Comments on Torture - Please do not Ban Me

I have been thinking off and on about the torture issue, while I agree that torture just for the sake of torture is abhor ant, and not justified.

I wonder if I was a service member (17 years + USN) and I had a prisoner that I knew for a fact had information that could save many other lives, I might be very tempted to get this needed information no matter what the tactic required.

If I had a terrorist in custody and he knew about an atrocity about to be committed I wonder if a gun muzzle to the head is so unjustifiable.

I know that this may be frowned on, but I am a recovering Republican and I wonder some times.:shrug:

How do you know the person is a terrorist?

stop the pain? It is a prove fact that torture is not a reliable way of getting information.

You start by asking stuff that you already know, and if they lie you really hurt them. Rapidly they become conditioned to telling the truth. Also, since lying is a form of resistance, they are punished for resisting, which in turn further breaks them.

The above paragraph does NOT mean I condone it's use.

things that WE do NOT know. Conditioning may work as swimmingly with nonverbal lower primates but an intelligent human being tortured can ascertain what "you'd like to hear" and vary the information just enough to make it useless.

I've had training in this area and I second the stand that torture is an ineffective method to glean accurate information. Also what do you do with these "highly pissed off" people in the days/years ahead in detention. They'll lie to you for sport and never develop a relationship based on mutual respect if your first action is to torture them.

Any interrogator worth his salt in gleaning time sensitive information ... not the playboy wannabe contractor heros or some psychopaths from average to elite units who enjoy inflicting pain just for the hell of it ... KNOW the above to be true.

Momma was absolutely right: "You get a lot more with honey than with vinegar."

1. How do you know that the person detained knows the information you're trying to get?

2. How do you know the detainee's going to tell you the information you want if this person is trained? Our soldiers aren't the only one trained to withstand torture.

3. Would you want government documents discussing the types of torture techniques being used and how they're being used floating around?

4. Would you want pictures being taken inside a prison where you're implementing these torturous techniques and would you pose in these pictures?

5. Would you want to be tortured if you were detained by the enemy? With our disregard of the Geneva convention, we've opened up the doors for enemy combatants to torture our soldiers that fall into their custody.

What kind of person/country are you, or do you strive for?

One's actions define one. Once you torture, or support it, you are a torturer. No matter how justified it may be.

If being a torturer is ok with you, and if you support a torturing country and government, then rock on.

If you would rather live a torturer than die not, rock on.

It's all about what kind of people we are, and what kind of people we are striving to be. (I used to think that distinguished DU from FR - but it seems to not be the case...)

you dont.

and if you had to torture them to get the information, you know the information is not reliable. Are you willing to risk the lives of yourself and your buddies on unreliable information?

You have no guarantee it's accurate. As long as ANY info will stop the torture, you will get that. ANY info.

In the Middle Ages and the centuries afterward. Under torture these poor souls confessed and/or informed on their "associates." Now many centuries later, we know those confessions were false. Is information obtained under torture reliable. History clearly tells us it isn't.

regardless if the terrorist is hiding something or if the person just wants the bullying devolved animals to stop pummeling him, he'll get a worse whoopin'.

If torture is to be condoned, there's got to be damn good reason for it. Nothing less.

and it's not a big leap to decide that the sweet little grandma who lives next door to the "terrorist" might also have some information that might prevent a regrettable attack. Although she's not a terrorist, she might be a dyed in the wool ACLU supporter and just as reluctant to speak.

If the clock is ticking, why not torture her too?

It IS valid to ask the question you asked - any time there is a hard moral choice the thing that differentiates you from the neocons is that they don't see it as a moral dilemna, and they don't ever see themselves in the position of being accused of terrorism or losing their own civil rights.

The fact is, we all want general rules that can be used in every situation when in reality every one of those situations would be a difficult case by case evaluation of the facts at hand.

To take the example further, if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had one of four ringleaders responsible for planning a certain bomb plot that would kill thousands would that be different than just having someone who you merely suspected might be able to give you information? Who sets that criteria? Who would you make responsible for being wrong? I don't believe there are easy answers to this question if we're honest about it. I also believe that you can sincerely believe that torture is wrong and yet still do it to save "the many". Our soldiers do it all the time in Iraq today - not necessarily torture, but the use of deadly force against individuals who may or may not reliably be identified as "insurgents".

Finally, I believe that no matter what you do, someone else will see it as a precedent and take it to extremes themselves.

This exact scenario has played out there a few times.

I guess that I don't find morality that malleable. If it's wrong, it's wrong, any time, any where.

