snowy

Fabulous simile. And to think, the Onion said there was an idiom shortage.

/threadjack

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

pan6467

I know this is a stupid question but what exactly does one consider torture?

I mean is it seen in the Untouchables where they have a man in a cabin and Sean Connery goes out puts a gun in an already dead man's (unbeknownst to the "bad guy in the chair") mouth and pulls the trigger? Would that be considered psychological torture?

Is torture 100% physical and mental ok? What is considered mental torture and what is considered open game to get necessary information?

Is withholding a days rations torture? Is no television/entertainment torture? Is no recreational exercise time torture?

One must look and see that ANYTHING can be twisted and considered torture.

Thus we must define torture and put a true value on the word. Then and only then can we truly make a judgment as to it's propriety.

Some people believe not allowing prisoners 8 hours sleep would be torture. Some believe as long as the prisoners get some sleep it shouldn't matter how much.

What is the definition of torture? What do you consider to be torture?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

Sooo based on this poll....

There are nuclear bombs planted in LA, NY, and Miami.

One guy knows where they are.

We have him.

He won't talk.

In 5 hours they will go off.

A great majority of TFP won't use torture to possibly save millions?

I want each of you who voted never to torture to say 'I would let 10 million innocent people die rather than torture one guilty person who could save them.'

Never say never people.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

i think you watch too many action films, ustwo.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I enjoy watching 24. I also enjoy watching Star Trek. Both are fiction. Neither are realistic.

Baraka_Guru

Wasn't this a Bruce Willis film?

I think a majority of TFP knows that this is something unknowable. Real life isn't a Bruce Willis film. Real life isn't CSI: New York. The situation you outlined above isn't impossible, but it's improbable. But in answer to you question: I think torture in this case would be the lesser of two evils. But it remains to be just that--evil. I don't think this reframes the discussion. We look at this issue as a real-world application in the context of American geopolitics. Your example is hyperrealistic.

Isn't this hypocritical?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

highthief

I blame Keifer Sutherland.

Largely, I think the information obtained from old fashioned detective work and proper investigations will yield more reliable and useful information than torture.

The guy who "broke" Saddam, for instance, did not do it with cattle prods - Saddam opened up to him as he was simply willing to listen to a man who no longer had masses of people willing to listen to him. He was patient and let Saddam ramble on about all sorts of things important only to Saddam until he got to the good stuff.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Tully Mars

I blame the writers, producers and the neo-cons who watch "24" like it's porn.

BTW- The Army asked Sutherland to talk at West Point and explain that torture works in the movies and TV and isn't a valid option in real life. Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan also asked the producers of "24" to "cut down" on the number of torture scenes.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/US_Arm...Speech/3662740

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Hain

I thought it was ironic.

Ustwo

I think some people don't want to answer the question.

Deflect, joke, but suck it up boys, you are trapped.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Trapped by not wanting to torture people?

M'kay.

pan6467

I find it interesting to find no one will define what torture is. You cannot have a poll like this if you base it on everyone's definition, you need a set definition of what torture is.

Some people may consider lack of cable, phone and internet torture and one may consider nothing except extreme physical abuse as torture, then there are people that fall in between all the way down.

I can say I'm against torture then if someone asks "well is withholding a days food torture?"

To me it isn't.

"Well, to me, that's a form of torture. How dare you support torture."

See, that maybe an extreme example but you can get the point I am trying to make.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

ustwo--your scenario was idiotic.
no-one is "trapped" by an idiotic scenario except, perhaps, an idiot.

pan: the definition of torture is a legal matter, mostly.
when i have a bit more time (if someone else doesn't do it) i could--or you could for that matter--gather the various geneva conventions that outlaw it, the various treaties that outlaw it and derive definitions from there.
it is not as though there is no working definition of the term.
i just don't have the time at the moment to do research for you that you could do yourself perfectly well and as easily as i could.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

What do you say to my answer?

EDIT: If anything, your scenario reinforces my earlier point about fear and impotence.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

agreed.

Torture is clearly defined in US laws and international treaties.

And both are absolute....neither includes provisions for the the idiotic "ticking bomb" scenario.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

But some people don't go by just the Geneva Convention that is my point.

If we go by just that as the standard and nothing more or less, but as I pointed out people have differing views of what torture is and while, the Geneva Convention outlined torture, some people think it went too far or not far enough.

It's too objective to just say "do you believe in torture?" One must define and agree with he parameters.

Like I said to me withholding a day's rations is acceptable to some that maybe torture.

I think at the very least, one should define their idea of torture, so that others can see that individual's parameters.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

pan....we have our own codified definition of torture ....

