It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner

[ParanoiA]

Actually, my position got codified into the US Constitution. You might want to check the Eighth Amendment.

 

We're not talking about US citizens, we're talking combatants that were captured while engaged in hostilities against our forces. They are prisoners of war.

 

What happens when the person you're torturing is *gasp* innocent? Whoops...

 

And that's the line I'm uncomfortable crossing. It conflicts with my principles about the death penalty too. That's why I can't really take a solid position on all of this yet, but I can cull the extreme absolutes on both ends. Saying torture is never effective and never should be used ever for any reason seems to miss the point.

 

Again I will ask (for a third time), if torture is an effective means of gathering vital information, why not just torture every individual you pick up on the battlefield or from a suspected terrorist hideout?

 

Doesn't that question answer itself? Perhaps it's not an effective means of gathering vital information in general practice, so torturing every individual you pick up obviously isn't efficient and consistently reliable. iNow's links seemed to confirm the same thing. But it still doesn't convince me that there aren't scenarios that uniquely suit torture for immediate information for stakes too high for a person to really comprehend.

[bascule]

We're not talking about US citizens

 

Orly? Well here:

 

Anyway' date=' I can say with relative certainty that I would torture the hell out of anyone here if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the truth out of you - to save my son. To save someone else's? Maybe not. To save 10 someone else's? maybe so.[/quote']

Do you think the US should torture kidnappers to reveal the whereabouts of their hostages? What's acceptable? Should we waterboard them? How about bamboo under their fingernails? Hacking off fingers, toes, limbs without anesthesia?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that your position is too absolute to be of any value other than unlimited self sacrifice to the benefit of the enemy. However, I value humanity as well. More than likely I'll fall back to the reality of war and the horrors I seem perfectly ok with, since we're not debating whether or not dead babies are acceptable collateral damage. Waterboarding does seem preferable to many of the vietnam images I've absorbed.

 

...I guess I didn't feel my comments, or yours, were implicitly limited to non-US citizens.

 

So it's okay to torture non-US citizens, but US citizens are off limits? That seems kind of silly to me. I can assure you, statistically, you are in a lot more danger from US citizens than you are from non-US ones. Why are you so afraid of foreigners and feel it's okay to torture them?

 

So terrorists are prisoners of war? It's okay to torture prisoners of war? Don't the Geneva Conventions have something to say about that? And even if they're not prisoners of war, does that make it okay to torture them?

[doG]

The group here obviously has a wide variety of opinion on what constitutes torture, to what extreme it should or should not be used and when. I wonder what the diversity of opinion is when comparing the subject in the OP to some Johnny picked up off the street in Anytown U.S.A.. When comparing a known foreign member, of a terrorist organization that swears to destroy the United States, caught as a combatant on foreign soil fighting against U.S. troops, should it be allowable to use more coercive interrogative techniques than the Constitution would allow one to use on Johnny? IMO it would be warranted. What do you think?

 

I ask this to sort us out between those that think terrorists deserve as much Constitutional protection as our own and those that do not. Which camp are you in?

[ParanoiA]

...I guess I didn't feel my comments, or yours, were implicitly limited to non-US citizens.

 

I have no idea how you'd draw that conclusion considering the statement of mine that you, yourself, included in your post...I guess I'll highlight what you apparently missed.

 

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that your position is too absolute to be of any value other than unlimited self sacrifice to the benefit of the enemy. However, I value humanity as well. More than likely I'll fall back to the reality of war and the horrors I seem perfectly ok with, since we're not debating whether or not dead babies are acceptable collateral damage. Waterboarding does seem preferable to many of the vietnam images I've absorbed[/b'].

 

I thought we were talking about war. I thought we were talking about prisoners of war.

 

So it's okay to torture non-US citizens, but US citizens are off limits? That seems kind of silly to me. I can assure you, statistically, you are in a lot more danger from US citizens than you are from non-US ones. Why are you so afraid of foreigners and feel it's okay to torture them?

 

Because I believe they are trying to infiltrate my government and steal cheese.

