The Torture Thread

[Willravel]

What do you think about torture? Is it moral/ethical/excusable? Is it a means to an end or the ends not justifying the means? Does it produce reliable intel that can save lives, or is the intel unreliable? Is the US using torture methods?

I don't think it's a good idea because, as I understand, not only does it not yield reliable intel but it also places the nation doing the torturing in a really bad place. When I think back to previous governments/administrations/parties that have used torture, I can't think of any of them being looked back on in a positive light, at least for the torturing. While I'm not privy to information from military interrogations that include torture techniques, it would seem that a prisoner tortured would give up any intelligence, reliable or not, just to end the torture.

[inBOIL]

I recently voiced my opposition to torture and got "but they're terrorists!" as a response. I think that a lot of people are comfortable with torture because 1) they don't have a problem with doing bad things to bad people, 2) they don't believe that the government is likely to label an innocent person as a terrorist, and 3) they believe that even if there's only a small chance of getting useful information, it's still the best/only way to get that information. The mentality is "We're being attacked and we must do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves. It's us or them."

[jorgelito]

I agree with you guys. Torture is absolutely wrong. What the Vietnamese and Japanese have done to our brave soldiers and other civilians is absolutely abhorrent. You are right. Why couldn't we get them to stop and why can't we bring them to justice?

Also, you are forgetting one important thing: torture of innocent people. Probably the ultimate injustice. That pretty much ends the conversation for me.

[Locobot]

and also:

Waterboarding is torture
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200808

And also we have an attorney general who is unwilling to say whether or not he thinks waterboarding is torture.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...ing/index.html

I've heard similar things from people like what inBoil describes. It's difficult for me to imagine the long series of ethical boners that would lead someone to hold beliefs like that. You'd think that the compulsory reiterations of U.S. history that our education system requires for someone to achieve a high school diploma would inhibit people from holding such beliefs, but then a basic education is not something at all to be taken for granted.

Why is it that the people who don't trust the government to distribute food stamps equitably are so often the same people who blithely think the government should be trusted to torture?

There isn't really a "debate" over torture--at least not one that isn't lost by the pro side again and again and again. The only real debate that I see to be had is over why people who advocate torture are allowed to hold power, how they should be prosecuted, and what their punishment should entail (i.e. how many years in prison they should spend).

[highthief]

As long as it is someone else being tortured a lot of people are OK with it. When I say "somene else" I mean someone readily identifiable as "different" - in a western context that would be Muslims or Asians or random little brown people with funny accents. Doesn't matter what Amnesty International says, they're a bunch of commies anyway.

As soon as a western government starts torturing the middle classes, most of those who support torture will change their tune.

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by Locobot

It's difficult for me to imagine the long series of ethical boners that would lead someone to hold beliefs like that.

Could you define "boner" as you used it here? What I'm picturing is...interesting, but I doubt it's what you intended to convey.

[roachboy]

will: could you flesh this out a bit more in your own voice please?
i don't really understand what we're doing here.

[uncle phil]

i'm going to give you until tomorrow morning to address some of the links you've posted...

you know that this is a discussion forum, not a "link" forum...

if that is not done by tomorrow morning, i will delete this thread...

i get up awfully early...

make this a discussion and not a "hey, look at me, i can post links with the worst of them" thread...

and i will not accept any PMs...

[Willravel]

Edited OP.

[uncle phil]

not pushy, just skeptical...

you've clarified...

Originally Posted by Willravel

Edited OP.

oh, that's sweet!!!

ok, any of you guys who have posted in this thread know what's going on?

the OP is manipulating you...

be wary...

[Willravel]

Getting back on track...
It seems there's a consensus so far.

I find it interesting, inBoil, that your characterization of those who support torture is quite the same as what my characterization might be, but I can't think of anyone who thinks that beyond talking heads. I suspect that's where I get my understanding of the phantom other side. What would someone like that think? Is it like what Billo or Rush might say? Or is there another explanation?

[xepherys]

First, in regards to the OP, yeah... it's a pretty ugly situation. I think inBOIL pretty much nailed the top 3 reasons Americans allow it so easily to happen, though. Frankly, I think that torture does not have a place in modern society. I DO, however, believe that imprisonment does, maybe detaining folks outside of normal jurisdiction. Not indefinitely, but for an extended period in an effort to gather intelligence.

Second, wtf is with the recent staff attack on Will? I'm starting to sense some serious Gestapo overtones around here, especially in the Politics board. I'd really like a somewhat fuller explanation because I'm honestly shocked and appalled by the way things have been falling on this situation. Not that I've donated a LOT of money, but having donated money to the TFP, having been a fairly active member for some time and having brought in several referrals, I'd like to know wtf is going on. Anybody?

[ipollux]

It's wrong under all circumstances and should be illegal in my opinion. Yet, the current administration continues to torture us all without fear of retribution. Oh, how bitter I am.

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by Willravel

I find it interesting, inBoil, that your characterization of those who support torture is quite the same as what my characterization might be, but I can't think of anyone who thinks that beyond talking heads. I suspect that's where I get my understanding of the phantom other side. What would someone like that think? Is it like what Billo or Rush might say? Or is there another explanation?

I think a lot of people don't think about torture in depth; they come up with the justifications I listed above, then move on having only scratched the surface.

[Shauk]

Oh what the fuck will is banned again?

Jesus you guys, pick on him some more why dont ya?

[Lasereth]

Alright what's the reason this time? Why is Will banned?

[Rekna]

Could a moderator please elaborate on Will's banning? Is he gone for good? Temporary?


Thanks

[Jinn]

Thirded

[LoganSnake]

I'll jump on the bandwagon.

Fourded.

[dlish]

for you guys to ban him..man thats torture

not sure what he's done but i think he's a great contributer to the forum and this place wouldnt be the same without him. just thought id throw that in.

as for torture, im all against it. the majority of the 'worst of the worst' in the war on terror those that have languished in gitmo for the past 7 years have been released.

who is to say that innocents are not caught up. the fact that the US wont even consider any form of compensation for the inhumane and unjust treatment of innocents is even worse.

who saw the omar khadr video last week. the canadian 15 year old who is being held in gitmo without proper care or councelling. hes probably 22 now and has spent what a third of his life in gimto so far. im not sure if it hit you guys, but i was almost in tears.

forget what he is accused of doing. for me to sit there and watch and listen to him rock like that, cry like a baby and call out 'Ya Umi" in arabic (translation: oh mother) is heart wrenching.

the psychological injuries are always worse than the physical ones.

[Cynthetiq]

Your patience is appreciated. Thank you.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Throwing grenades at US special Forces and killing them is a bad thing, so is having connections to Al Qaeda. Let him rot.

[dlish]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Throwing grenades at US special Forces and killing them is a bad thing, so is having connections to Al Qaeda. Let him rot.

so try him in a fair and just manner (not in a kangaroo court like gitmo where you're judgements would be viewed as skewed) and if the evidence stands up then let him rot.

in saying that he was a minor, and i dont see any fair court letting him rot for good. besides, the amount of psychological trauma caused would probably be lifelong.

not sure if you know much about this kid. he moved to aghanistan with his parents and family at a young age. sure, his father was a confidant of OBL, but do you really expect a young impressionable teenager in those circumstances to revolt against the machine? i very much doubt it.


theres no way you'd let a juvenile rot like that.

torture is unspeakable, Injustice is worse.

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by Artmars

NOBODY pulled more shit out of his ass than Willravel, and ya'll know it.

nice troll

[dlish]

sorry to interrupt the broadcast.

i dont mean to be a prick, but seeing that your membership spans a good old less than a month here on TFP, i beg to differ with your judgements. i personally dont think you are in a position to judge willravel unless you have read his posts over the past few years which i am sure you have not.

sure, he didnt gel with everyone, but he did push peoples buttons which i dont think is necesarily a bad thing

but one one is asked to like everyone here, respect is the order of the day. so i dare say show some ARR EEY ESS PEE EEY CEE TEE.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by dlish

sorry to interrupt the broadcast.

i dont mean to be a prick, but seeing that your membership spans a good old less than a month here on TFP, i beg to differ with your judgements. i personally dont think you are in a position to judge willravel unless you have read his posts over the past few years which i am sure you have not.

sure, he didnt gel with everyone, but he did push peoples buttons which i dont think is necesarily a bad thing

but one one is asked to like everyone here, respect is the order of the day. so i dare say show some ARR EEY ESS PEE EEY CEE TEE.

