the arguments I've seen for and against torture, it's shocking how little scientific evidence there is on either side of the argument. These preliminary findings are amongst the few findings of a legitimate study that I've seen. There is also this report. The problem is that there is little or no information as to the scientific validity of the research.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Which is why a competent torturer does not stop until the subject is completely and utterly broken, which is why torture in a "ticking time-bomb" situation does not necessarily work but in a situation where this is time to spare, such as a war, it possibly can.
    How do you know when the subject is "completely broken?" There's still no way to remove the possibility of lying from the equation. The information gained from torture is going to be suspect no matter how competent a torturer you throw at the situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.