Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Torture
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?
Comments
That is all.
Perhaps our conservative friends should spend more time in reality and less in a televised fantasy world. Just a thought.
There is no excuse.
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.
From the second article: 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.
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.
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?
At no point do you torture him.
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.
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.
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, 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."
*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.
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.
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.