 

Sorry, but ridiculous questions deserve ridiculous answers. US citizens are protected by our constitution and while terrorists could obtain citizenship status, it's a principle I'm not willing to compromise, even in the face of national security. Prisoners of war are not protected by that document, namely because their AT WAR WITH US and they like SHOOT AT US TO KILL US. So, yeah, I'm not terribly concerned about them.

 

But torture them? Like I said, I'm not sure what should be ok or not. But feel free to continue to dismiss my posts and cherry pick the parts you can distort into misrepresenting my honest ambivalence on this subject. It only undermines any attempt to persuade others when you demonstrate you're not listening to them.

 

So terrorists are prisoners of war? It's okay to torture prisoners of war? Don't the Geneva Conventions have something to say about that? And even if they're not prisoners of war, does that make it okay to torture them?

 

This has already been brought up over and over again, so I'm not sure why I need to retype this but...If AQ doesn't follow the rules of war, then we are not bound by Geneva Convention rules.

 

When comparing a known foreign member, of a terrorist organization that swears to destroy the United States, caught as a combatant on foreign soil fighting against U.S. troops, should it be allowable to use more coercive interrogative techniques than the Constitution would allow one to use on Johnny?

 

I think so, yes. And one can answer yes to that question without agreeing to torture. It's obvious that an enemy combatant should not receive the same reverence as a US citizen.

 

Hey bascule...are there other governments on the planet that give foreigners waging war on them, the same rights as their citizens?

[iNow]

The group here obviously has a wide variety of opinion on what constitutes torture, to what extreme it should or should not be used and when. I wonder what the diversity of opinion is when comparing the subject in the OP to some Johnny picked up off the street in Anytown U.S.A.. When comparing a known foreign member, of a terrorist organization that swears to destroy the United States, caught as a combatant on foreign soil fighting against U.S. troops, should it be allowable to use more coercive interrogative techniques than the Constitution would allow one to use on Johnny? IMO it would be warranted. What do you think?

 

I ask this to sort us out between those that think terrorists deserve as much Constitutional protection as our own and those that do not. Which camp are you in?

 

Don't these comments displace the conversation away from the fact that torture's effectiveness is subject and doubtful, and instead try to revert us all back into the myth that it works? Perhaps these details would be worth exploring if torture were something which helped us, but it doesn't, so we're essentially wasting time. Much like Bascule said, it's like you're asking how many pirates we need to throw into a fire to stop global warming.

[npts2020]

ParanoiA; Nice try but the question doesn't really answer itself because any scenario where you take people into custody can involve "stakes too high for a person to really comprehend". My personal belief says that all human beings should be treated the same regardless of their national origin, race, or creed so why restrict torture to non-Americans or to some few individuals that are imagined to be able to provide useful information, when anyone might have that same information? Just because there are people out there who do torture does not mean that it is a good practice for a supposedly free society to sanction. I would like for anyone to show torture fits into the worldview that America is purportedly trying to win over the "hearts and minds" of the world with? One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that by the time any prisoner arrives at Guantanamo Bay any "imminent" situation would have already played out.

[ParanoiA]

Don't these comments displace the conversation away from the fact that torture's effectiveness is subject and doubtful, and instead try to revert us all back into the myth that it works? Perhaps these details would be worth exploring if torture were something which helped us, but it doesn't, so we're essentially wasting time. Much like Bascule said, it's like you're asking how many pirates we need to throw into a fire to stop global warming.

 

And doesn't this premise dismiss the fact that torture has worked? You all seem to keep making the argument that because torture isn't regularly dependable, that it somehow means it's never dependable. That's just as shortsighted as saying it's always dependable.

 

Swing pendulum swing, from one extreme to the other....

 

Show me a link from a reputable source that says torture will never work under any scenario for any reason ever. Otherwise, admit there's a narrow range of good results - just not humane, efficient, nor nearly consistent enough to be standard practice

 

There's nothing I've read to suggest torture is a great method to get info. There's also nothing I've read to suggest torture will never ever get info, ever. From my perspective that implies there are unique, rare scenarios where torture happens to be effective. Now whether or not that's a predictable pattern or not, is arguable.

