Should the United States of America torture people?
 

A simple question.

Here's an article discussing torture:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...1.torture.html

BTW, if it isn't clear, the 'Jack Bauer' option means that we have someone in custody, we know to a reasonable degree of certainty that he or she has information about a bomb that will kill people, and won't talk. If you think this sort of situation never happens outside of Hollywood, feel free to vote 'No'.

No one should ever torture anyone for any reason. It doesn't produce reliable information, and it's the ultimate in inhumane behavior.

Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

Don't underestimate the power of fictional characters.

As will said, torture is unacceptable, always.

I read something in the NYTimes today that caught my eye. They were talking to the Dalai Lama about the violence in Tibet, and he commented on China. Specifically, he outlined what his idea of a superpower is.

If we're supposed to be a superpower, we severely compromise our moral authority (if we had it to begin with) when we torture. It's an enormous violation of human rights (not that the United States has ever respected human rights).

I don't think anyone should torture people.

Moreover, I think that the use of torture is indicative of fear and impotence. It is one of the most forthright failures of humanity.

Isn't anyone going to argue against this? Who voted "I don't see anything wrong with torture"?

What is the OP's opinion?

Beautifully said.

Look: let's say you have an actual Jack Bauer situation. The one way to make SURE you don't get reliable information would be to torture the guy. All moral arguments aside--not that there aren't great moral arguments against it--torture doesn't produce good information.

Maybe torture itself isn't the main problem. The erosion of morality scares me more.

If it's okay to torture somebody BUT ONLY IF... then the BUT ONLY IF becomes less and less severe over time as torture becomes more commonplace and more "accepted" by the people in the public eye. "Oh, I don't care. It's not me. I'm a good citizen of East Asia." This isn't to suggest that covert torture will change and we'd be foolish to assume that Uncle Sam hasn't shoved a few bamboo slivers up some fingernails to get a few names in the last 20 years.

Once you let known torture become acceptable for one specific reason... say terrorism... human nature takes over and suddenly you've got 120V nipple clamps and are gettin' sweated out downtown about those parking violations from last year... and all in the name of stopping "traffic terrorism."

I knew I did the right thing by taking that driver's ed class to get out of those speeding tickets.

... and so is the large-scale torture that is war.

I wouldn't call torture a failure of humanity. I like to think of it as something we all carry with us as an option in the back of our heads... an evil red button we tease as a response to crazy stuff like mass murder and cheating spouses, et al. I'd call it getting in touch with the Mr. Hyde side.

Such cruelty is a very human trait.

I know you are not saying that as if, "We practice one evil, this other one is justified."

My response to torture was listed above. We can't condone it because even a little bit will eventually become more.

I'm saying we practice one evil because it involves pretty uniforms.

Physical torture? Riding around in a humvee for hours a day and waiting for a roadside bomb to take your legs off. You are a captive of the situation and the situation has the potential to kill you, but if it does anything other than the scare the shit outta you... it'll just cripple you with dismemberment thanks to the high tech body armor that turns your body into a six-segment sausage. We call that war because it's less personal than a sweaty guy putting cigarettes out on your neck in a damp basement.

/threadjack

Yeah, I'm a dumbass. I shouldn't be posting on this.

If we do it then it's OK for "Them" to do it.

Torture is a great tool... in movie and TV plot lines. In the real world I don't think it works very well. People tell us what we want to hear. Or at least what they think we want to hear.

Plus it's kind of hard to hold the morale high ground when torturing people.

This was a very valid concept in WWII when it came to US/UK prisoners and German POW's. I read that the US did have a secret facility that did in fact use psychological type of torture on key German POW's and the greatest fear was Germany would find out and do the same. I don't know if this is true, but over all this gentileman's agreement held true. US prisoners were as a whole very well kept by the Germans, and we kept the German prisoners well too. Now when it came to the German/Russian prisoners or the Japanese/US ones, thats a different story.

Sadly this has absolutely no baring on the current conflict.

On the one side we have beheading, maimings (I think fingers were mailed recently), that sort of thing, on the other side we have water boarding which incidentally was/is part of airforce SERE training.