Beat me to it, dlish. It needed saying.

[LoganSnake]

Originally Posted by dlish

......your membership spans a good old less than a month here on TFP....unless you have read his posts over the past few years which i am sure you have not....

Registration date does not forum attendance state.


Banned members come back. Lurkers decide to post.

[Rekna]

you guys fed the troll!

[Jinn]

Originally Posted by Artmars

NOBODY pulled more shit out of his ass than Willravel, and ya'll know it.

I'm sure you had a great chance in the one day you've been here..

Wait a second.... will?

[The_Jazz]

It's being dealt with. Stop with the troll food, please.

[LoganSnake]

But they're so cute.

[dc_dux]

The UK, our closest ally, no longer finds the Bush administration to be credible when it comes to torture.

the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recently stated that "the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future."

52. There appears to be a striking inconsistency in the Government’s approach to this matter. As noted above, it has relied on assurances by the US Government that it does not use torture. However, it is evident that, in the case of water-boarding and perhaps other techniques, what the UK considers to be torture is viewed as a legal interrogation technique by the US Administration. With the divergence in definitions, it is difficult to see how the UK can rely on US assurances that it does not torture. As Amnesty International argues, “what the USA considers torture does not match international law”.86 Human Rights Watch adds that “President Bush’s statements on torture need to be considered in the light of the memoranda from his legal advisers that re-defined torture so narrowly as to make the prohibition virtually meaningless.

53. We conclude that the Foreign Secretary’s view that water-boarding is an instrument of torture is to be welcomed. However, given the recent practice of water-boarding by the US, there are serious implications arising from the Foreign Secretary’s stated position. We conclude that, given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future. We also recommend that the Government should immediately carry out an exhaustive analysis of current US interrogation techniques on the basis of such information as is publicly available or which can be supplied by the US. We further recommend that, once its analysis is completed, the Government should inform this Committee and Parliament as to its view on whether there are any other interrogation techniques that may be approved for use by the US Administration which it considers to constitute torture.

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report (pdf - p.25)

WHen your best friend thinks you are immoral....what's left?

[dlish]

this is what happens when you torure terror suspects. gives them a chance to beat you at your own game. if he walks free, the current government has no one to blame but themselves.

Gitmo judge excludes coerced evidence - Guantanamo - MSNBC.com

Gitmo judge: No 'coercive' questioning evidence
Military jurist bars some statements in case against former bin Laden driver



updated 8:08 p.m. ET July 21, 2008
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The judge in the first American war crimes trial since World War II barred evidence on Monday that interrogators obtained from Osama bin Laden's driver following his capture in Afghanistan.

Prosecutors are considering whether to appeal the judge's ruling — a development that could halt the trial of Salim Hamdan that began earlier Monday after years of delays and legal setbacks.

"We need to evaluate ... to what extent it has an impact on our ability to fully portray his criminality in this case, but also what it might set out for future cases," said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, the tribunals' chief prosecutor.

Hamdan, who was captured at a roadblock in Afghanistan in November 2001, pleaded not guilty at the start of a trial that will be closely watched as the first full test of the Pentagon's system for prosecuting alleged terrorists. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted of conspiracy and aiding terrorism.

The judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said the prosecution cannot use a series of interrogations at the Bagram air base and Panshir, Afghanistan, because of the "highly coercive environments and conditions under which they were made."

At Bagram, Hamdan says he was kept in isolation 24 hours a day with his hands and feet restrained, and armed soldiers prompted him to talk by kneeing him in the back. He says his captors at Panshir repeatedly tied him up, put a bag over his head and knocked him to the ground.