There are, of course, the usual other arguments: torture doesn't work reliably, how do you know the person has the information, what's the opportunity cost, and so on.

captured, you know troop positions and plans that will result in the loss of hundreds of enemy lives, and injure thousands more.

Are they entitled to torture you to obtain that information?

Under the training I received in the Navy I am to resist up to and including the point of death if I am in possession of information that may be of benefit to the enemy.

Guess that answers my question then.

Wish there was a better way though, cause I am unsure how we confront an enemy who cares nothing about dying and only wants to kill us military or civilian in as large amount of numbers as he/they can.:dunce:

"Wish there was a better way though, cause I am unsure how we confront an enemy who cares nothing about dying and only wants to kill us military or civilian in as large amount of numbers as he/they can.:dunce: "

i must disagree with your description of what we are confronting.
Remember - they don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our actions.
If we only consider Iraq - We have committed ungodly atrocities there including torture, rape rooms, murder, and napalming/bombing towns into dust. Thousands of innocent Iraqi's have been slaughtered. Millions have had their safety, security, livelihoods and lives irreparably damaged. No wonder the number of insurgents keeps growing.

People everywhere, around the world, people of all religions and no religion alike, people want peace, safety, the ability to provide a cozy home, enough food and clean water for their families. People want to live their lives, raise their children, enjoy their friends.

If we work to eliminate poverty, hunger, and need we will be blessed by eliminating the cesspool that terrorists thrive in. People don't WANT to die - the ones who strap on explosives and board buses feel like there is nothing left to lose. they feel helpless and hopeless, that is the enemy - helplessness and hopelessness, not that you will find any of our compassionate conservatives addressing it.

peace.

thing to do at the time, but spiritual law shows is it is not the right thing to do. Also we have no one to blame but ourselves when the hooded naked US soldier pics start showing up. Some of the behavior of our soldiers, and the justifications for them given by people at home make me ashamed to be in the US sometimes. We aren't yet at the point Germany was with the Nazis, but I'm kind of getting the feeling of what it must have been like for a person of conscience to live in that society, especially the blind nationalisim that says the end always justifies any means. It's very disheartening.

The immorality and unreliability of torture are self-evident points, IMO, and having to pose the question at all is evidence of having not gotten those points. But the matter of reciprocal treatment-- do unto others-- is far more "practical." Once we begin using torture, we have no reason to expect better treatment ourselves, or to criticize anyone else for abusing prisoners. If we use torture to extract information from enemy combatants-- whether uniformed or partisan resistance fighters, even bonifide "terrorists"-- then we not only open the door for reciprocal treatment but are morally indistinguishable from death squad thugs who rape and torture for the sheer brutality of the statement it makes. They too undoubtedly have "good reasons" for doing so, at least from their perspectives.

Torture may not yield reliable information, but it invariably instills terror in its victims and in those who might become victims. In short, torturers are genuine terrorists. Their primary instrument is fear-- pain is simply the delivery system. When we become the enemy, the enemy has won.

And no one will press charges on them.

You seem to "know" so much, I'm sure you've actually been in the situation.

Let's see, so far today, you've shown support for torture, support for an invasion of Iraq, even though the money used for said invasion could have been better used securing our ports, etc. You've also provided no factual basis for any of your spiel.

Congratulations on earning a spot on my ignore list. You should be proud, only 4 people have made it that far.

Nor have I supported torture. That is also a lie. But I do live in the real world, not an ivory tower.

If there is, this sounds like a beating.

Torture to me is more like the bamboo under the finger nails, strapping to electricity (or pretending to) etc...

isn't injecting a mind altering substance into someone a form of violence? It may not bruise the body . . .

eom

Torture is NEVER justified.

RL

I also have to wonder how any of us would react if we were in that situation, especially if we were very young. It's very easy for us to sit here in our comfortable ivory towers and say that torture is wrong and should never be justified, which is true, but it's quite another thing to actually be in that situation, to be surrounded by death and danger in a strange country fifteen thousand miles from home and watching your friends die in front of you and desperately wanting to stay alive yourself. One-size-fits-all morality isn't so easy then, is it?

And yes, I agree that this shouldn't be done, that it puts our own captured troops in danger themselves and that we wouldn't want it done to them; and that we also want our country to be better than that. But again, sometimes reality is a far different story.

I do have the comfort of not being the one having to make that decision.

God help the soldiers who have been put in that situation by the assholes in the white house.

RL

You state that torture is never justified, then call those of us saying that it is never justified residents of 'ivory towers' and accuse us of using easy 'one size fits all morality.'

