This is why we need a decent definition of torture. I have never seen any evidence that the sort of abuse that I would consider torture would ever produce “vital information” that was worth spit. People who are being genuinely tortured will say whatever they believe the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Despite Bush and Cheney pleading for the right to torture people, there does not seem to be any good reason to actually engage in a self-defeating practice that psychologically destroys the victim, psychologically harms the perpetrator, and does absolutely nothing to further the cause of "national security.’
All torture bad :). Count my in with the tree-hugging peaceniks on this one.
I discussed this very briefly in the wake of 9/11 and in the context of The Battle of Algiers*. I believe my argument was fairly stark - better to lose the war on terror than resort as a matter of course to the sort of inhumane tactics that would invalidate our superior moral standing.
So, yeah, if you took one of those extreme hypotheticals - “Do you mean that if you knew for a fact that by torturing some psychotic terrorist that the government could gain the information needed to prevent a nuclear device from exploding in downtown New York, you shouldn’t do it?” - I would say the government shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
This is in terms of policy, mind you. If such an absurd situation arose in real life, I dunno - I might actually do it, because there is no accounting how the human animal will react under stress and I selfishly trust my own judgement better than that of any other. If I did so I’d be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.
But with government sanction? No, absolutely not. Under NO circumstances. Entirely black and white. Sooo…
Pretty much, yep. Bribe them, wheedle them, try to verbally convert them or turn them. That’s about it.
Yes, highly unfortunate. One of the prices of living in a more evolved society, I’m afraid.
That said, I don’t think I’m even remotely better than anyone else here because of my thoughts on this matter. That’s all pretty subjective, anyway. I’m sure some might think I’m “worse” for not being willing to lay everything on the line for my country.
- Tamerlane
I see you also subscribe to the Anti Salami Slicer’s League, as I do. Our numbers are growing 
I agree on both points…we really do need to refine what ‘torture’ constitutes, and from what I’ve read the more extreme techniques used have piss poor results…basically people in pain or under life threatening duress are going to tell you what they think you want to hear.
Fair enough Tamerlane…I deeply respect you coming right out and saying so without doubletalk or hemming and hawing.
They’d be as foolish as the OP then…and pretty much for the same reasons.
-XT
I honestly don’t understand why it’s so difficult to be accurate. I don’t understand the necessity to grossly mischaracterize an opposing viewpoint.
Neither Bush nor Cheney have pleaded for the torture. It’s simply neither an honest nor an accurate statement of the position.
In fact, they have said the opposite. Bush “We do not torture.”
The actual point of disagreement is if the same protocol which the armed services must follow should be applied to our covert services.
Frankly, I think it’s stupid. Doing so gives a blueprint of our interrogation techniques to our enemies. If they know exactly what we will do, it is that much easier to defeat.
Secondly, what is good for the armed services is not necessarily applicable in all situations.
Thirdly, such a doctrine may outlaw some valid and reasonable techniques.
But, I suppose it is a much easier, though less honest to argument to simply say “Bush wants to torture.”
Reading the OP:
To claim moral superiority while simultaneously engaging in a deliberate simpleminded mischaracterization of an opposing viewpoint and suggesting that anyone who disagrees should kill themselves… is somewhat dubious if not self-refuting.
And Bush said that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that we knew he had them, and that we knew where they were. And Cheney continued to link Hussein to the WTC/Pentagon attacks for months after even Bush gave up on that deliberate lie. Beyond that, we have lots of testimony that Rumsfeld routinely approved “techniques” that were clearly violations of existing law. When Bush said “we do not torture” he simply lied. We do torture. U.S. personnel have inflicted torture on so many people that they have resulted in at least 25 deaths and numerous serious and permanent injuries. What is the point of quoting a deliberate lie as a defense of our policies? (Unless you are suggesting that Bush simply has no understanding of what is really going on under his command?.)
It is hardly a gross mischaracterization. Claiming that we need to keep torture legal even when we will never use it (when we have already used it) is, at the very best, disingenuous. Read the text of Cheney’s testimony on the topic; he was pleading.