This whole torture is wrong is easy when you are sitting at your computer desk, drinking your caffeinated beverage of choice, but then its not really your life on the line.

So you're saying torture is valid as a form of revenge?

Regardless of your beverage of choice it seems the issue is a little more complex then they behead people, we water board people. First there's a very real question as to whether or not it works?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html

It works great for Jack on "24." But that's TV and not real life. Many US veterans, including John McCain, who have suffered torture at the hands of the enemy have said not only that we shouldn't be doing it, but that it's not effective.

Then there's the question of is it legal?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201170_pf.html

Kind of hard to claim what we're doing is legal when we executed several Japanese soldiers for this very behavior.

Ok, here goes:

Willravel, torture whether it is morally justifiable or not, can be very effective in certain situations such as field interrogations. I.E. where you have a particular piece of information you need to get and quickly (I.E. where did you bury the cache? or which building is the hostage in?).

For long term stuff, confessions, etc. torture is less effective since, obviously, the person is likely to say whatever they think will make it stop.

When you are warring against a country that is willing to extend to their POW's the same treatment we provide to ours, an absolute ban on torture makes perfect sense.

But when your enemy is going to torture and murder any prisioner they get regardless of how the US treats it's prisioners, there really isn't any reason (other than a moral argument) to abstain from use of torture when it would be effective. I.E. if you catch one of the guys who kidnapped a CBS news crew and want him to tell you where they are...I guarantee he isn't likely to tell you unless he is coerced, at least not quickly enough to help them.

Morally, I don't see how torture is any different than killing someone. If killing is justified in pursuit of a goal, then torture is too, in my mind. I think it is distastefull and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, but if it will save American lives then I have less than no sympathy for the poor bastard.

Don't take this to mean that I have any desire to torture someone, and I am not about to risk my career and freedom by taking it upon myself to do so, but I think we should, to a degree, adjust our methods to compliment those employed by our enemy.

I have been to SERE (the army version) and it was miserable, degrading, and a real eye opener. We were treated far worse than any of the prisioners at Abu Ghraib. At least those guys got to eat and weren't borderline hypothermic. I couldn't care less whether they had their feelings hurt, or were embarrassed. I will however concede that the behavior of the guards was monumentally stupid, done without any clear purpose, and very damaging to our national reputation.

No I never said that, or even implied it in the slightest.

Sorry, in this case psychological training trumps military training and even experience. All of the most renowned and well respected minds in psychology and psychiatry agree 100% that the information gained from torture is, at best, completely unreliable. Even if it was legal (which it absolutely is not), it is generally useless because the information cannot be trusted to any reasonable degree, especially if you and your men are going to risk your lives for it. Yes, it will occasionally produce some reliable information, but because the rate of reliable information is so inconsistent it would be foolhardy to act on the information.
This is absolutely true, but it's also very true for even very short term torture. They're not quite the same, but the results are surprisingly similar.
This shouldn't be about vengeance. Vengeance has no place in war.
Killing is usually pretty quick. As we've seen, torture can go on for years. That's a rather serious difference, wouldn't you agree?
You really want to stoop to the level of our enemy? And where does "our enemy" have large military installations where hundreds of our POWs and innocent civilians are tortured long term?
Have you been to Abu or Gitmo? I've been waterboarded myself (makeshift waterboarding, intentionally, even knowing that I was in no danger). Anything more than maybe 35-40 seconds and it's fucking scary. And I am a swimmer.

Are we going to limit this particular discussion to military torture? How about in the context of capital punishment and our criminal justice system?

Ok, I will try to respond.

Edit: no they shouldn't

well, if you look at campaigns which relied heavily on the use of torture to extract information, they're a pretty ambiguous lot--france in algeria comes to mind. in the end, the damage done politically and ethically outweighed any advantage gained through its use. it is pretty obvious that once information about the systematic use of torture got out, it galvanized the opposition to the algerian war and that opposition in significant measure explained the outcome. algeria became indepedent in 1964. the agreement happened in 1962.

personally, i think it is useless as an information gathering tactic, appalling ethically and politically can be a disaster of proportions that outweigh any possible advantage gained through it.

i dont buy the quid pro quo arguments above.

no time to develop this any further at the moment.