Dont hide your defense of of torture behind a claim that you arent defending it, and then go on to dismiss the argument against torture by using cliche's rather than making any actual points.

Of course I can understand how a person in the heat of battle can do the wrong thing. Just as I can understand why a jealous husband murders his wifes lover.

That doesnt mean that when I say murder is wrong I am living in an ivory tower.

as torture.

Torture, IMHO, implies the leisure and security to engage in systematic behavior intended to inflict pain and/or humiliation and/or fear. Torture is conducted away from the field of battle, when there is time for reflection, planning, and considered response.

But that's just MHO.

If you torture someone they will just say whatever they think you want to hear to stop the torture. Drugs may be more effective at extracting information.

being tortured, I'd say ANYTHING they wanted just to get it to stop. But I also know that most soldiers, in almost all armies, are trained to at least try to withstand that and not say anything.

People being tortured have one goal and one goal only, to get their torturers to stop torturing them. They behave not to tell the truth, but to say whatever it is they think the torturer wants to hear.

If the gun muzzle to the head doesn't work, then is it ok to burn them with cigarette butts?

If cigarette butts don't work, is it ok to put electrodes on their balls?


The problem is, once you've justified one form of torture, it becomes a lot easier to justify the next.

The people being tortured are of no intelligence value. They've been rounded up en masse. The torturers are on a fishing expedition--they're not in the last 1/3 of an action movie. You're describing a unique situation. What we have is a entire system of known prisons, secret prisons and outsourcing of torture to other countries, INCLUDING the torture of American citizens.

... some decent food, medical care, a cigarette or two and some general kindness than the 'allied forces' got with torture. Just my real-world $.02 worth...

BTW drugs only alter conscious and there are NO good "truth serums."

Damn, guess we'll have to abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat them like human beings vice animals.

Manipulation = Yes, but of course.
Torture = NO!

Former US Army "spook" (Intelligence Branch). ;)

EP

Is the least reliable method of extracting truthful information from anybody. Let me give you this scenario: I'm a terrorist, and you, a servicman of good standing are certain that I have information that will stop an attack. You torture me, put a gun to my head etc. I will say anything to make you stop torturing me, including lie. Thus, being a good soldier who doesn't want the terrorist attack thwarted, I will lie to you. In fact I will lie to you convincingly. Off you go on a wild goose chase, and for me, the torture is stopped. Even if you come back with the realization that I've lied to you and demand answers, under the threat of pain and death, what is to stop me from lying to you again? And again? Until it is too late, you've wasted your time on a wild goose chase, and the target of my attack goes BOOM.

Torture is not only inhumane, it is a piss poor way to get information from people.

you will be treated like a barbarian. I can only imagine the fear our service men and women have of falling in to the hands of the enemy, after treating our prisoners the way we do. Their leaders are truly incompetent, and their situation one giant clusterfuck.

First, information gained under torture is almost totally unreliable. People being tortured will say anything, ANYTHING, to stop the torture, but not necessarily the truth. They'll just say what they think you want to hear.

Secondly, torture - rather than treating prisoners humanely - will decrease the number of people you capture in future. When (not if) it becomes apparent that you are happy to torture and/or kill your prisoners, those you are fighting will fight to the death and not surrender. This will damage your intelligence-gathering and increase your casualties.

Thirdly, people under stress make mistakes. Honest mistakes.

Fourthly, it hads an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy.

Fifthly, because it causes lasting damage, it reduces that person's future value, not only as an informant, but as a useful member of the society you would like to create.

Sixthly, cases like the one you outline are and would be shrinkingly rare, but the creation of a legal precedent for torture is exceptionally dangerous - flat ban is the way it must remain.

Seventhly, torture is very time-consuming.

Eighthly, it's JUST F**KING WRONG.

Expanding on Taxloss's post -- Ninthly, becoming a torturer negates everything "you" supposedly stand for. And it proves, to the "enemy," that "you" are exactly the barbarian "you" claim not to be.


Addressing the OP -- If you take a look at the standard history texts -- both fiction and non-fiction -- that make up our collective "American" view of the past, torturers are always the other guys and the enemies. Think of the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Bataan Death March, the Bridge on the River Kwai, just to name a few. The torturers are always represented as inhuman monsters and the events have become archetypes of inhuman treatment.

Who, then, would even want to try to justify torture? And who would want to become a torturer?

When we look at someone like boooosh or Alberto Gonzales, we need to put them in the same context as a Tomás de Torquemada, a Cotton Mather, a Joseph Mengele. And then we need to remember that these are not the people we want ourselves to become.