“Better than your average politician.” A rousing endorsement, indeed.
I’m still on the fence as to whether an isolated stance on the use of torture by the government makes ECa better human being than those who support Bush et al in this matter. We would have to know more about EC’s positions on other issues (for instance, his stock would go down if he happened to support clubbing baby seals and using the walkie-talkie function on his cell phone in the public library).
[/QUOTE]
All right, the gist of the matter. I would argue that if you are a person who is actively working to see that there’s more torture going on in the world, as President Bush and Dick Cheney most definitely have, you’re a piece of filth. Right down there with child molesters and serial killers. So I’m not setting myself up as a paragon of virtue here.
Now, as has been pointed out already, there are some rare scenarios where torture might contribute to the public good. But when you compare the amount of torture going on in the world with the actual number of “worst case scenarios” – zero, that I know of – you realize that torture in fact is being done for other, less worthy reason. In many cases, totally unworthy reasons.
When you add to that the protestations of many in the intelligence community that torture is in fact a poor method of gathering intelligence that yields little in the way of useful information and much that is useless, the rationale for torture becomes even more suspect.
I call Cheney and Bush piles of disgusting filth whose moral values would in a better world lead them straight to a prison/mental health facility, because I believe torture has an inevitable moral component. It’s not just a logical argument, it’s a matter of values, too. Torture isn’t just another tool of statecraft, it’s a disgusting and revolting practice, much worse than any other practice that governments routinely indulge in. Imprisoning someone, rendering them helpless and then assaulting them so severely that they’ll say anything to end their suffering is a horribly vicious thing to dom something that degrades the torturer and the torturee. In fact, the only things that governments do that’s worse is wage unjust wars (another strike agaisnt Bush and Cheney) and commit genocide (the lowest practice they do, which Bush and Cheney haven’t gotten around to yet).
If you want to support torture, I believe you have defend it as a moral practice, as well as a tool of statecraft. And with something a LOT less flimsy than the old “worst case scenario.” I mean, we’re heading into Swift Boat Veterans territory on that one. As it stands now, I remain pefectly comfortable in my assertion that I am a better human being morally than Bush and Cheney, and than all of those who support torture. TomnDebb may be uncomfortable with moral assertions here, but I ask you, TomnDebb, does morality have no place in Great Debates?
They had to use a VERY distorted definition of “torture” to come up with that one. For the record, I consider that a baldfaced lie. Your notion that I have made a dishonest and inaccurate statement of the position is laughably inaccurate. The honesty and accuracy is on my side of the court. Believing whatever drivel Bush and Cheney spew in the face of a huge amount of evidence that the US engages in “lesser” tortures AND hands captives over to other countries for ‘major’ torture, is what I call dishonest and inaccurate.
From what lofty heights of the intellect are you working? The fact that you are ignoring the assertion from intelligence professionals that “torture is a crappy method of intelligence gathering” demonstrates to me that you are in no position to characterize others’ positions as “stupid.”
What are you advocating here? A belief that torture becomes effective when people not in the armed services use it? That it’s somehow less EVIL when the CIA does it?
Such as …?
You keep accusing me of dishonesty. Got anything to back that up, Hargus?
Just calling a spade a spade.
You shouldn’t have a “vague idea”. You should have an extremely precise idea. And you should have known from the beginning, and not by reading some allegations on pag 17 of some newspaper, but because it was public knowledge. The government shouldn’t act in secrecy insuch fundamental matters.
Hope is fine. Now, having no reason to wonder about it at the first place because there are no secret arrests, no arbitrary detention and no torture would be even better.
I didn’t. I mentionned torture too in the same sentence. I emphatize secrecy because as much as I dislike torture, this is even worst for not even knowing who’s arrested and by whom, you have no hope of knowing what’s happening to them.
Why should I propose an alternative? Yes, I say “torture bad”. Is it that a novel concept?
Indeed, they aren’t. But I wasn’t pointing at a sloppery slope. I was asking you : why don’t you propose to use torture in criminal cases and on prisonners of war too? The reasons you give woul equally apply to them. So why aren’t you asking what alternative to the use of torture I’m proposing in criminal cases and for POW?
Listen…That’s your third mention of France. I’m not sure what point you believe you’re making exactly by doing so. None as far as I can tell. Now, if you’re that concerned about the situation in France, go read the last Amnesty International report and open a new thread about whatever human right violations happening in France is worrying you.
I don’t agree with that. I do believe torture works to extract informations providing you use it with a modicum of intelligence.
I’m not opposed to the use of torture because I think it’s inefficient, but for the same reason I’m opposed to a police state, even though it might be better at catching criminals.
“Enemy Combatant” in that context is just another term for “POW”. **Lemur **is saying that there are captured members of the regular army (Enemy Combatants or POWs) who need to be repatriated once the war is over. I don’t understand what your objection is.
Are you mistakenly thinking of Illegal Combatants? These are people not covered by the Geneva Convention. I quoted the section of the GC that defines what POWs or Enemy Combatants are. If you don’t fall into that category, you are not covered by the GC. It’s that simple.
BTW, in looking over the McCain amendment (anti-torture legislation), it looks like a meaningless gesture. There is no punishment established for violating this legislation. If someone is to be prosecuted, I assume that would have to be done under pre-existing law, not this piece of legislation. No wonder Bush was OK with signing it. I can’t see that it changes anything, but if someone else can explain that it does, I’m all ears.
Extreme sleep deprivation is lethal. It kills by somehow shutting down the body’s ability to regulate its temperature. I read one account by a sleep-deprivation-torture survivor in the book Sleep Thieves where he and some fellow soldiers were forced to stand in a line and kept from sleeping, and after a bit over a week, one of his friends started shivering uncontrollably and collapsed. He was taken away and one of the guards told him that when they started shivering like that they always died. He was correct; the guy just kept getting colder until he went into a seizure and died. Animal experiments, at least with mammals, seem to indicate that it works the same way with other animals as well: don’t let them sleep, and they die of thermoregulatory failure. Apparently, once they reach the point where it starts happening (usually indicated by the onset of vigorous shivering), it’s irreversible; after that, even if they are allowed to sleep, they still die.
Yes, you are right about the Geneva Convention.
I have not had the time to read too much about these questions, the international law etc., but as I see we speak about POWs.
On the other hand, neither side did ever declare war, (but the attack in itself is declared illegal.)
Can all those that are not POWs according to the GC, be treated as spies?
Does not then all resistance in Norway, France, be seen as spies = can be shot on the spot?
I liked the original Bush declaration:
(bolding mine)
Another story is what happened later, but I think USA would have gained much if it would have kept itself as Bush declared it would be.
Or, what did I miss?
Henry
Not much, only that everything turned out exactly opposite of what Bush ever told us. And people still believe him.
We do torture, and both Bush and Cheney are liars. We’ve all been through this in plenty of other threads. Why keep dredging up the same mistruth over and over? At this point, anyone who believes anything that comes out of bush’s mouth is beyond help. I refer you to the PIPA Report.
I didn’t mean to imply that POW or spy were the only two choices. I just used those an example of two classes of people that are treated differently under the GC.
so torture by the cia never happens huh! then why is it that the only bill bush has ever threated to veto is the buget bill that has sen.Macains torture ban in it.
No. ** Lemur ** was refering to the prisonners in Guantanamo. Nobody in Guantanamo has been granted the status of POW.
Maybe he actually meant people who should be granted this status, but given the current use of “ennemy combattants” then it was unclear. Nowadays, when I read “ennemy combattants”, I assume the poster is refering to the category so called by the US administration, and that could include pretty much anybody, not to actual POWs or people that should be POWs.
No maybes about it. That’s exactly what he said-- note that he explicitly differentiated between enemy combatants and illegal combatants. Yeah, it can be confusing sometimes, but if you read his post, there is no question he is using the term to mean people who should be treated as POWs.