 

I think doG's question is good and for the reasons he mentioned. We can parse our way through our contentions.

 

ParanoiA; Nice try but the question doesn't really answer itself because any scenario where you take people into custody can involve "stakes too high for a person to really comprehend".

 

Doesn't matter, you ignored my qualifier, and so does iNow and bascule, that in general practice is not an effective, efficient, reliable means of information gathering. Even if every detainee is involved in huge terror plots with "stakes too high for a person to really comprehend", it still doesn't imply that torture is great way to get info for it.

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that by the time any prisoner arrives at Guantanamo Bay any "imminent" situation would have already played out.

 

How can you really make statements like this? Without even trying I can think of a timed bomb that hasn't gone off yet. That's still quite imminent. I'm sure if have a few minutes, I can up with a list for you. Of course, that also doesn't imply torture is called for though either.

[iNow]

It was not my intention to say that torture NEVER works EVER. I should have chosen my words more carefully. However, it's efficacy is minimal, and its costs tremendous. Fair enough?

 

If you want reliable sources, I spent most of this morning reading through these, and they pretty robustly answer these questions currently being asked:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB27/01-01.htm

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say I'm OK with (not necessarily for) torture under limited circumstances:

1) The information obtained must be considered extremely unreliable and worthless as a confession or evidence in court or pretty much anything other than investigation or police/special ops mission.

2) The subject has to be considered likely to be guilty and/or have useful information, and any amount/severity of torture would have to be proportional to the confidence in his guilt and severity of the plot. Also, someone needs to be accountable in the event of torturing an innocent.

3) Torture shouldn't be used routinely, nor in place of more effective interrogation methods, nor to avoid having to prove someone's guilt before punishing them.

 

Even so, using even a little torture tarnishes our reputation and it just might not be worth it.

[npts2020]

How can you really make statements like this? Without even trying I can think of a timed bomb that hasn't gone off yet. That's still quite imminent. I'm sure if have a few minutes, I can up with a list for you. Of course, that also doesn't imply torture is called for though either.

 

And what do you suppose the fastest possible amount of time it takes to get any individual to Guantanamo? I would be very surprised if anyone made it to the prison there in less than a week from the time they were taken into custody. When is something imminent? If you accept the proposition that torture is sometimes useful (something I have seen zero evidence in support of), why should you not just go ahead and do it as a matter of standard practice?

[Mr Skeptic]

If you accept the proposition that torture is sometimes useful (something I have seen zero evidence in support of), why should you not just go ahead and do it as a matter of standard practice?

 

In case you don't realize, sometimes useful does not mean always useful and especially not always the best choice. Killing is sometimes useful, why is killing not standard practice?

[doG]

Furthermore, torture is not a reliable technique for extracting information. Victims of torture will say what they think their torturers want to hear in order to get the torture to stop.

Can you prove such a claim?

http://feingold.senate.gov/ruleoflaw/testimony/johnson.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788004686~db=all

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1171369

http://www.stormingmedia.us/45/4541/A454174.html

 

There are many more available if the above are deemed inappropriate for any reason.

 

I could only access the content on the first of these. The rest were abstract of larger works which failed, as the first did, to highlight the problem with the lack of science in the conclusions of any of these pieces, of torture failing to be a reliable technique for extracting information. I could not locate any statistics on how often individuals with valuable information were successful in keeping that information to themselves. In is very understandable that individuals that have no such information to divulge will say anything to stop torture, I know I would. How successful though is torture in extracting individuals that do have useful information? I personally don't believe the material exists to answer that question accurately and I do not believe bascule can't support his claim that it is not useful with such individuals.

 

A good article here which summarizes many of the key issues:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

 

This article actually helps make a point I've tried to raise:

 

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." [b']Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die.[/b]

 

Torture itself is an ambiguous term defined broadly by those against torture and narrowly by those that favor it.

I don't believe that your statement is correct.

Not according to an agreement that we were a party to and bound by:

 

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment.......

... Have agreed as follows:

 

Part I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

 

According to this the mental suffering induced by Col. John Rothrock whom used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected to get the information or confession he needed was torture. It is obvious from his own remarks though that he believed it was not. Some people will call any discomfort or any violation of what they perceive as a violation to an individuals human rights torture.

 

Don't these comments displace the conversation away from the fact that torture's effectiveness is subject and doubtful, and instead try to revert us all back into the myth that it works? Perhaps these details would be worth exploring if torture were something which helped us, but it doesn't, so we're essentially wasting time. Much like Bascule said, it's like you're asking how many pirates we need to throw into a fire to stop global warming.

 

Not at all. They raise the questions that need to be asked. What exactly is torture versus coercion for example? When is it effective and when is it not? Is it ever warranted? From a U.S. perspective is there a difference between foreign combatants and U.S. citizens? Does torture in any form work against those that are known for a fact to have needed information?

 

Such questions are difficult or even impossible to answer or debate without some agreement on terms and definitions. I'm sure we would all agree that cutting of one's fingers one at a time is clearly torture but what about simply inducing fear or depriving them of sleep? Isn't it fair to ask someone that claims torture does or doesn't work if these methods are torture or not and if they are effective at extracting information or not?

 

It was not my intention to say that torture NEVER works EVER. I should have chosen my words more carefully. However, it's efficacy is minimal, and its costs tremendous. Fair enough?

 

If you want reliable sources, I spent most of this morning reading through these, and they pretty robustly answer these questions currently being asked:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB27/01-01.htm

 

If torture's efficacy is minimal then why does our own government have positions in agencies like the CIA and special forces where part of the selection process for those positions evaluates an individuals ability to withstand torture by the enemy without divulging information to that enemy about our mission? If it's so ineffective then why should we even worry about an enemy using such tactics against our own as a reliable technique for extracting information from us?

[ParanoiA]

If you accept the proposition that torture is sometimes useful (something I have seen zero evidence in support of), why should you not just go ahead and do it as a matter of standard practice?

 

Because, for the third time...it's not useful in general practice. I think that's been more than demonstrated. My only reservation is rare, unique scenarios that carry the potential for unbelievable loss of life, or even mass noxious damage and, of course, it must be the most qualified method for the given exigency. If any other interrogative method is better, then torture is obviously out of the question.

 

It's not about personal preference, it's about strict logical preference. Just numbers. I would wager those statistics can give us a particular pattern that would suggest an extremely narrow bandwidth for torture. But that's a wager, not a claim.

 

To pretend there's not a threshold when you'd torture someone is to lie to yourself. Until someone can reverse that philosophically, I can't really relate to an absolutist position on this.

 

Honestly though, I'm leaning back to my original position on this torture stuff. My old thought was to officially condemn torture; to institute our committment legally and so forth, like I think you're saying and just trust that our government will cross that line if the crisis really called for it. Keeping it illegal certainly keeps from being anything like a "standard practice".

 

They raise the questions that need to be asked. What exactly is torture versus coercion for example? When is it effective and when is it not? Is it ever warranted? From a U.S. perspective is there a difference between foreign combatants and U.S. citizens? Does torture in any form work against those that are known for a fact to have needed information?

 

Such questions are difficult or even impossible to answer or debate without some agreement on terms and definitions. I'm sure we would all agree that cutting of one's fingers one at a time is clearly torture but what about simply inducing fear or depriving them of sleep? Isn't it fair to ask someone that claims torture does or doesn't work if these methods are torture or not and if they are effective at extracting information or not?

 

This seems the most level headed direction to me. I would certainly say waterboarding is torture, really all physical techniques. Psychological abuse though, that gets a little hazy for me.

Edited January 18, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Such questions are difficult or even impossible to answer or debate without some agreement on terms and definitions. I'm sure we would all agree that cutting of one's fingers one at a time is clearly torture but what about simply inducing fear or depriving them of sleep? Isn't it fair to ask someone that claims torture does or doesn't work if these methods are torture or not and if they are effective at extracting information or not?

