You do realize that raping children to terrorize parents is one of the things we’ve been accused of ?
It’s from a discussion on age of consent laws, actually.
And cute comments don’t make torture, or supporting it, one bit less evil.
Der Trihs, I think one of the things you may have a problem with is sourcing your information. I find it very difficult to believe that we’ve institutionalized child-raping as a war-time strategy or tactic. I’m not going to bother explaining how one soldier raping a civilian is not the same as an armed forces policy…if this child-rape happened at all (if you can produce a cite, I’ll fall back on the ‘one bad apple’ theory).
I’d love to see the age of consent discussion that has that phrase in it. Was that from court proceedings or case law?
I’m flattered that you think my comments cute.
-Cem
Cemetary Savior, I’m just about done with this discussion, but I’ve got one more point.
I’m not necessarily opposed to torture on strictly moral grounds, but also and more importantly on selfish grounds.
That is, I’d rather live in a country where the cops can’t torture suspects. I’d rather live in a country where soldiers can’t torture prisoners. I’d rather live in a country where prison guards can’t torture inmates. Because I don’t think a country where those practices are routine would be a safe country for me and my family to live in. It wouldn’t be a liberal democrac country where the government is bound by the rule of law, but rather an authoritarian one. It would be a country where I wasn’t a free citizen, but rather a client of the rulers. As I’ve said, no person in the world can be trusted with the power to torture.
So therefore I will oppose any attempt to transform the United States into a country where torture is can be used legally by the authorities when they deem it important enough. Getting back at the terrorists isn’t important enough to throw away the rule of law for. If the choice was between letting Osama bin Laden go free, and empowering our government to torture me whenever they felt like it, I’ll chose letting Osama bin Laden go free.
Show me a country where the authorities can use torture without fear, and I’ll show you a shithole country. There isn’t a decent country on the face of the earth where the cops can torture people. And there isn’t a decent country on the face of the earth that would be improved if only the cops were allowed to torture people. It doesn’t matter whether torture can save lives under certain circumstances, because the power to torture doesn’t exist in a vacuum. A country where the cops can use torture is a country where the citizens are less safe, because they live in fear of the cops.
I mean, honest question, why are we fighting terrorists in the first place? Isn’t it because they, you know, kill random people to advance their political agenda? So your solution is that killing and torturing even innocent people is OK as long as the potential payoff is greater than the cost. Except I don’t care what the cost is, I want to live in a society where I’m not worried that I’m going to be the next one scooped up by the cops and tortured and my body dumped in the ocean. I’m comfortable denying the cops that right, even knowing that lives might be lost because the cops don’t have the ability to torture me. I guess I’m selfish that way.
If I were told at gunpoint that I had a choice of torturing somebody or dying, I would open my mouth and eat the bullet with a smile.
Actually, I am not sure that this was not what was actually happening before the Supreme Court (slowly) began breaking down the obfuscation of the administration and a tiny bit of oversight and inspection crept into the place.
I’m not sure whether it is scarier if it was totally random or if the torturers actually believed they had a plan.
This is exactly the point that I believe the pro-torture brigade is missing. They’re fine with torture being done to someone else, but what if that “someone else” happened to be them or someone they love? I’m sure they wouldn’t support it then.
And for those who say, “Oh, that could never happen to me because I haven’t done anything wrong”…Well, it’s already happened to many people who have done nothing wrong. They were suspected of having done wrong, and that was all it took.
None of us is safe if we condone the torture of anyone.
I’m certainly not going to defend this administration’s policies. They’re immoral, illegal, and stupid. The only apparent result of the torture and other abuse that’s occurred has been to promote anti-American attacks and break down respect for the law and civil rights. We should never institutionalize torture.
But while I would never say it’s a good choice or a heroic choice, I still feel that there are situations where torture might be the least bad of the choices available. I’ve never tortured anyone, I never expect to, and I certainly hope I’m never in a situation where I might have to consider it. I feel it’s like killing somebody - you would never want to do it but there might be a situation where you believe you have to do it.
Well, that depends on if you believe Seymour Hersh & Senator Lindsay Graham about Abu Ghraib.
Sad to say, I have no difficulty at all believing them.
Tomndebb
I’m not sure we’ve established that torture is “not a successful tool to extract intelligence.” First the claim was that the victim will lie and give no useful information. Now that is obviously not necessarily the case. Now you claim that he will tell the truth but no one will believe him. That seems even less likely. Both of those claims seem to be nothing more than assumptions that fly in the face of common sense. Furthermore, you seem to be conflating the use of torture as a method of extracting information, with a desire to simply torture the guy out of sadism or a desire to punish him. These are very different things.
As far as the efficacy of torture goes, if someone were getting ready to torture me, I’d tell them anything they wanted to know and I’d do it quickly and with as much verifiable detail as I could manage. How about you? What would you do?
As an OBTW, I’m not at all “desirous of rationalizing torture” and have repeatedly said I’d never want it made legal. I simply challenge the assertion that it cannot provide useful information. This seems to be some sort of dogma which, to me at least, does not stand up under scrutiny. Yes, there are objections and pitfalls as regards information obtained under duress. That is true of most methods.
My point was that torture does not necessarily fail to provide useful information and if someone is caught setting an IED or wearing an explosive belt he is already an enemy for whatever reason. Considering that he’d happily slit my throat and is only a few hours drive from here, I’m not too fussed by his torture and/or execution.
If people simply wish to make the point that torture is basically evil, that’s pretty much a given. However, the morality or lack of it has nothing to do with the efficacy.