..as well as being a signatory to UNCAT (UN convention against torture) and the Third (re: POWs) and Fourth (re: civilians) Geneva Conventions

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

thanks dc..

this is the first article of the UNCAT treaty and seems more or less the standard definition.
it's not ambiguous.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

In UNCAT there is no hard definition as to what torture is (at least that I saw, it leaves torture open to interpretation):

The rest say "cruel treatment, humiliating and degrading treatment, and so on... I do not see a true total definition.

Again, I know it sounds stupid for me to ask, and think what you will, but before I condemn torture I want to know what is considered torture.

Again, withholding a day's rations is that torture? To some it could be. Cable tv, exercise time, and so on.... what truly defines torture.

Wow, RB, we posted at the same time the same article and while you stated it is pretty clear to what torture is I found it on the vague side.

Again, what is severe pain and suffering? I believe the definition differs with every individual.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

funny aint it pan?
i said that it was unambiguous after cruising back and forth between the four treaties that dc linked to.
i dont see the ambiguity about the intentional inflicting of pain, threats of death, etc. as a device to extract information--if i were pushed on the question, i would probably err on the side of less rather than more latitude.

there is a kind of conceptual black hole in the center of this--defining exactly what pain is. i think there is a general agreement about it from the language of the agreements--and personally, i am not sure that i see the point of heading down the route of trying to work out where pain stops and starts in order to open up more space for inflicting it. because it seems to me that is the route travelled by the bush administration regarding practices like waterboarding---and it really is kind of a problem, determining an "objective" standard by means of which you can determine when pain of another stops and starts.

how would you do it?
see what i mean?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

Taking away someone's Cable TV is not torture......forcing someone to watch reality TV...maybe.

The most recent issue of Washington Monthly has a series of brief essays from across the political spectrum on why the US should not torture.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

While Ustwo's example is extreme, its not that far fetched to be facing a high stakes scenario where hundreds or thousands of lives are on the line, and a captured subject may have information that could help you prevent it.

What do you do in the case that he wont talk? Sit back and marvel about how civilized and moral you are because you refuse to torture him? In the meantime people die. Or... do you try and extract the info by any means necessary?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Tully Mars

The world isn't usually black and white. These scenarios where it's either all in or all out are not realistic.

I think people watch too many movies and read into them reality.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

dc_dux

which is why US and international law do not provide for that "what if...ticking bomb" exception.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Tully Mars

This idea that we're grabbing up bad guys who know where the bombs going to go off any minute... right and left... on regular basis is inane.

I mean the Army asked the star of "24" to come talk to the Cadets at West Point to explain this works in TV and movies but not in reality. Even the Army is calling bullshit on this and we still have people screaming about the ticking bomb scenario.

I wonder if these same people know that law enforcement professionals watch CSI and know it'd just a show, real life is nothing like it.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

pan6467

That's my point, I think torture is rather subjective because what is painful or immoral or harmful to one may not be looked at the same from another's viewpoint.

I think gross physical torture or mental torture (i.e. pulling fingernails out, slicing people, cutting off limbs, things that happened at Abu Gharaib(sp), forcing one to watch reruns of Family Affair and Green Acres or reality television) is extreme and unneeded because the prisoner will give you only what he needs to (truth or not) just to end the torture.

Now, do I think Sean Connery shooting a dead man to get a live man to think he's nuts enough to kill someone so the guy gives up info is torture? No.

Do I think withholding a day's rations, exercise time, etc is torture? No.

But, there are people that think all of the above is torture.

I also have to agree with Crompsin above, none of us know what we are capable of or what we may do in a situation where we have someone who knows something that could save 100's or 1000's of lives and the man won't talk through non torturous means.

On the other hand, if his friends know he is caught and think he may give up info... chances are they would change their plans and the info he gives wold be worthless thus the torture would have been in vain.

I know I over analyze things but..... c'est la vie, n'est pas?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Slims

The problem we have with detaining people here (humanely) is that we actually raise their standard of living. For the first time in their lives they get heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, three wholsome, nutricious, and tasty meals, TV, medical care, all the religious materials they could hope for, and are basically left alone. We have a real problem with guys getting released and then basically telling their buddies "Don't worry about getting caught, you will get taken care of, put on some weight, and be rested and ready to continue your Jihad when you get out"

Our standards work for American society where going to jail means a drop in your standard of living. For the average Afghan, going to a Coalition detention facility is like a good resort.

If we even treated our detainees to the same standard of living they are accustomed to, it would be called torture.