That's why I tried to hit on the fact that torture doesn't really work right off the bat. It would be pragmatic if torture worked, but it doesn't so it ceases to be an information gathering tactic and becomes an intimidation tactic. We really don't need intimidation tactics when we have, for example, millions upon millions of displaced Iraqis that are scared shitless of both their own people and the coalition forces. I'd say we've already got them intimidated.
My mistake. So, to clarify, you're referring to a 15 minute cession being short term and a 12 hour cession being long term.
I would have to say that fear of torture and torture are two very different animals. One uses the threat of harm, the other uses the carrot of the harm ending. These each have incredibly different effects on an individual. While I find the threat of harm very distasteful, it is necessary in war. Torture, on the other hand is the harm, but it's not the "I'm going to kill you before you kill me" type of harm, it's the "I'm going to assert my dominance over you" type of harm, even if one professes noble intentions.
Having been dead myself, I can attest to it not necessarily being painful at all. The end result really is a matter of perspective. From my perspective, death is like turning off a light. One is there one moment and simply not the next. For a religious person, it's a bit different, but I have to imagine that the end results are vastly varied. Eternal paradise vs. torture? Nothingness vs. torture? Aren't these no-brainers?
And Gitmo? Confirmed reports of 2 years of detention with regular torture from British citizens? Canadaians? Not even our enemies, but in fact people released as innocent.
If there was evidence, there would be trials. There are no trials, therefore I can only conclude the evidence is inadmissible, circumstantial, or fictional.
Scary wasn't an adequate description. After the third time I was gagging and even vomited. When I say scary, I'm comparing it to the time I was shot or the time I was hit by a car (or the time one of my girlfriends in hs said she was pregnant). Torture is an adequate description for waterboarding. As for the crocodile tears? You have to be aware that many people in Gitmo have and even are totally innocent. Don't they at least deserve your pity?
I'm not an expert either, of course.

I have no clue how I stand on this issue.

On one hand, I think torture is absolutely terrible, and after reading McCain's first-hand account of his torture for 6 years in Vietnam, I can't imagine allowing that to be inflicted on anyone, no matter how much of a political enemy they are.

On the other hand, I think that we understand as a democratic republic that sometimes, just sometimes... the individual has to give up certain things for the benefit of the group. This same logic justifies an ethical consideration about whether you'd kill 1 person if it meant saving 20, or 200, or 2000. At some point, most people well deign that the death of the 1, no matter how tragic, was necessary and effective to save the lives of many others.

It is because of this "shifting" point - Will you kill 1 person to save 10? Will you kill 1 person to save 5? -- question that I can't conveniently say that we should never torture an individual.

So I think I've tenatively arrived at how I feel about the situation; if the torture of another person, innocent or otherwise, can be viewed by a reasonable third party to directly lead to SAVING a substantial group of other humans (hostage situations, bomb situations, etc), then I can abide torture. If it's being used for mere identification (give up your leader, etc..) then I do not think it is ever acceptable, and should be the torturer as well as his authorizing officers should be held accountable for the war crime that it is.

So in a court of law, a would-be torturer would have to demonstrate to a "reasonable third-party" that their torture technique was necessitated by the belief that it could DIRECTLY save the lives of many others.

EDIT: After looking at this poll I seem to be in the DRAMATIC minority on this issue, so I've got a question for the overwhelming majority who seem to think torture is never acceptable.

If you have a credible reason to believe that killing one person would save the lives of 200 people, would you not act (in all of your power) to kill that person? Why is torture any different? Or does it have to be more than 200, for you? I think the torture or death of one person is absolutely tragic, but the death of 200 is unthinkably tragic, especially if you could've prevented it.

EDIT x2: This 'ethical logic' seems eerily reminiscent of a discussion I had in an Ethics/Philosophy study - aren't there notable philosophers who have pondered this question directly?

Every interrogation expert who's gone on record in the last five years disagrees with you. What are your credentials with which you back up the claim that torture or the fear of torture (which is a form of torture) produces reliable information?