Personally, I have some scenes and smells and sounds etched into my brain that I’m never going to forget. I suspect I’m one of the few people here that have actually watched torture being used. Not the pantywaist crap like making him listen to babies crying or keeping him awake for extended periods, and still less the weird sexual stuff; but actual torture in the medieval sense, the kind that hurts and cripples. It was squalid and ugly and was only going to have a bad outcome for the victim. OTOH, he was perfectly willing to tell anyone anything they wanted to know and provided a wealth of detail that was extremely useful to his interrogators. His torturers were frightening people and not at all shy about it.
And no, before you or anyone else starts leaping to conclusions, I had nothing at all to do with it aside from being there.
Regards
Testy
If torturing another person is “the least bad of the choices available,” then it should make no difference that you are guaranteed to spend the rest of your life in prison as a result. A person who makes the decision to torture should never be permitted to imagine that society will wink and allow them to go unpunished-- the goal should at least be worth the ironclad certainty that you are sacrificing your own freedom.
Keep telling yourself that.
Well, that’s enough, isn’t it? That’s all I’ll say in this forum.
Terrifel / Mr Dibble
Sorry, maybe I’m dense but I’m not following either of these comments.
Testy
“Being there”, and doing nothing to stop it, is not “nothing to do with it”. It certainly makes you complicit. Like I said, anything else I have to say would better suit the Pit
Mr Dibble
It would be interesting to know what you would have actually done as opposed to what you say on a message board. Easy to be oh-so principled while sitting safely in wherever you are.
If you feel it’s more appropriate to the Pit, no one’s stopping you. Jump up and take your best shot.
Testy
Is ad hominem the only language your side speaks?
Like I said before, I’ve got the whip scars on my body to prove I’m not all talk when it comes to resisting injustice. I know what I’ll do (and won’t do) when put to the test, because I’ve been there. Seems you have too, and we can see what you’d do, too. Nothing.
I don’t want to Pit you. If what you said is true, you’re certainly not worth it. Just letting you know - while here, I have to be polite, but that doesn’t mean I approve in the slightest.
I have made no claim that a torture victim will necessarily lie. What I have asserted has been that a person committing torture will do so until he believes he has gotten the information he wants (otherwise why would he ever stop?). This means that he is going to continue the torture until his own preconceptions have been met, which means that the only thing that torture is capable of producing is confirmation of the torturer’s beliefs. It may happen that the torturer’s beliefs conform to reality, in which case torture will appear to have served some purpose, (although, since the torturer already believed that account, it would have been just as effective to act on the belief rather than inflicting unnecessary pain). However, since the torturer is going to be directed by confirmation bias, it remains a stupid method of extracting information.
Common sense is nothing more than the sum of one’s prejudices. (That is why Jack Bauer is so popular on TV.) Actual interrogators know and have testified that torture does not work, so just as putting butter on a burn and cutting off fluids to diarrhea victims were just common sense (until we figured out that they were the exact wrong response), so the “fact” that it is “common sense” that torture is effective indicates only that humans are capable of being misled by confirmation bias throughout history.
I have not even addressed tihe issue of sadism, (although there is a fair amount of evidence that people who use torture are more likely to change their attitudes and behavior toward torture and begin to enjoy it). I have only addressed the issue that it is a stupid and unproductive method for discovering information. It does not work.
There are a number of additional arguments against torture: it corrupts those who use it; it turns the relatives, friends, and other people associated with the victim into enemies when they might have previously been neutral. However, my single argument in this situation, (particularly since so many advocates of torture seem to dismiss the moral and even practical implications of the act), is that it does not work. We should never rely on ineffective tools that are counterproductive.
Here is testimony from an Army interrogator (with an ironic last name) providing his experience with abusive interrogation tactics: they don’t work.
Here is the Washington Post article on The Torture Myth. It notes an historian who has reviewed the documents of the dirty war between France and the Algerian independence movement, in which torture was a fairly common feature, has found not a single incident in which torture resulted in useful information that had any effect on the war. It refers to two separate former intelligencve officers who note that torture does not work. It cites a report from the FBI that prisoners at Guantanamo who were beginning to provide information under FBI techniques were often subjected to “harsher interrogation” techniques by the military–at which point they stopped providing useful information.
Here is another essay by a retired U.S. intelligence officer who states that torture is ineffective.
And here is a claim by a CIA chief (as he weasels about what actually constitutes torture), that torture does not work. (Even the proponents of torture admit that it is a failed methodology, even as they rationalize their use of it.)
Torture actually harms (in a practical sense) the group using it. The author of my second link alludes to the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was removed by the CIA from FBI jurisdiction at a time when he was beginning to provide information and handed over to the Egyptians for “more effective” interrogation. Under toirture, he made claims of a non-existent Iraq/al Qaida connection that have been utterly disproven, even though they were used as a rationaization for the Iraq invasion. (See this New Yorker article, particularly page 6 (near the bottom, following an administration’s lackey defending torture).
More specifically, anything they wanted to hear.
Mr Dibble
Side? I don’t have a “side” here. Sorry to hear that someone tortured you. That’s exactly the reason I’ve consistently said I would never tryst a politician to allow this to be legal.
As far as the Pitting or not goes, as you like.
Testy
Of course you do - every debate has sides. This one has two - pro- and anti-torture.
Or as I like to think of it: My Side, and the Wrong Side.
Not tortured - assaulted by government troops.
But you are still OK with doing it to IED-factory guy or gun-carrying insurgent. Followed by extra-legal execution. So what difference does the legality make, if you’re happy to circumvent the laws anyway.?