 

It would be silly of me to argue that there is no gray area in the defintion of torture each of us use. You raise a good point about "what is it." I think the argument I've been aiming for myself is that we tend to get farther by friendlier means. I learned a lot reading the Educing Information - Interrogation: Science and Art (Foundations for the Future) report. It demonstrated very clearly how understanding the mind allows you to access areas in the detainee, how earning their trust happens, and various other friendly approaches. Here's a link that report again in case any one else is interested:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

 

 

Either way, though, I think it's fair to say that the people contributing to this thread clearly think of torture as the extreme stuff, not so much things like forcing the detainee to watch reruns of

or endless loops of Ben Steins Expelled.

[npts2020]

In case you don't realize, sometimes useful does not mean always useful and especially not always the best choice. Killing is sometimes useful, why is killing not standard practice?

 

I would like for anyone to point out a single case where torture was useful in extracting information that could not be gotten in any other manner. IMO, killing is standard practice, why do you think the ultimate arbiter of disputes is war?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Because, for the third time...it's not useful in general practice. I think that's been more than demonstrated. My only reservation is rare, unique scenarios that carry the potential for unbelievable loss of life, or even mass noxious damage and, of course, it must be the most qualified method for the given exigency. If any other interrogative method is better, then torture is obviously out of the question.

 

It's not about personal preference, it's about strict logical preference. Just numbers. I would wager those statistics can give us a particular pattern that would suggest an extremely narrow bandwidth for torture. But that's a wager, not a claim.

 

To pretend there's not a threshold when you'd torture someone is to lie to yourself. Until someone can reverse that philosophically, I can't really relate to an absolutist position on this.

 

Honestly though, I'm leaning back to my original position on this torture stuff. My old thought was to officially condemn torture; to institute our committment legally and so forth, like I think you're saying and just trust that our government will cross that line if the crisis really called for it. Keeping it illegal certainly keeps from being anything like a "standard practice".

 

 

 

This seems the most level headed direction to me. I would certainly say waterboarding is torture, really all physical techniques. Psychological abuse though, that gets a little hazy for me.

 

See above, give me an example of when torture was ever the most effective means of eliciting reliable information. I would say that neither you nor anyone else can say when torture would be more effective than other means. We can argue about the definition of what torture is but two facts seem clear to me; 1) methods that have been prosecuted in the past as torture have been used by Americans 2) those at the highest levels of our government are ultimately responsible for the actions of those down the chain of command, even if they were kept in the dark (they weren't). There is a vast library of hollywood movies showing the efficacy of torturing someone, unfortunately, the experts whom I have read universally state there is no scietifically valid reason to believe torture is useful in any case.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The first link in post #58 from iNow is the most recent study done on interrogation by the National Intelligence College. It is very long (372 pages) and pretty much backs up what I have said.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would like for anyone to point out a single case where torture was useful in extracting information that could not be gotten in any other manner.

 

And I'd like you to show that what you ask is a possible (and therefore potentially reasonable) request. To show that you would have to both torture someone and not torture someone (because each individual and his situation is quite unique), and any attempt to do a scientifically rigorous study with proper controls would be too ethically wrong for anyone to do.

 

How about I point you to cases where torture has indeed extracted useful information, and you show how it would have been possible to get that information via other interrogation techniques?

 

IMO, killing is standard practice, why do you think the ultimate arbiter of disputes is war?

 

So, if you disagree with someone you kill them? Remind me to stay away from you! As I said, killing is only sometimes useful, and definitely not standard practice. And generally, diplomacy is attempted first and war is more of a last resort. And even in war, we try to limit killing and suffering.

[CaptainPanic]

Try reading the paragraph just above the one you cherry picked.

 

Originally Posted by Wiki

 

The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) is a United States federal law introduced by US Senator Jesse Helms as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and passed in August 2002 by Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party".

Gee...looks like we left out quite a qualifier didn't we? The United States does not, nor any other country on the planet, have any obligation to concede to any construct they have not agreed to, or are a part of.

 

How about I make my own international criminal court right here on SFN and indict the leadership of your country? Now, are you going to blatantly defy International Criminal Court? Or will you bring your leaders to our court for prosecution? Court Date: 01/16/09 @ 1700. Be there or be convicted by default.