"The use of force... yields unreliable results [and] may damage subsequent collection efforts". --2006 US Army Field Manual

Further, The United States is a signatory to five treaties or international declarations that ban torture:

- The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
- Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3 (1949)
- International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
- Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977)
- Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984)

In each of these instances, we've given our word not to torture. To say that torture is EVER permissible is to say that the United States' word is meaningless. No amount of wordsmithing and lawyership can undo the damage it does to dishonor our word.

The Constitution does a great job of limiting government so that it hopefully does not get out of control. Dividing powers among different branches while making each have oversight over the others has helped - despite the constant loopholes that our elected officials are constantly trying to exploit.

Lets face it, if you REALLY did know that something on the scale of the WTC was going to be destroyed, AND you were sure you had a person who knew the details, you do everything in your power to prevent it - that includes all forms of torture and pretty much murder of your subject to get the info.

The problem is that there really is no effective way to DEFINE and LIMIT the use of torture. If you try to specifically spell out the situations to use it, you would likely end up being either vague or too restrictive. Be to vague and they (over use it) torture me to find out if I know what my neighbor had for dinner the night before he committed a crime. Be too restrictive and you don't use it in a situation where it could have been a savior.

This is where the Constitution comes in. The Constitution contains a catch-all that can be used for this sort of thing. There is one power that has no oversight other than that it is a public record: The power of a Presidential Pardon.

So here it is: torture is illegal in the US in any form. But if you are DARN sure that you have the right guy who has the right information to prevent a real life catastrophe, you torture him and stop at nothing to get the information. You have just committed a crime and will lose your job as well as your freedom for at least a number of years in prison. The person / people committing the torture bet their OWN lives on the fact that THIS was the time to do it and HOPE that the president gives you an unconditional pardon. The check and balance applied is that the president has to stand behind his decision in the public.

I voted 'No. Never for any reason.' Sorry, I probably should've included this information in my post.

Personally, the *only* justifiable scenario I can think of is the 'ticking bomb' one, and, like others have said, that doesn't happen outside of Hollywood. That said, if it *did* happen, do you really think Jack...er...sorry...the federal agent in charge...would get prosecuted (assuming he did, in fact, save millions of lives by breaking some guys fingers)?

Not only that, but killing someone *once they are no longer a threat* is universally forbidden under the laws of war. Shooting someone when they're pointing a gun at you is what happens in war. You may wound them, or kill them, but it is not torture or murder. Shooting them once they are no longer a threat is torture, or murder, even if 10 seconds ago they were 'the enemy', bent on killing you.

Edit: No they shouldn't.

No, I understood that. I'm saying: even that is further than most interrogation experts would be willing to go.

Is there a difference between "torture doesn't work" and "torture provides unreliable information"? I mean we're talking about policy or even troop movements based on the unreliable information.

Let me put it this way: you're a proud member of our armed forces. Let's say that you have to go on a mission that's based on intelligence attained via torture. Knowing that the information provided by torture is unreliable, would you really want to put yourself and your brothers in arms in serious danger based on information that's not dependable? Doesn't that strike you as intelligence that doesn't work?

I voted No, never. I think willravel is right that torture rarely, if ever, produces effective and useful information.

But more importantly, we shouldn't be torturing people because we're the United States of America. This country is losing moral capital like we have a leak in the bottom of the ethics barrel. I don't want anyone hurt, and that goes double for my fellow citizens and neighbors in the US. But there have to be limits on what we are willing to do. I truly think that the United States is supposed to be the beau ideal of civil/human rights. I'm not saying the United States ever actually has been that...just that I think it was created to strive for that. I think that torturing people goes against the spirit of the "certain inalienable rights" that Jefferson speaks of, and the ideals you can see in the correspondences between Jefferson and Adams, Jefferson and Madison, and John and Abigail Adams. I think a nation that presents itself as a bastion of freedom and democracy is not a nation that tortures. It's a nation that holds itself to a higher moral standard, despite the risks that doing so entails.

No. Surprise.

Turns out nuclear weapons are effective at ending wars.

Good thing the most effective option isn't always exercised.

They're good at preventing them too.

Placebo. C'mon. "Don't misbehave or we'll nuke you!" is total bullshit.