Tansy Gold

It diverts medical personnel away from far more productive areas.

Forgot that one.

Thanks for your point, Tansy.

;-)

Actually, I'm not sure it's a separate point, but I think there's room to ask why anyone, as an individual, would want to torture someone else? I mean, it's not something we would do under "normal" circumstances, so under what circumstances would we want to try to justify it?

Is the potential torturer acting out of a revenge motive? Has he seen his buddies ripped to pieces by IEDs and now wants to take some of his anger out on someone he sees as potentially responsible?

Is the potential torturer acting out of a power motive? Does he feel powerless in his role in "the war" and (unconsciously/subconsciously)sees torturing someone else as a way to exert some control over an otherwise out-of-control situation? This is sometimes the explanation offered when people who have been abused as children resort to abuse as adults: it's a way of exerting control over the only things weaker than they.

Is the potential torturer acting out of fear? Is it an "I'm gonna hurt you before you hurt me?" motivation?

None of these three examples is truly based on an intent to extract useful information from the prisoner. In the interests of extracting information, the most effective and productive means should be used, and torture has long been known to be very ineffective. Therefore, absent a logical justification for torture, the only remaining justification has to be emotional. And therefore, it's unjustified.

That's not to say, of course, that it doesn't happen, obviously. But absent fear of imminent death, I think we really have to look at the so-called justifications that might be offered and determine if they don't come from a very ugly source.

Tansy Gold

It degrades us all.

Any decent organization be it US military, or Iraqi Resistance will change their plans should anyone 'in the know' be captured.

Exactly right. Anyone can rationalize a circumstance where they might see a value to torturing someone (IF you throw out all the very good arguments against it already made in this thread), but someone has to do the deed.

Will it be someone who really Wants the job? Say goodbye to your rationale; now whatever the primary aim, somebody's getting a thrill out of doing it...and that's just plain sick.

If it's not someone who wants the job, then you have two victims: the tortured, and the torturer...and that's a horror show.

you said it, friend, you said it.


and I think it may be just what we're all gonna have to face if and when this horror show is over and all those folks come home.

NOT advocating it, just stating that there are often ways to solve the lying problem.

What if the victim knows nothing, but you're convinced otherwise? You're not stopping until you get a lie.

For the hypothetical, I was assuming accurate intelligence.

In the real world, that is one more reason for being against torture.

My comments on what works and doesn't are not meant to advocate torture, but to help the ivory tower people know more about what they are talking about.

But that's what you meant, anyway. And don't worry, I didn't think for a second you were advocating torture!

of advocating it. You are correct that intelligence is almost never absolute. That's what got us into Iraq - bad intelligence.

I do have problems with people who take smug absolute positions from the comfort of their easy chairs without ever considering the actual dynamics of the real life situations, and what actually happens in the real.

And it certainly isn't comfortable.

I have thought it through, rest assured.

You seem to respect that sometimes in life there are no good choices, only less bad ones, and that sometimes they have to be made in a hurry. So while I may not agree with someone's choice in such a situation, I am slow to judge them. I think you are also reserved in judging a person in such a situation.

I'm sorry, I completely misread your remark in #74 and thought you were criticising me - looks like I was being heavily over-sensitive! Sorry about that.

then why are you TORTURING? :crazy:

doesn't seem to ever make sense to me.

peace

But in that kind of situation, you have partial information and want the subject to fill in the blanks. If you don't have any at all, then you are up the creek.

In filling in the blanks, you also ask him to fill in some of the blanks that you already know and use those to judge his reliablility.

so when he gets the known-knowns wrong we turn up the heat till they tell you what you want to hear?

ic

i think it proves the point that it's next to USELESS besides, IMMORAL, ILLEGAL, and DANGEROUS for OUR troops :argh:

ever hear about any of OUR POW's lately?

didn't think so :cry:

peace

In fact I stated that if I were ever in that situation, I would hope that I would have the moral strength not to torture. At my current age and position it is extremely doubtful that I will ever be put to that test.

We are talking about two separate aspects.

You are talking about the morality only, and from the comfort of your soft chair in a comfortable room.

I am addressing the question: Does it work, even if it is immoral. Similar to the question: Does thievery work, even if it is immoral?

And I am remembering my feelings as a much younger man in a war torn land. At the time, in Vietnam, I was never personally in that position, but I personally knew guys that were. I was assigned to an intel unit. I remember my feelings toward what they did at the time. I was approving, and didn't give a care about the subjects. I wanted to be alive to return home and if the guys I knew were helping make that possible, then I didn't care if a VC got thrown from a copter from 3,000 feet to make the next one talk. Does that offend you? Well, I am reporting how I felt then, in the heat of the situation, and I am being truthful. I was also young, scared, and wanted to live.

Were they morally right? No, they were not. But from a distance of 39 years later in a comfortable study I can not be harsh, and definitely not smug, in my judgments on the actions of some frightened, desperate young men. And yes, even though we were an intel unit, and not in direct contact that much, our unit did take some casualties, so the fear was real, albeit not as much as the guys in frequent contact. I remember my conversations with the combat troops at the time. They knew what we did, and I don't remember a single one who objected.

What you are picking up in my posts is NOT support of torture. It is disdain for armchair moralists.

i said it doesn't work under ALL circumstances, even in vietnam, hello...

AND i am CONDEMMING OFFICIAL US POLICY not the lowely, scared, practitioners of the SANCTIONED torture.

our brutal TORTURE around the globe has only INCREASED the chances that our boys and girls will experiance the same fucking thing.

get this straight, there is NO excuse.

peace

The electrical shocks won't work on you, then is it ok to take one of your children and cut off a hand, finger by finger? If you're a woman, if they rape you and you become pregnant, is that ok?

No. Not ever. Violence leads to violence and it will be a horrible day if Gonzales is confirmed.

utahgirl

Thanks for saying that.

Some times it is hard to take the service man (even if it has been 10 years) out of me.

I have read your replies and agree with them, many good reasons why I am wrong and I thank you for the polite and nice way I have been corrected.

I really enjoy the dialog on DU and I humbly thank you again one and all for replies.:wow:

Despite being a Wisc Badger. ;-)

Ex-military here, too. As long as you keep an open mind, you'll get along great here.

:hi:

Welcome to DU.

Welcome to DU!
:toast:

It's been a really interesting post.

I have questions and uncertainties about a lot of issues too. Sometimes, I have personal beliefs that don't always mesh with the supposed platform of my party - there is a lot of gray area in individual cases. I guess the first thing I'd address re: torture/intimidation tactics would be what the previous poster said - how DO we know this person is a terrorist? They may be an enemy soldier, yes, but might know very little about anything other than the basic commands they have been given - to take to the streets and fight. A lot of these rebel fighters might not know he "big terrorist secrets" that the higher-ups in the chain of command do, just as our G.I.'s fighting in the streets of Iraq probably are not privy to every little detail that Rumsfeld and Bush might be discussing. So, having an enemy soldier in custody doesn't necessarily mean you have someone who knows all that much about upcoming atrocities being planned.

But yes, there is a possibility they do. And, understandably, you need to find out. In this case, I'd suggest abiding by the law. What methods is it legal to use according to the Geneva Convention? What codes of conduct are U.S. troops supposed to uphold? I don't advocate breaking those laws and using illegal forms of intimidation, because:

a) the person in captivity may not know a whole lot anyway.
b) I respect the law, and violating it reflects poorly on the U.S. military, and violates civil rights laws.
c) before I'd do anything to anyone, I put myself in their shoes. What if I were a U.S. soldier captured in the Middle East - how would I respond to a gun to my head - especially if I did not have the information my captors were seeking?

I don't expect a lot of soldiers to take a sympathetic view, (some may)so to them I'd say to them to uphold the laws that they as soldiers are required to uphold, and abide by their duty as United States soldiers respect the uniform, and the responsibilities that come with it. That will reflect far more positively on the war effort than torturing prisoners would.

And thanks for asking... this sort of dialog and discussion is healthy and encouraged.

You wrote: "If I had a terrorist in custody and he knew about an atrocity about to be committed I wonder if a gun muzzle to the head is so unjustifiable."

If the terrorist does not tell you about the attrocity about to be committed, even after you put a gun muzzle to his head, what're you gonna do? Kill your information? Even if you only shoot him in the leg, the battle for the terrorist will be between his resolve to keep silent (which you would be strengthening) and his pain and fear of pain. The more you hurt him, the more resolve he has, and the less fear of pain he has, and the pain itself won't go away just because he gave you the information you want. So, why would he tell you anything?

People should not attempt to impose on others minds anything that they know so little about. Many people seem to say that they would rather die than be tortured, maimed or lose their minds, BUT, we have not been taught to put our own heads on the block below the blade!
Personal torture is the ugliest manifestation of mankind for use against others! Many horrible things, like recent tsunami cause both torment and torture and they are accepted until or unless we can make change. That is of course, the answer. We must be able to make change! No one should be commanded to use torture, but we know that is the case, so we must begin change at the source or destroy the source.

I want neither end of that stick.
(Anyway, what if it turns out you tortured an innocent person.
To death. Remember, Bush the Texas Butcher is the one with his hand on that button.)

Let's grant all the hypotheticals: Bad guy, has information, torture will extract it, lives will be saved.

The interrogator does whatever is necessary. Bad guy talks. I'm in the building that doesn't blow up. I'm grateful for my life. I ask around. Interrogator did a bang-up job! I want to give him a medal.

Then I see the bad guy. He's been worked over pretty good. He's pretty beaten down and broken. Now what do we do with him? Return him to the general population? Hmmm. His life span is measurable in very small increments. Try to persuade him to join our side? Hmmm. His self-loathing is such that he's more likely to kill himself. And maybe take a few people with him.

Now I don't feel so good. Sure, I'm alive, but what was the price? Even if I'd been blown up, I don't think I would have wanted the perpetrators killed on my behalf or in my name. I'm under some pretty strict orders against that sort of thing. What can I do to atone for the violence someone did on my behalf? How can I live my life knowing that a man's life was ruined or taken away to save me?

And what is the nature of my disagreement with the terrorist? Is this an ideological dispute? Is my adversary insane? Does he just have an irrational hatred of something, and imputes that something to me? These just aren't good enough reasons for me to place my life over his.

the rest of the people in the building, (Assuming a representative cross section of the general population.)will be extremely glad to be alive and won't give a damn about the terrorist. In fact, most of them will want him executed. Sorry if that offends you, but that is the way most people are.

I'm quite aware of the gap between the Christian faith that a lot of folks profess with their mouths and the secret recesses of their hearts where such thoughts are quietly throttled.

Also, in the aftermath, popular sentiment will be "Remember the Smith Building? They tortured that one raghead who gave it up, and 250 people were saved!" That will become the standard excuse for more and more refined tortures, and the number of "buildings about to be blown sky high" scenarios will proliferate madly.

Your second paragraph is the scariest of all. You are very right on it. One successful incident of torture would indeed be used as a precedent for many others. The end result might be worse than if the Smith building had been lost.

not as effective as other means

that the information you get is still unlikely to be true. Even if you torture someone they will confess to killing christ to make the pain stop. So even in cases where it may save lives it also may have no effect. Torture is wrong and ineffective in all places. There are many interrogation tactics and methods of getting information without resorting to torture which is both cruel and inaccuate

Ask yourself if the roles were reversed, and somebody had a gun to your head, would it be torture? (For the record, it is.)

Also, ask yourself about the rule of law; is it for a grunt to decide how prisoners are treated? What might the enemy do to you if they knew that you were a torturer, or were from a country that tacitly condoned it?

A gov't that gets the authority to torture will always abuse it.

At the same time, I also recgonize that individuals in extreme situations will do what they have to at the time to live and keeps their friends alive and will worry about it later. To those who get caught in that kind of situation, I give my understanding.

should you be captured. No Iraqis committed acts of terrorism against Americans here at home. However, if you were a citizen of Falluja, how would you be feeling about the Americans who are in your country right now?

The Geneva conventions exist so that NO ONE is treated barbarically anywhere.

"Good Cop" - "Bad Cop" routine.

In case you don't know how it works, it goes like this.

Bad Cop is very rough on the suspect for a long time. Suspect starts to hate the bad cop. Then good cop walks in. Bad cop is abusive to good cop. Good cop acts like a wimp in front of suspect. Bad cop gets disgusted and leaves good cop with suspect. Good cop doesn't ask any questions but starts to complain to suspect about what a rotten guy the bad cop is. Good cop give suspect a break and even gets him something - food, a smoke, etc. Suspect identifies with good cop and begins to talk. Good cop and Bad cop meet outside and share info and congratulate each other.

The advantage is that the information is usually reliable. The disadvantage is the time that it takes.

Even when the suspect knows the game, it is hard to resist. Also, the game can be disguised. The good cop can be someone that is not obviously a cop.

justifies the means" position. This is never right. Hurting someone or something is never right no matter how bad they are. When does it stop? What about the children tortured in front of their parents to get information? Is this justified? As someone else just said there are better ways of getting reliable information.

I also have a theory that those who torture enjoy it and if they have power over a prisoner, they probably will torture them anyway, even if they think they are probably innocent. This has happened throughout history.

On edit: Sorry, I meant to post this to the original poster.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...the older I get the more aware I am that we never "know anything for a fact."

It is easy to delude ourselves that such-and-such must be able to know something or do something to make a difference. It is easy to speculate that this person might be a terrorist who might know something that could help.

But until the person has had a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers, you don't KNOW anything -- and, considering some of the trials I've witnessed, you still don't KNOW.

"If I had a terrorist in custody and he knew about an atrocity about to be committed I wonder if a gun muzzle to the head is so unjustifiable"

Think about the logic of this for a moment. If you KNOW he knows, then YOU also know, and you don't need to torture him, you need to get busy dealing with the problem. If you are just SPECULATING that he might be a terrorist who might know something...well...you are just as likely to get bogus information as not. Maybe more likely.

How many times have LEOs right here in the U.S. felt they were justified to use torture to get a criminal (often black) to admit to a crime in order to preserve public safety. The cops KNEW the criminal was guilty. We all KNEW the Central Park "wilding boys" were guilty. They had to be jailed to preserve the joggers of New York. Yet they were innocent. And DNA evidence has proved it.

There are always justifications for it's use. Torture has been justified and rationalized throughout the ages. It has always been, and remains, morally unjustifiable.

How would you know that he would tell you the truth, and not merely what he wanted you to hear?

people.

Add that to every other logical argument posted above me, and I hope you see it's a worthless "tool," and dangerous to boot.

Whether you yourself would do it or not is irrelevant. In your hypothetical, I can't be sure what I would or would not do as an individual.

The fundamental question boils down to: Whether the Law and the criminal justice system should allow it or not.

No one knows what they would do in that situation-- but I sincerely hope that (in this country, at least) a person who actually did inflict torture would be tried before a jury of his peers to allow *all* angles, perspective and opnions to be vetted by Law.

"That's what got us into Iraq - bad intelligence."

The CIA never said that there were WMDs. Tenet said, "Slam dunk" meaning that he would provide intell that the Office of Special Plans could twist to make the case. Achmed Chalbi brought forth people with made up intell. He admitted this later and said that they were, "Heroes in errror". The Bush Junta knew that Iraq was no threat to the U.S.

views on torture. Since he was a POW who was tortured. "It doesn't work."
You want to use pretzel logic to condone inhumanity. There are acts which are wrong. Wrong. Torture is one.
Use other means.

information from your prisoner, will torture do the job?

And you get captured. Now what do you think about the torture policy?

... any post with "please don't ban me" in the title should result in the tombstoning of the poster.

Lucky for you, I have no power here. :)

But to answer your question - no. The reason is simple - how do you KNOW this person actually has such information? You don't. Pretty soon, law enforcement/military are accusing everyone of knowing everything.

It is an unworkable situation. There is just no room for torture.

... any post with "please don't ban me" in the title should result in the tombstoning of the poster.

Lucky for you, I have no power here.

then you wouldnt mind too much if it were used on you, right?

who knew the person who knew the person who knew the person who had the info. Would you torture each of them until you get to the info you want?

There is no justification for torture for any reason. It has never resulted in any benefit and only contributes to moral and social decay. Those that have ordered it or participated are criminals.

I suspect some US people in Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan fall into this category

sadists and tortured using 'need for info' as an excuse

In the abstract, I would feel morally justified subjecting a captive to sleep deprivation or loud music or whatever to psychologically "break" them if it meant preventing a terrorist attack.

In practise there's too much risk that "coercion" just becomes a euphemism for plain and simple torture, including physical abuse.

As far as sending subjects to other countries to be tortured, I am against that, but to be honest I don't have a problem with allying ourselves with countries that practise those kind of barbarities (under certain exceptional circumstances) if it is necessary to advance and protect the national interest. e.g. supporting Stalin in WW2. Ditto Pakistan today.

We should always condemn it, but sometimes you have to take your allies where you can find them.

in fact right next door to you where he can get a good look at your kids. His boundaries are shot remember. If he wants something he can coerce it out of somebody.

This is why Vietnam veterans end up in prisons in such high numbers. After wreaking havoc of course.

The cities we live in, the societies we have made are not our natural state of being. Culture is born from a desire to transcend our animal nature. We are each and every one of us a combination of our animal desires behaving within the acceptable rules of our collective moral environment. Change the rules and we change with it.

The torture of your fellow man is either abhorrent, and considered a crime against humanity, or it is a legitimate practice that will be used against anyone that disagrees with authority. Once accepted for any reason, there will be no middle ground.

