Not only are you missing the point, you are really stretching the concept to fit your needs. “Innocent until proven guilty” has to do with legal presumption before trial; your example is dealing with presumption after a trial. In regards to our torture of detainees, if our goal truly is to spread the ideals of American peace and democracy—as we have so often stated—then the above stated ideal is still valid.
In regards to O.J., you have every right to assume that he is guilty. However, disagreement with the verdict doesn’t entitle you to treat him as a guilty man.
So this means we can torture indescriminately? The Geneva Conventions have clear cut rules for Guerrillas, and their treatment after capture:
You will notice that most of the terrorists we fight don’t fit clearly into the definition cited above. Luckily the conventions provide provisions for terrorists as well:
Either way, we shouldn’t be torturing them. I did cite a bit of evidence as to why that is a bad idea.
I would say that the ICRC and the CIA don’t necessarily require the sarcastic quotation. They are experts enough in the field.
Other than that, your logic is a bit off. You are saying that the experts are wrong for assuming that extracted information is wrong based because they are asking for general info. But to say that it is reliable if you are looking for “highly specific, confirmable information,” negates the point of torture completely! To say that the information we are looking for is highly specific, indicates we must have an idea of the answer we are looking for. We can’t very well start out with the info and just torture it out of people; we aren’t the inquisition. And if we have no idea of the specific information we are looking for then we end up with the Packers’ offensive line instead of real information. The same logic holds if the information is “confirmable.” If we can confirm it otherwise, why comprimise our ideals and use torture at all?
Take your slippers off and help me out here with my debating techniques. I pointed out an extreme position to suggest that there is some middle ground and that other factors need to be considered.
I didn’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t make any changes to existing policies for fear of heading down the slippery slope towards …
I’m not married, so I don’t understand how that would be relavant.
But that’s the point-- it’s not always reliable, but to say “torture doesn’t work” is a mistastement of fact. It does work, but in limited circumstances.
Hardly. Undoubtedly some were taken bvy mistake. But those who are are not entitled to any rights, at least not under the Geneva Convention. We can, in fact, execute them on the spot, though our own UCMJ prohibits this.
Don’t put words into my mouth. I didn’t say it was a good idea, nor that they had no rights at all. However, is playing loud music torture? What about keeping the lights on? What about keping the prison at 65 degrees intead of 72?
Sticking red hots pokers into people is not really an issue. It’s quite pointless, for one, and unneccessary, for another. But no one seems all that keen on explaining eactly where the fault line will fall at all. If all interrogation techniques are prohibited, then we’ll get no information.
WHAT ABOUT THE HOLLYWOOD BIG-BUDGET BLOCKBUSTER SCENARIO WHERE THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO BLOW UP THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WHEN ALL THE WORLD LEADERS ARE THERE FOR A SPECIAL CEREMONY? AND WE CATCH A TERRORIST AND HE KNOWS WHERE THE BOMBS ARE PLANTED BUT HE WON’T TELL US???
also, there’s a young child with a puppy in danger.
i think you’d support torture then!
well, as long as the location of the bombs wasn’t on the back of the Declaration of Independence.
also, someone should walk toward the camera in slow motion, while something blows up in the background.
You assume so, upon drawing inferences from available information and speculation. It may be the correct inference, but it is not valid for you to say that you know this as a fact.
Sorry for the hijack.
I don’t think the proponents of torture have made at all a good case for it as a general U.S. policy. There are very, very good reasons to uphold the Geneva convention, and I regard it as criminal that the present Administration has little respect for those conventions. I truly hope people responsible for decision and policy making are held accountable, and not merely the soldiers in the field who followed orders.
I agree that torture should be opposed whether it may on occasion be successful in extracting useful information or not.
That is barely possible if the ones performing torture have good intelligence, the intelligence of the current administration was trash (and regarding prisioners, it is still trash). The administration is saying now that there is no need to figure out how it got that way. In this context, assuming that torture works is the height of naiveté.
And this is the 8th time I mention that New Yorker report on torture (recently confirmed in other media outlets) that shows that torture got us false information to lead us to the Iraq war. I find it telling that no defender of the administration even bothers to comment on it, I guess it will derail some happy torture thoughts.
Hardly. Martin Hyde got it exactly right. People latch onto the “torture doesn’t work” meme in order to avoid the more difficult moral question. Why even have a debate about the morality of torture, when we “know” it doesn’t work? There are plenty of moral reasons to forbid torture-- you don’t need an operative reason.
Besides, the real debate isn’t about whether to torture or not to torture, but where exaclty to draw the line, and is that line the same in all circumstances. Cheney et al, may in fact want to use methods that would universally be called torture. Until and unless he gives us specifics, we should assume that he does. That doesn’t automatically make McCain right, even if his is the better option between the two. However, it would be a false dichotomy to claim that those are the only two alternatives.
What exactly am I ignoring? Have I claimed that torture always works? Have I claimed that torture usually works? Have I claimed that torture never gives us false information? None of those things are unique to torture. Every interogation technique has holes. But to make the blanket statement of “torture doesn’t work” is simply wrong on the face of it.
I did not say that blanket statement either, again: in the context of Iraq, the intelligence was trash, that in turn turned the torture evidence into trash. It got us a war that took the lives of thousands, when one of the alleged points in favor of torture is that it can save lives, this last evidence shows that it is not even good for that in this case.
I think I will let someone (anyone) who supports torture or physical coercion (what is the PC phrase anyway?) set the definition. I think I will let them also define what they see as the limits or the line in the sand. If anyone is strongly pro torture and thinks it is a good or useful thing, then they should define exactly what it is they are supporting. They should also be able to clearly and logically define what they intend the purposes and benefits of torture to be, and how they will filter out any, let’s call it “sampling error”.
That’s very poor logic. It didn’t work once, therefore it’s no good.
But this illustrates exactly the point I’m trying to make that using the word “torture” poisons the well in this debate. After all, torture is bad, therefore we should oppose it? Therefore, if you don’t support McCain’s bill, you are pro-torture.
McCain’s bill may be the best political compromise that we can get to, but it is not the best overall solution.
It’s not quite a hijack. I think that the concept of how we perceive our criminals and their apparent guilt or innocence is relevent to the situation. Our ideals are just that, ideals. And we should hold them true whether we deal with petty criminals, murderers, or terrorists.
As do I. It’s easy for us to blame Lynndie England and other low level military personel, but the nature of the military indicates that the people higher up, while enjoying the privilages of the higher rank, do so at the cost of responsibilty for the people beneath them, including both their well being and their behavior. Someone higher up bears some responsibility, we as a people should demand that they are held accountable.