Only whackos would initiate and by then? It's too late. Mutual destruction is like a global reach-around. Fap-fap.

...

Torture is as old as tribes and will continue to be a part of the human experience.

We, as a society, cannot accept it as a viable practice by those we elect as leaders. It'll still happen, but we have to make sure the consequences are adequate.

An effective one at that.

* * * * *

Is America tribal?

I think we're onto something here.

For the record, I voted no on this one. I believe we have established that information derived from torture of any nature with any duration or circumstance is questionable, at best. There are instances that have proven both sides of the debate on this one and that only further proves my point .. it is not 100% reliable.

That said, even if it WERE 100% reliable, it's still wrong. You stop and think about that a moment. Torture is wrong .. plain and simple .. and nothing you can say will ever change that simple fact. It's inhumane and morally unethical, and should not be even remotely considered as a possible solution to terrorism in any form, foreign or domestic. Just because your enemy is willing to practice inhumane tactics, doesn't make it right for you to do the same.

Since over 75% of you who actually voted happen to agree that torture is unacceptable under any circumstances, that is solely directed to those of you who think there MIGHT be some reason to excuse and dismiss the act of torturing another human being FOR ANY REASON.

This is the 21st century, and our technology has advanced in leaps and bounds over the last 80 years alone. We have other means to the same ends that nullify any necessity for stooping to so low a level as that of a terrorist, that have been PROVEN far more reliable and far less detrimental to the integrity of our great nation.




Somebody can have my soapbox now, I'm done with it

*Puts hand up*

A lot of people are OK with the idea that capital punishment be used as an instrument of vengeance, to satisfy people's need to see heinous crimes punished strongly.

How come so few are OK with torture being used to the same ends? It's OK to kill someone but not whip them or cut off a hand?

I think its quite stupid to make an absolutist statement that we should never ever under any circumstances, use torture. Honestly, what if you knew for a fact someone enemy combatant/terrorist/whatever had a piece of information that would save thousands of lives, and he wont share it? You just want to lock him away and give him a lawyer and let the chips fall where they may? There's a line and a situation out there where it might be the right tool for the job and possibly the only one. In nearly all realistic situations it probably isn't. That doesn't mean we should never do it should it really be needed.

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

/threadjack

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?

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.

i think you watch too many action films, ustwo.

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

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? :orly:

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.

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 thought it was ironic.

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

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

Trapped by not wanting to torture people? :lol:

M'kay.

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.

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.

What do you say to my answer?

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

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.

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.

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

thanks dc..

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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" :shakehead: .... 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. :rolleyes:

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. :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

Well, like what? Aside from things like certain people describing water boarding as 'having a little water splashed on ones face', and our lovely media's complete failure to actually, you know, investigate or report anything, I think most reasonable people are pretty clear on what is and is not torture. One can't reasonably expect an answer to things like "Is being deprived of sleep torture?" - That's far to vague, and doesn't give any context whatsoever. If I can't sleep in my prison cell because I'm afraid of the dark, I'm not being tortured. But if I'm given nothing to sleep on but freezing cold damp cement, while being kept in total darkness for days on end with a recording of dogs barking constantly playing...

Well, that's fair. My point was that if you start to list all of the things that are torture, the list is never going to be complete. You have to be somewhat vague and use terms that are open to interpretation. Consider that there's no objective way to measure pain - at all. Pain is a completely subjective experience - it has to do with exactly what is happening to you, your mental state, and lots of other factors. How much does being poked with a needle hurt (ie, an injection)? I've had several dozen injections throughout my life for vaccinations and whatnot. I get a flu shot every year. Sometimes they hurt more than others.

And consider things that are not painful, per say, but might still be torture. I, personally, cannot *stand* repetitive noises. Listening to a tape of a baby crying or a dog barking in a loop for several days really would be torture for me. So you have to go by what the person actually experiences, and the intent of the person doing it to them. Wikipedia to the rescue:

I think that's a pretty good definition. It's good enough for someone who is responsible for prisoners to safely say he isn't torturing someone - if you follow the rules, and don't do anything outside of the rules to coerce or punish your prisoners, then you're fine. Being locked up probably involves severe mental suffering, but there are various laws, regulations, and international treaties that explain what the conditions are that prisoners should be kept so the imprisonment is as humane as possible.