Lynching to prevent the mere suggestion of a black man touching a white woman, with or without consent, was not only morally acceptable behavior in my great-grandfather's time, it was a popular pastime. Morality lost is gone for generations.

apologists like Alan Dershowitz. FYI, let me just quote Justice Robert Jackson,the American prosecutor at Nuremberg: Aggressive War is illegal;torture of prisoners is illegal.

This has been ratified by the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners.

I say let us obey the law like we expect all the rest of humanity to do.

And the next time when you get stopped for a traffic ticket, when the policeman starts beating the shit out of you to get you to admit to a crime. Be comforted that he just wants to make Amerika safer.

WE DO NOT TORTURE BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!
Period.

1. It's cruel. That should be enough reason not to do it.

2. People will say anything to make the pain stop for even a little while. So you go check out their false lead, and you've lost time.

3. They really may not know the information you seek. Your information about their supposed information (also gathered under torture?) may be false.

I heard too much about torture in Latin America during the 1980s. People start by using your "emergency" justification, but once the line has been crossed, everything becomes an "emergency," and the sadists take over, torturing prisoners just because they can.

Let alone that they have, matter of factly, information that could save many lives. According to the information being sifted through resulting from a FOIA request, the majority of those in our custody are there for looting. LOOTING.

Additionally, its well known to civilized countries that torture is extremely unreliable as a way to retrieve information.

No, make no mistake, we are torturing them because we can and for some kind of misguided revenge. This is the ultimate thrill ride with no repurcussions. Its war dontcha know.

Ask yourself this: If your prisoner is willing to blow himself up for his cause, do you honestly think that a gun muzzle is going to do anything to his resolve, or is it likely to just increase the bloodflow to your penis.

A young girl has been sold to a pedophile, who doesn't like girls that young, and trades her to a pedophile who does like girls that young. The police are searching for the girl, hoping that she is still alive, time is of the essence, and they finally find the second pedophile who bought the girl. After some psychological type questioning that is going to go on for hours, they call in Michael Chiklis (s?) to do the questioning because they know he uses brutal force, which everyone else disapproves of. Chiklis beats the pedophile into telling where the girl is. End result, the girl is found alive and rescued.

Who do you think the audience is rooting for? Intellectually, we may not approve of torture. But deep in our guts, it's not always that easy to side with the tortured.

slightest from what is moral <sorry but a synonym fails me at the moment> we are condemned. I apply this little test to my beliefs in death penalty and moral dilemma questions.

If you think someone should be executed/tortured etc.. is it something i could personally do? Could i inject the lethal dose? Pull the trigger? Throw the switch to kill someone? Torture someone?


I can answer no to all of these. If I can't do these things they must be wrong. I will not be a coward and sponsor or support someone else doing it. Wrong is wrong.

If torturing an Iraqi insurgent into revealing troop movements will save American lives, won't Iraqi insurgents torturing American civilian contractors into revealing troop movements save Iraqi insurgent lives?

If so, then their justification for torture is just as sound as ours.

If beheading or burning Americans, civilian or not, will -hopefully- cause the Americans to withdraw and therefore save Iraqi insurgent lives, then isn't it justified?

Hell, tossing a VC out of a helicopter at 3,000 feet was okay during Vietnam just to get the next one in line to talk... Isn't a beheading more humane?

If we're going to accept their rules as okay, then what is the difference between them and us?

Expediency can be used to justify just about any crime. The bottom line is that the US agreed a long time ago that we wouldn't torture prisoners of war. Classifying them as something else doesn't change our agreement or our obligations. Our following the rules is not contingent on the other side following the rules.

We follow the rules because they are the rules and we agreed to them. Torture is agin' the law. We follers the law.

if the fact he was beaten reached court, the evidence would be inadmissable and he could walk free.

But the girl WOULD still be alive. But you have a paedophile still on the streets who could have been locked up, and you wrecked your chance, and you'll never know if there was another way.

And what if the beating hadn't worked? What then?

ON EDIT: 600! Wooooooo!

I was not defending torture or beatings, but stating what happened in this episode and how as an viewer, I found myself on the side of Michael Chiklis. Intellectually and legally, I know that Chiklis was wrong. But emotionally I found myself in a different place, which wasn't on the side of the tortured, a fact that I can neither deny or defend.

if the other side of the story isn't told.

besides, being opposed to torture isn't about choosing sides.

re: credibility or stock one should put into information gained from physical abuse....


Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn), in "Reservoir Dogs", said:
"If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so."


Pretty much sums up how reliable statements made under duress or pursuant to torture may be....