Defense had asked for more
The judge did leave the door open for the prosecution to use other statements Hamdan gave elsewhere in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo. Defense lawyers asked Allred to throw out all of his interrogations, arguing he incriminated himself under the effects of alleged abuse — including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel, described the ruling as a major blow to the tribunal system that allows hearsay and evidence obtained through coercion.

"It's a very significant ruling because these prosecutions are built to make full advantage of statements obtained from detainees," he said.

A jury of six officers with one alternate was selected from a pool of 13 flown in from other U.S. bases over the weekend. Hamdan's lawyers succeeded in barring others, including one who had friends at the Pentagon at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, and another who had been a key government witness as a student.

Monday marked the first time after years of pretrial hearings and legal challenges that any prisoner reached this stage of the tribunals.

The U.S. plans to prosecute about 80 Guantanamo prisoners, including the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and four alleged coconspirators.

Hamdan seemed to go along with the process despite earlier threats to boycott. The Yemeni with a fourth-grade education appeared to cooperate fully with his Pentagon-appointed military lawyer, whispering in his ear during the questioning of potential jurors.

"Mr. Hamdan expressed great interest in this," said Charles Swift, one of his civilian attorneys.

Morris said the statements obtained from Hamdan are "significant" to the government's case, and his office was evaluating whether to proceed to trial without some of them.

No statements without witness
In addition to the other interrogations, the judge said he would throw out statements whenever a government witness is unavailable to vouch for the questioners' tactics. He also withheld a ruling on a key interrogation at Guantanamo in May 2003 until defense lawyers can review roughly 600 pages of confinement records provided by the government on Sunday night.

Hamdan has been held at Guantanamo since May 2002. A challenge filed by his lawyers resulted in a 2006 Supreme Court ruling striking down the original rules for the military tribunals. Congress and President Bush responded with new rules, the Military Commissions Act.

Hamdan met bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996 and began working on his farm before winning a promotion as his driver.

Defense lawyers say he only kept the job for the $200-a-month salary. But prosecutors allege he was a personal driver and bodyguard of the al-Qaida leader. They say he transported weapons for the Taliban and helped bin Laden escape U.S. retribution following the Sept. 11 attacks.

[LoganSnake]

I think indirect torture would work better than direct.

[dlish]

LS could yould elaborate on that?

what do you mean by indirect torture?

do you mean phychological warfare? if playing the childrens character 'Barney the dinosaur' music over and over and over again isnt phsychological warfare im not sure what is.

anyone read the book 'The men who stare at goats' by any chance? a book full of pych-ops, mind manipulation, phychological torture - all in the name of the defending the nation. i dont believe everything i read in that book but im sure parts of it were true.

[LoganSnake]

I just figure that I would give up info a lot faster if my family were to be brought before me and my torturers would threaten me with chopping pieces of them off before my eyes.

If that falls under psychological torture, then sure.

[dlish]

Originally Posted by LoganSnake

I just figure that I would give up info a lot faster if my family were to be brought before me and my torturers would threaten me with chopping pieces of them off before my eyes.

If that falls under psychological torture, then sure.

id have to disagree with your methodology.

if family members are to bear the brunt of someone elses misdeeds, do you not think this is a little unfair? where is the justice where innocents are left alone?

besides this, do you not think that you would say goodbye to ever getting any reliable information from the family members who would hate you even more now?

this method can also be a type of coercion and could possibly fall under todays judgement and thus excluded as evidence, therefore futile.

[LoganSnake]

I'm not arguing the fairness of what I suggested. I know it' not. I just said that it is that method that would make me give up info a lot more reliably than physical torture. But if the people I'm snitching on promised to kill my family if I talk, I might take the info to the grave. Then again, I've never been tortured.

When it comes to me personally, my worst envisioned torture would be to be responsible for the harm of loved ones.

[Baraka_Guru]

I would think the self-preservation mechanism would be stronger. Threat of physical pain is both physical and psychological. Threat of physical pain to others is merely psychological, and not as hardwired as personal infliction either.

[LoganSnake]

I don't know. While I'm not big on pain at all, it doesn't make me cringe quite like imagining a close family member sitting before me being skinned alive, or something along those lines. Yeah, it's an extreme, but whatever.

Like I said, I've never been tortured.