I've been quite open, or at least I thought I have been.

I just want to know what individuals are voting on.

Like I have posted, withholding a day's rations and/or sleep to me is not torture. I'm sure that I could answer "I never would approve torture" but my parameters and definition maybe quite different than another's.

I do not think it wrong nor improper to ask for one's belief in what they consider torture.

It's easy to point to laws and treaties and say that. Meanwhile, the press reports this is happening and that person says "ohhhh my that also", while another scratches their head going "how is that torture?"

I'm trying to say how can you condemn something if you are not willing to give the parameters on that which you condemn? The parameters will always change as will the vagueness until neither condemnation nor act mean anything.

well, pan, this is probably not going to read the way it would sound if we were having a conversation face to face--i dont know if there's anything to be done about it--but i've done alot of work over the years on the history of torture in the west, its legal and ethical problems. so this isn't a question that i approach particularly lightly, nor is it something that i have casual opinions about--i could trot out credentials if you want, but that seems stupid--so to my mind, there really is not much in the way of ambiguity about what is and is not torture--and posing questions about where it stops and starts is problematic.

i don't really know what to say beyond this--it is simply not the case that every conversation about every topic is the same as every other and that your or anyone else's simple opinion on the matter is just hunky dory because it's just your opinion.

here's why: in the question of torture, if you think about it, you get straight into problems of aestheticizing the deliberate, pre-meditated inflicting of often appalling levels of pain on another person--the kind of thing that leaves people damaged physically and mentally, often for life--have you read about what these practices do to people?

http://www.globalexchange.org/countr...xico/4470.html
http://www.subliminal.org/tibet/test...-Congress.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=4865

it doesn't matter who does this, it is fucking wrong: pure and simple wrong.

and given the level of damage on the victims--and often on the interrogators as well if they maintain a degree of attachment to being-civilized as a function of these actions--attempt to limit the definition of torture end up being suspect.

then there is an ethical problem that playing around with something like this as a little thought experiment raise for the ones who do them.

this is an ugly ugly area of human activity.
it gets worse the more you know about it---and that from a viewpoint of reading--god only knows what the consequences of this kind of barbarism would be on you or i or anyone here if they endured it themselves.

there are some areas where a broad prohibition on a set of practices is a good thing, so much so that it really doesn't matter if it goes further than a draconian interpretation of the category might lead you to think necessary.

this is some foul shit. i dont know why you'd want to see more of it. i really dont.

That was informative RB, thank you. I appreciate the links.

I think everyone can agree on the worst (so to speak). I'm thinking more on the "Lighter" side.

As I used the example: withholding a day's rations or exercise to me isn't in the slightest torture, but to some it is. What is allowable, I guess would be the better question.

Like I stated above I tend to over think these things.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I gotta tell you, so much of the question will turn on how you define torture. Infliction of pain, sure, I think everyone would agree on that. But once you get past that, the questions get murky. How about causing fear? Shame? Discomfort? How much?

This actually is one of the areas in which I don't ask initially "does it work?" Because torture is wrong even if it works, just like murder is wrong even if it achieves some goal and thus "works." I just think we have to confront the issue that some unpleasant treatment is not torture and some is, and finding the line is not always easy.

Well put. That fine line is what I am trying to find. What separates "unpleasant treatment" from "torture"? This is what we as a nation need to define and set limits and abide by them.

Some people go to extremes on both sides and I feel that it hurts us more not having this defined set limits and divide us when we should be united in these times we are going through as a nation.

I think in some minds it is easier to control a nation divided and to keep them in fear than it is to control a nation united and perhaps while scared of what is possible, united in cause and solution.

the pbs "frontline" 2-part series on the iraq war is quite interesting--i dont know if pbs shows air like network shows or if they're syndicated so would air at different times--but the theme of redefining torture runs through it and the debates, particularly between colin powell and rumsfeld/defense dept lawyers turns on many of the questions above (the legal and political more than ethical)--at the center of it is the attempt to abandon the geneva conventions--i'd suggest watching as i was surprised by how good the program is. there are obviously interpretive questions to be raised about it as well...