This isn't ment as an endorsement for torture, but the level of regard we give shitheads who are trying to force their brand of religion on other people is ridiculous.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

sprocket

My point exactly. Which is why its silly to take an absolutist stance. There are indeed possible situations where torture would be the moral and right choice. Not saying they are ever likely to happen, but I'm sure they have at some point in the past and probably will again.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Tully Mars

I think the key word in your post is possible. However probability is much more relevant. The probability of this actually happening is near zip.


Sure, being in Gitmo is a move up, just like then Barbra Bush said "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them" after Katrina. Who would prefer to be at home with your family when you could be be getting three daily meals and cot... in a locked cell where the lights stay on 24/7?

And what religion isn't trying to convert people to the their "light?" ie brand. Do you think all the Christian missionaries traveling the world aren't making every attempt to convert as many as possible?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Kahn

If, and I repeat .. I F .. I, personally, was ever faced with some far-fetched hollywood scenario that included something as suggested in this thread where one "bad guy" knows some compelling information that could save 100's or 1000's of lives, such as "there is a ticking bomb that is about the blow the city off the map" .... and I F .... after discovering the existence of said completely inconceivable scenario, the entire combined forces of the state and local authorities, the federal government, and quite possibly the collective efforts of the US armed forces cannot use their vastly extensive investigative powers to find such a destructive force in time BEFORE it explodes OR he simply tells me where it is AND I have used every other reasonably sane measure of humane interrogation and investigation tactic to no avail .. well then .. I MIGHT be able to look the other way and ignore some form of torture to be inflicted on said "bad guy" in an effort to obtain information that I know in all likelihood will be erroneous and useless.

But I'll do it knowing that TORTURE IS STILL WRONG, and I'll pray for whomever is pulling the fingernails or doing the water-boarding or what the hell ever other sick inhumane tactics you think might be appropriate in this or any other conceivable setting. I'll also hope and pray that I NEVER live to see the day where we as human beings will EVER encounter a situation so terribly grievous that we actually believe such a heinous act as torture would ever be construed as justifiable.

__________________
Attention everyone: We have another potential asshole in the area !

You don't have bad luck, the reason bad things happen to you is because you're a dumbass !!

Dinner $50
Drinks $30
Motel $40

Finding out she swallows -
PRICELESS!!!

Baraka_Guru

There is a function of absolutist stances. In this case, it is for those who wish to maintain a high moral standard. Torture can be deemed politically "right", but I don't think it can ever be a moral choice. To say you unconditionally ban and condemn the use of torture places you in a morally superior position in contrast to those who don't.

It might seem morally right to torture an "evil" person to save lives, but to think so is overlooking the complex aspects of moral reason. Torture was abolished in many states on purpose.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

robot_parade

1. The United States of America should not torture people.
2. The sort of situation you quote doesn't happen. It's *fiction*.

However, let's pretend it *did* happen. If the agent (let's call him 'Jack') of the secretive government anti-terrorist organization, who has this guy - let's call him 'Hussein', in custody, and happens to torture him to extract information, then Jack would be breaking the law. If Jack happens to save 10 million people, I think that would be a mitigating factor in his defence. He would probably be pardoned on the spot by whoever the president at the time is.

Killing people is illegal. Torture should also be illegal. However, there's such a thing as mitigating circumstances. If you use force against someone who's about to harm other people, you may have broken the law, but you have a clear defence.

roachboy

pan--the ambiguity is about the nature of pain, not the nature of torture.
if you look at the definition of torture, much is couched in the language of use or intent.
and i think it a little strange to seriously ask the question of whether depriving someone of sleep for 72 hours in the interest of inducing some sleep-deprivation psychosis with the intent of extracting information is like taking away a kids' cookies or the like.

there is no mystery at the core of this: people are capable of barbarism, they are capable of sadism, they are capable of justifying absolutely inhuman treatment of others.
they can talk it away, rationalise it, make it ok: they treat others like things to be manipulated or destroyed.
this is easy---the past and sadly the present are replete with examples.
the real problem is what enables it--in contemporary terms, what ideology enables people to erase the fact that another is every bit as much a human being as they are and deliberately inflict pain on them.
since these ideologies are intechangeable as to outcome, and so it appears that we are base enough in this way that it is always possible to inflict extreme pain on others, then the law against torture bans the act itself.

i dont see any ambiguity here.

life is not a movie.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Ah, but some will say pain in any aspect is torture. Nowhere did I say anything about withholding sleep for 72 hours.