 

I think you're overblowing a simple declaration of sovereignty. That's all that really amounts to. If that language was not included, it would be an insult to our republic. We do not and should not capitulate to any power but by choice alone.

 

In fact, I even have a problem with the qualifier that we only reserve the right to protect our soldiers if we're not a party to the criminal court in question. I'd rather reserve the right to protect our soldiers from any action we believe is wrong. If a criminal court were to be hijacked or subverted by another power, I'd rather not pretend as if we're supposed to concede to that corruption. Our sovereignty should never be regulated by any external force, no matter how benevolent or benign it may seem.

 

First of all, indeed, I should have mentioned that the USA is the only western democracy that has in fact not joined the international court for war criminals.

 

There is a slight difference between the SFN court mentioned by Paranoia, and a court against war crimes in which over 100 countries are united, which is a treaty agreed on at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

 

This is a court in which war criminals are convicted. You know, the types who are the leaders behind the Rwanda massacres, the Serbian leaders who committed genocide... This is about human rights. You can be as sovereign as you like... I see no reason not to join this court unless you plan to join the ranks of those convicted there.

 

The USA is pretty much the only Western democracy that has not joined this court. The Czech republic is the other one.

 

And not only have the US decided not to join this court, so that they can continue their torture practices, they also passed a law in which the president alone can decide (all by himself) to invade my country to liberate a war criminal.

 

And indeed, I should have included the part that the US have not joined this court. Allow me to correct that by linking to a picture of all the countries that have. And the wikipedia page also lists them. Note that pretty much every ally that the USA has is actually in the list of countries that joined.

 

Apologies for replying to a post that is halfway this discussion. I wasn't gone for that long, you guys just post a lot.

Edited January 19, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[Pangloss]

Most countries joined Kyoto too, but the consensus of this membership (SFN) is that Kyoto was flawed. Just because the US is the only country that hasn't joined something doesn't automatically make it right.

 

I'll be more interested in having the US join the ICC when I'm convinced that its proceedings won't be unduly focused on the US, either to make it look more fair to other nations or to exact retribution for US foreign policy decisions. Nobody is immune to political pressures, least of all the United Nations. Justice has to be blind.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Pangloss

[npts2020]

1)And I'd like you to show that what you ask is a possible (and therefore potentially reasonable) request. To show that you would have to both torture someone and not torture someone (because each individual and his situation is quite unique), and any attempt to do a scientifically rigorous study with proper controls would be too ethically wrong for anyone to do.

 

How about I point you to cases where torture has indeed extracted useful information, and you show how it would have been possible to get that information via other interrogation techniques?

 

 

 

2)So, if you disagree with someone you kill them? Remind me to stay away from you! As I said, killing is only sometimes useful, and definitely not standard practice. And generally, diplomacy is attempted first and war is more of a last resort. And even in war, we try to limit killing and suffering.

 

 

1)OK. Fair enough, instead, point out a single case where information extracted by torture has ever resulted in termination of an imminent threat (and I will even leave the definition of imminent up to you) by American forces. In order to do this, you will have to get better information than the National Intelligence College and all of the experts working on the treatise I referred to previously could find. In those 372 pages the NIC lists a host of reasons why torture should not be used and not one reason in favor (they also talk about the "Hollywood effect" of why people continue to believe that torture ever works).

2) It is not what I do but what society as a whole does that is important for discussion. While it is true that other methods are tried first (for the most part), the might makes right attitude seems to permeate a significant cross section of American society (from street thugs shooting each other, to military interventionism, to the death penalty etc).

[doG]

]OK. Fair enough, instead, point out a single case where information extracted by torture has ever resulted in termination of an imminent threat (and I will even leave the definition of imminent up to you) by American forces.

 

Not gonna happen. The media often reports that this agency or that has eliminated some imminent threat but it never really has the details of what all authorities did to get the information. What authorities are really going to tell the media they used torture anyhow? As long as their definition of torture has enough wiggle room they can deny using it.

 

Now, why don't you tell us something. If torture is ineffective should our own mission leaders dismiss it as a viable threat from our enemies when selecting personnel for their missions that are to be entrusted with mission critical information? Should they ever be concerned about which members of their team might talk to the enemy if tortured?

[The Bear's Key]

-------------------------------------------------------

....It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner

-------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/danwasserman/2008/12/18/

 

The death penalty is closely related to torture in one aspect. Many who oppose torture or the death penalty can't really express why they feel disgusted by it, nor have a clear reason at hand. Yet I think our subconscious tries to warn us (and meanwhile the right-wing tries to win us on the idea). Because it's not only about protecting the guilty from harm. I certainly don't feel wince if the bad guy is shot in a movie, but I do cringe if the hero is dodging bullets.

 

So what else is bothering us? I think deep within, many of us know where the path to vengeance leads. We suspect that our most free and civilized nations achieved their current state in part by abandoning cruelty sponsored by government legilation.

 

All we're doing is being protective of what keeps our nations on their path, and for good reason. We have the indications of what happens otherwise.

 

The following western nations have all banned torture and capital punishment.

 

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

England

Ireland

France

Spain

Portugual

Germany

Greenland

Iceland

Scandinavia

Netherlands

Belgium

Luxembourg

Italy

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Sweden

Austria

Switzerland

 

Compare that list to the following nations which permit capital punishment (and some of whom permit torture).

 

Afghanistan

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belize

Botswana

Burundi

Cameroon

Chad

China (People's Republic)

Comoros

Congo (Democratic Republic)

Cuba

Dominica

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Ghana

Guatemala

Guinea

Guyana

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Jamaica

Japan

Jordan

Korea, North

Korea, South

Kuwait

Laos

Lebanon

Lesotho

Libya

Malawi

Malaysia

Mongolia

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Palestinian Authority

Qatar

St. Kitts and Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Saudi Arabia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Somalia

Sudan

Swaziland

Syria

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

United States

Vietnam

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

 

True, if you look here, both lists will contain hardline, extremist, and terror nations. But the western nations are solely within the upper list. Except for the U.S.

 

The company we keep is a bit disturbing, considering what element they share with part of our society. That element we have in common is hardcore right-wing groups, and in fact they both share undenaible traits in the following list of traits.

 

• Ultra religious
  
• Gun-carrying is essential
  
• Hate secularism in government
  
• Battled against women rights
  
• The Crusades massacres of the past against non-believers, and the killing of infidels today
  
• Both start wars they'd rather someone else fought
  
• Censor everything as "immoral" that doesn't exactly fit their views.
  
• Fundamentalism
  
• Religious leaders of both sides call New Orleans an immoral wasteland and its flood a punishment from God
  
• Kill in the name of God
  
• Must be armed to the teeth and find a cause to use all those weapons
  
• Capital punishment
  
• Hate gays
  
• Persecution
  
• God has chosen their nation as having His "Righteous" Authority
  

 

But returning to the subject at hand, let's end with a little humor. Stephen Colbert examining the 1000th capital punishment milestone.

 

 

[[ mod note: POST MERGED FROM GENERAL DISCUSSION ]]

Edited January 21, 2009 by mooeypoo
merged posts

[npts2020]

Not gonna happen. The media often reports that this agency or that has eliminated some imminent threat but it never really has the details of what all authorities did to get the information. What authorities are really going to tell the media they used torture anyhow? As long as their definition of torture has enough wiggle room they can deny using it.

 

Now, why don't you tell us something. If torture is ineffective should our own mission leaders dismiss it as a viable threat from our enemies when selecting personnel for their missions that are to be entrusted with mission critical information? Should they ever be concerned about which members of their team might talk to the enemy if tortured?

 

Of course it ain't gonna happen, the intelligence college document I keep referring to had dozens (maybe hundreds) of collaborators, some of whom have as high security clearances as you can have, in every field you can think of that might be pertinent to the topic. None of those people was able to document even one case where torture helped stop an imminent threat (they do document a few wild goose chases from bad information acquired from torture though).

Whether torture is effective or not is completely different from attempting to evaluate how an individual might react to it, IMO, the worries about what information they may give up are overblown. Even if torture is effective in 100% of the cases, that does not make it acceptable to use for a society who is trying to show the world its ideals are the ones the world should follow. Murder is pretty effective on some levels as well but that does not make it acceptable.

[DrDNA]

If it's so ineffective then why should we even worry about an enemy using such tactics against our own as a reliable technique for extracting information from us?

 

I think that we should worry about it because they do it. Is that not reason enough?

 

Some people will call any discomfort or any violation of what they perceive as a violation to an individuals human rights torture.

 

I believe that this statement is correct.

 

However, how does this validate, if I may use term, 'real torture'; including, extreme forms of torture, or even relatively less extreme forms of torture, or any act that Geneva, The UN Convention or US Military law clearly define as torture?

 

By the way, iNow, The Bear's Key, others (sorry I left some out), and I have presented not only our opinions, but also a lot of FACTUAL information to support our stances against torture; including, but not limited to my posts referencing,

-several Articles in the Geneva Conventions that define and ban torture,

-several articles of The UN Convention Against Torture that define and ban torture,

-US Military law that that define and bans torture torture,

-death tolls in wars fought to protect human rights and dignity, and

-statements by officials in the Bush administration (including the Assistant Attny General and Press Secretary) that condemn torture and define it as "in accordance with the Geneva Conventions or under the spirit of the Conventions where they do not apply such".

 

Does the opposing view (ie, those that support torture) have ANY 'facts' or 'scientifically proven data' to support their argument that torture should be permitted?

 

I'm looking at a lot of opinion here but "Where's the beef?"

If I missed any, please forgive me (and please point me to it).

[Pangloss]

The definition sources you list above vary wildly, so you're still in "if it's anything more than simple confinement, we're gonna slap the "torture" label on it and declare that it is impossible for any such method to produce any positive result." And in that territory you're wrong, if it's true that such methods have produced information that lead to the prevention of further attacks, which is what we've been told (and that's a whole other argument that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of torture).

[ParanoiA]

I think that we should worry about it because they do it. Is that not reason enough?

 

That's not how they worry about it though. His question is thoughtful. If it were just about preparing our military personnel for torture - preparing them just for horrible treatment, that would be one thing. But they prepare our military personnel for torture - so they don't give away truthful information.

 

doG's question is why are we so concerned about giving away truthful information if torture isn't a reliable means for getting truthful information? It's a great question. Why are our actions not matching our words?

 

Does the opposing view (ie, those that support torture) have ANY 'facts' or 'scientifically proven data' to support their argument that torture should be permitted?

 

Well, first of all, we're like libertarians - you get 'em from total anarchists to small government tax dodgers. I'm going to presume that if you're not absolutely 100 % against torture, that you must "support" torture. Did I also mention I support nuclear retaliation? You do know that could literally wipe out millions of innocent people - many will suffer "torturous" injuries that they will have to live with too, if they live.

 

Anyway, yeah, we don't need any stinkin' numbers DrDNA. We're not arguing absolutist positions here, all of our arguments are supported by the notion that torture works some extremely, small, fractional, measure of time - anything other than zero. Even if it only worked one time in the history of mankind, then our arguments are valid.

 

Why? Because we're not arguing it's a really super cool great interrogation technique that we should totally role out full scale. No, our argument is that it should not be ruled out. That's quite a change of scale, to say the least. It would be silly to rule out an interrogation technique simply because it's applicable window is extremely small.

 

No, I think you must supply the science that says torture will never work, ever, before we should even think about making it illegal for national security's sake.

 

Incidentally, I feel the same about nuclear retaliation. As shameful as it would be to commit such mass murder upon innocents. How do you all feel about that? I mean, since torture is so offensive, surely nuclear war is too?

 

yeah, I'm going to keep trying to get you all to bite. Torture, plucked from the air of arbitrary reverence, pales in comparison to other horrors you all may not have even considered, let alone take a position on.

 

That's why I have such a hard time just writing it off. It's just so....fake. Gee, how can I fool myself into believing I'm a good person today?