I think this quibbling about 'what is torture' is only entertainment to keep us occupied while they do whatever the hell they want.

Most importantly above, as rb mentions, is that this country (or at least the current administration) is questioning adherence to the Geneva Conventions. What does our complacency with that say about our answer to the question, 'what is torture'? Fact is, we are questioning at least one method of interrogation that we have used in this decade (waterboarding). One that has been deemed torture by this country in the past and one for which we have convicted military personnel for performing, as recently as Vietnam. This to me says that we are not a reliable arbiter of our own standards when it comes to the use of and our comfort level with the practice of 'aggressive interrogation techniques.' I don't trust that most people in this country have the imagination and empathic ability to realistically consider and envision the consequences of torture and, importantly, an America that tortures. And, in fact, it really disgusts me that this is even a matter for discussion in the public square. We need to unite in our agreement about the use of torture? No, not for me. We needed to be there already. This is not the country I was raised to be a part of.

Torture? Sure, lets join the likes of the Changi Prison or Buchenwald staff. Oh, maybe Pol Pot, Dr. Mengele and Idi Amin will act as consultants to us so we get it right the first time, not like Abu Ghraib or GITMO.

Share a joint with your POW and you can’t stop him from telling you why his Kalashnikov sucks, Uncle Ho is stupid for sending them down the trail and that it is not really in Nam, it was across the wire in Laos and Cambodia. Giap put it there because theAmericans won’t cross the wire. and so on and so on

Yes, it was my joint.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Closed mindedness. One asks for a person's definition and what the "least" is considered and the person blows up saying "Torture is torture and we don't need to unite in an agreement on use."

It's not an agreement on use it is what is torture? Like I keep saying withholding 1 days rations and exercise to me is not torture, it is probably an uncomfortable and maybe unpleasant treatment of a POW or prisoner.... yet not 1 person has stood up and stated "I agree with that".... Instead we get definitions of what torture is and condemnations for asking what they consider torture... but not 1 iota of true discussion of what THEY personally believe to be the difference between torture or "uncomfortable, unpleasant treatment".

How can we treat our prisoners and POW's in anyway if we do not have a discussion on what is torture and what isn't and then arrive at something that the majority on both sides can agree with?

Are we to turn over our sovereignty and how we treat POWs and prisoners (and I am talking about federal, state and local criminals in prison also) to some other country or outside authority?

And who approves of what they decide?

I am not so quick to turn over any type of self rule our country has to anyone, not without a fight at least.

BTW this is not a discussion of whether or not we needed to be there or not. I have never been for this war, but I'll be damned if we have treat POWs better than our own men. And I'll be truly damned if I was serving and had someone that killed my friends and was told to treat him like he was an innocent and give him every amenity possible.

Sorry no fucking way. I'm not going to "torture" torture you but I'm not going to make your confinement a pleasant stay in a 5 star hotel either.

I'll answer that, if only to stop the question from being repeated so many times. :D Food, like air and water, is a basic human necessity. We all require it to survive, and to refuse it to any human being, regardless of why you are refusing it, could be construed as torture. What degree of torture this is, I cannot say and refuse to get involved in a semantic debate about shades of gray, but it is indeed SOME form of torture. Refuse someone food for a few hours or so and it can be considered cruel, perhaps even inhumane to some perspectives. Refuse someone food for weeks at a time, and it will probably become murder .. but somewhere between the two and it most certainly becomes torture. Where exactly, I cannot say.

First, I don't think anyone is saying we must treat prisoners BETTER than we treat our own soldiers and such, we are expected to treat them humanely within the letter of the law .. no more.

Second, if you're in a war zone and you "capture" someone who "killed your friends" .. dude .. make sure they're armed, (bullets optional) then kill them BEFORE you capture them, problem solved. :thumbsup:

We decided these questions a long time ago, pan, when we agreed to the Geneva Conventions. But thanks for your in-depth and thoughtful response to my post.

there is no "torture lite"
international treaties do not infringe on national sovereignty: the signing of one is an exercise of sovereignty.
at issue is not whether prisoners of war are being treated better than "our boys"--that is a rambo fantasy.

jesus, pan: seems like you've been nipping at the alberto gonzalez/john yoo flavor of koolaid. get a grip.

A pretty good definition might be that torture is what we would think totally outrageous and uncivilized if someone else did it to an American prisoner. It's still a bit mushy as a definition, but it has the merit of applying the Golden Rule, which isn't a bad way to think about questions like this one.

MM, I sympathize with what your'e saying but the Geneva Conventions aren't definitive about the details. If they were, there wouldn't be any discussion here.

I realize that they are not definitive in an absolute sense, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say that we are having this discussion because of that.

They are definitive in the sense of what we all understood when they were created, but have since forgotten. This is what disturbs me.

They're a little vague. Basically they outline that:

Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture

And...

Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

Are not allowed. It's vague but not that vague, IMO

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

well, if the definition was vague, you'd hardly be able to explain that various contortions that the neocons inside bushworld went through to enable torture: refusing to classify people capture in the context of the "war on terror" as prisoners of war because....well....yeah. exploiting perceived vagueness in the definition to legitimate waterboarding, sleep and light deprivation, making people stand in one place for hours and hours, threatening with dogs, exploiting personal phobias, violating religious or social norms with the sole intent to humiliate/degrade, physical violence of various kinds--you know the drill i'm sure--->not a single element of which is ethically acceptable--->not a single element of which is legal---->not a single element of which has worked to generate information that is worth a shit--->but which has been EXTREMELY damaging to the political and moral position of the united states internationally.

and who knows but that colin powell may turn out to be correct in the longer run: not only is this horrific in itself, but it may well end up exposing american pows to similar treatment in the future.

there is no good outcome of screwing about with the notion of torture in order to open space for barbaric actions on the part of the americans.

*and* the damage this has done the bush people politically is very considerable indeed---worse in some ways than the overall--and staggering---incompetence of the conduct of the war in iraq as a whole.



this is an example of the contextual ignorance that makes the "questioning of the notion of torture" here incomprehensible.
surreal business.

I find it odd that we're still debating what is and what isn't torture.

I think Powell is and was right in many ways. History's going to be much kinder to him then Bush/Cheney.

And don't look for me to defend to the neo-cons or Bush and Co. degrading of US standing in the world. The attitude of "I don't care what the rest of the world thinks" while people pound their chest and claim "we're #1 and always will be!" IMO, come from people who are poor students of history who aren't paying much attention to current events.

Why because I am simply asking what defines the "least" torture. Not just the POW's and detainees but the convicts in our prison system.

I even gave an example that not one person has defined as torture or not in their opinion.

Withholding one day's rations and exercise is that torture? I'm not asking if Abu Gharaib was torture, that almost 99% of the people (including myself) would say "yes, that is torture."

Let's say you continue to ignore that simple question, then in some camp prison etc.... some people say they were withheld food and exercise for a day . All of a sudden we have people screaming that is torture.

Now, how can you call it torture if when asked if it is before it happens you refuse to answer. You say it's documented in things that go to extremes one way but barely touch the minimum and thus leave it wide open.

Are you scared that people will go to that limit and stop?

Well if you do not set the min. people will go to the max.

I truly do not see why this is so had to have a true discussion on without being told I'm drinking someone's koolaid. It's something I find interesting and would like to see other's views.

It's easier to point to laws and say see....... (but you do that to immigration and people tell you, the laws don't matter, or any law people like to pick and choose from, but I digress). It's easier to follow a mob when a mob gets going....

But it is hard and requires true individuality and deep thought to stand up, have your own views and freely discuss them.

Kahn, thank you for your post.... I overlooked it and I apologize. I agreed about the daily rations to some degree. And not to ague semantics but if torture is torture then what is the limit? Because ANYTHING can be considered torture by someone.... that is my point where do we draw that line? Between what is to some and what is truly acceptable to the most.

It seems rather plain and simply to me. It's outlined in the GC's and the laws of the US state what can and what can not be done in this regard.

I just don't see it as being that hard.