I am simply stating my view on what I accept on torture maybe very different than another's. Thus if I answered "I don't believe in torture" and later I say, "I believe withholding a day's rations and some sleep truly acceptable".... I may have 5 people here jumping on me telling me how I just approved torture. And I am sure there would be some who would agree with me that that is not torture.

You may want to be able to put it all neatly in a box, but I don't think it can be. I think it is very subjective, even if it doesn't mean to be.

But people rationalise things everyday. No matter who we may be, none of us are perfect, we rationalise why we speed, why we use drugs, why we believe the things we do. I would argue that life itself is built on rationalizations.

Thus, when it comes to torture, our prison systems, anything, it is based on the parties in charge and their definitions and rationalizations of the existing laws.

But that is just me, you argue that the laws and guidelines are set and very concrete and thus there is no interpretation or rationalizations because there is no need to have them.

In the end, who is truly right and who is wrong.... most probably, in truth, lies somewhere in the middle.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

robot_parade

To some extent, torture is like porn. It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

When someone is in custody - either someone accused of a crime awaiting trial, someone incarcerated as punishment for their crimes, or a prisoner of war, the authority imprisoning them is supposed to abide by basic rules. You are supposed to provide them with the basic necessities of life. You aren't supposed to mistreat them, or threaten to mistreat them. This is basic to any civilized society. Guidelines like the ones quoted above are useful, but really, it's impossible to be exhaustive. If you enumerate 100 methods of torture, someone is going to come up with method 101. So in the end, you *have* to go to intent, and how it makes the person feel. Did you inflict pain on the person, or put them under extreme duress? Did you try to extract a confession, or information beyond the standard 'name, rank serial number'? Did you fail to provide for their basic needs?

I actually just finished (re-re-re-) reading a great story by Louis McMaster Bujold - "The Borders of Infinity", part of her Miles Vorkosigan series. A great story. One of the key aspects of the story is that The Bad Guys have taken several thousand prisoners of war. Instead of housing them in cells, they simply put them all in a giant, temperature-controlled force-field. Each prisoner is given clothes, a sleeping mat, and a cup for water. There are water fountains and sanitary facilities scattered around. Food is delivered three times a day. Every letter of the laws regarding treatment of prisoners of war is followed. It sounds like no torture is going on - except the situation is inhumane in the extreme. Bored prisoners form gangs that beat up weaker groups and individuals, steal their clothes and sleeping mats. Rape any unprotected women. The food is delivered right on time - but only to one place, all in a huge pile - so every meal time, there is a riot as bullies grab all the food they can and hoard it. No matter how many rules you make, someone will always find a new, creative way to inflict suffering. So the rules have to be vague and open to interpretation.

sprocket

Well, I wonder how many here are actually in a position to know?

There's a lot of righteous indignation going on from those who think any type of situation where lives are at risk and a prisoner could provide information is preposterous, and a figment of pop culture... but how many here really have any experience in matters that would give them any wisdom to know if thats the truth? Probably zero.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

roachboy

there's 500 years of history in the west involving torture.
read a few books.
it's not that hard.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

I am not trying to be a smartass or cause problems of an fashion. Hopefully people see that.

I cut the middle out, it was quite an interesting read thank you. I just wanted to focus on these 2 things here.

"You know it when you see it"..... again, everyone has differing views on what torture is. What someone like WillRavel may see as torture, someone on the other side of the spectrum like UsTwo may not think is close to torture.

I agree new ways to inflict pain are constantly being created, thus the rules have to be open and vague..... however, because of that we can see people going to extremes on both sides.

I just was curious as people answered the poll what they considered torture. I find it interesting and telling when most, can't seem to define, yet they are against it 100%.

Some point to laws written, but they are open to interpretation and vague, and they don't answer "what that person truly considers to be torture?"

I for one have demonstrated what I believe, in part.

Is not a discussion in Philosophy/Politics and in life in general about sharing your points of view, sharing your beliefs and how you came to those?

I find it interesting so many will get pissy when challenged to do so.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

highthief

The situation exists every single day - but we don't use torture to find out the information.

There are thousands of people aware that a crime is about to be committed or have the critical bit of information authorities need to put away gang leaders and big time (Cali Cartel level) drug dealers whose actions will lead to the death of others. Criminals, regular people, family members of the criminals.

Similarly, there are large numbers of people - including women and children - in Iraq and Afghanistan who know who the insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters are and where their next attack will take place.

Is anyone happy torturing a few women and kids to - absolutely - prevent dozens of dead in the middle east? Would anyone "doing the math" be OK with that?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

roachboy

pan:

what are your motivations in thinking "you know, there's something kinda broad about this notion of torture"?

what are you hoping to accomplish by it?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite