Huh? I asked some very specific questions. Might you be able to offer some answers? Or might that take you away from your self-appointed task of making sure these boards have ample failed attempts at cute and funny?
So, any opinion on the specific questions I asked? As in answers?
Simply putting a question mark at the end of an inanity does not raise it to significance.
That’s a good way to look at it. Of course, assuming the belief that my relative had information that could save lives, I would be okay with all of these, to varying degrees, waterboarding being at the end of the list. But that’s why I posted my questions. I wouldn’t, for instance, be okay with fingernails being ripped out or teeth being drilled a la Marathon Man.
And yet you’re basing your position on waterboarding maybe not being torture on the reaction of a man who was subjected to a very mild form, and nevertheless he called it, unequivocally, torture. Why is it that you won’t believe everyone who’s done it or had it done to them and called it torture?
Do you not think the questions I asked are of interest to the debate on waterboarding? If so, which one(s)? Why. Do you not have an answer for any of what I’ve asked? Why don’t you try? I assure you that the SDMB will survive the few minutes it would take you to actually contribute to a thread for a change. Come on, there’s a first time for everything. You might even like it.
What criteria are they using? The dilemma as I see it is laid out in my post. If you care to contribute, I’d appreciate it. Simply waving your hand and insisting it’s torture is not contributing. I started out thinking it was torture, but am now leaning the other way. If you’d rather not provide the help I’ve asked for, that’s fine, too.
As soon as I require a critique from you as to my posting style and/or personality, I will advise.
I am suspicious, point of fact. You appear to be making an effort to shoehorn some doubt into the problem, in an effort to create some “wiggle room”. As an excercise in semantics or deconstruction, it may have some merit. As an argument, it has one deficiency, and that is that its substance exists only within your perferred definitions.
Waterboarding is torture. Period. Full stop. In other breaking news, the Earth is mostly spheroid.
I’m asking how you come to that conclusion? What are the criteria? At what point does an “enhanced interrogation technique” become “torture”? If we were to evaluate a new technique, what criteria do you suggest we apply to determine whether or not its torture?
It’s torture if it’s more than what is necessary for their normal interrogation and confinement.
There are no enhanced interrogation techniques. It is a euphemism for torturing people.
Applying more discomfort than necessary for normal confinement and interrogation is where the line for torture begins.
Even if it weren’t torture, it still works less well than non-torture techniques.
The fact that it leaves no scars is irrelevant. Would a high tech pain ray be torture? Of course it would.
You want to base your assessment of its efficacy on fiction? Terrifying someone isn’t allowed either. You aren’t allowed to dry fire a pistol to do a mock execution, so convincing someone’s brain that they’re drowning or going to have rats eat their eyes shouldn’t be allowed either. I also love how you utterly missed the point of 1984. 
First off the ticking time bomb is a myth. What if a super villian made you chose between your children? Second off other methods are more reliable. Both in absolute success and number of false positives. Torture can work, but other methods work faster and more often. So even if it isn’t morally repugnant it’s not worth using. Never mind the fact that it’s a slap in the faces of the founders. That it makes us into the monolithic big brother from 1984. That it makes our enemies feel like their hatred of us is justified.
No problemo.
And even if it did, torturing a suspect isn’t going to help. Under torture, he finally blurts out: “The bomb is in locker number 342 at Port Authority!” You stop torturing him while agents race madly to the West Side. The locker is empty. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the actual bomb explodes.
Torture doesn’t produce reliable information. It’s useless.
It was torture when it was done by others to Americans. The question then becomes “what changes when Americans do it to others so that it may no longer be considered torture?”
The ticking bomb scenario has never happened and never will but I propose a more likely scenario: if sacrificing three young virgins to the gods ensures rainfall and a good harvest would you sacrifice the three virgins? Or would you rather sacrifice thousands of people to die of hunger?
Tell you what, though, when the news gets to the co-eds of Baylor University and Southern Methodist, gonna be a hot time in the ol’ town, tonight!
How about the Geneva Conventions? You know, that treaty that’s legally binding on the US?
Also, there is no such thing as an ‘enhanced interrogation technique’. That term was invented solely to mask the use of torture.
I don’t believe that’s a realistic scenario, but I’ll address it as a hypothetical.
The legal system makes allowances for killing in self-defense, or in the defense of others. The standards, as I understand it, are high. They should be. Torture should be held to the same standard. And remember, we’re talking about the threat posed by someone locked securely in a military detention facility, not spraying bullets around a school cafeteria. If there really is a bomb, and you really prevent it from going off, you should still face a judge and jury. It’s up to you to convince them that your actions were necessary and sufficient to save lives. But like a murder trial, “the other guy might have had a gun” ain’t gonna cut it.
(Which is why the ticking time bomb scenario is so unrealistic. Has there ever been a case where a criminal (or terrorist) was in custody, yet was still an imminent threat and unstoppable by any other means?)
Ooh! Ooh! I know! Mr. Kotter, pick meeeee!
Take a right-wing jackass who says it isn’t torture, perform the “enhanced interrogation technique” on him for six seconds, and then ask him.
I bet that’ll do it.
-Joe
Okay. The obvious question then becomes, what constitutes normal: is it a slightly warm room with a bare 150 watt bulb? More? How much more? Does effectiveness play any role in what constitutes normal? Or is it just asking the questions two or three times?
Again, is it your position that anything that goes beyond simply asking the questions is torture? Or do you make an allowance for anything beyond that? Do you make room for what we’re trying to find out, e.g., do we treat the same interrogation techniques on known terrorists as we do someone who robs a house or bank?
Now this brings the idea of effectiveness into the discussion, as I mentioned earlier. What constitutes “necessary”. Certainly it’s not “until we get the answers we want”. But in this answer you seem to indicate some room between simply asking the questions one or twice and torture. That’s what interests me.
That may be. But that’s a different debate. Different than the aspect of it I’m trying to explore.
The fact that it leaves no scars is irrelevant. Would a high tech pain ray be torture? Of course it would. You make a good distinction. But my point was more that it causes no harm. There’s not even pain. Just fear, momentary panic.
But isn’t fear part of most interrogations. Isn’t that the basis of the most basic plea deals? If you don’t help us with info you might end up in the general population of Rikers. If you do give us some valuable info, we’ll put you in a better place, or in isolation for your own protection, etc. They paint a picture of something clearly horrific, and give someone a way out. Isn’t the equation here the same?
All good points. And I think the effectiveness argument is pretty persuasive. But I’m leaving that aside for now.
Thanks for your serious and thoughtful answers.
Nothing. But that doesn’t answer the questions I have. What is it, specifically, that makes X torture?
Thank you for your contribution of usual merit.
And in case it escapes you, it’s not a compliment. Godspeed.
I think this makes sense. But just so I understand, someone can torture—without restriction—IF it later proves to have been necessary and successful. Is that right? I think that goes further than what I’d be comfortable with.
Tons. Don’t you ever watch* “24”*?:dubious: