What would you consider that bright line to be?
Could you point to a specific example of some techniques you’d consider to be just short of the line, or just over it, or a metric you’d consider fair in judging examples?
Why the nitpicking over what “torture” is?
Yes there are some gray areas but like pornography you tend to know it when you see it. Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction is not pornography. Video of some woman blowing a guy is. Perhaps the Victoria Secrets catalog is in the gray area.
My parents yelling at me when I was a teenager was tortuous to me. I doubt most would define that as torture though.
For these threads I am willing to go with how the US has defined torture in the past and guess what? Waterboarding was deemed torture by the US to the point of prosecuting Japanese for doing it in WWII.
If that is not enough for you check out some YouTube videos of people being waterboarded or journalists trying it out or our own **Scylla **here on the SDMB who waterboarded himself.
Bottom line it is torture by anyone’s definition who has a clue.
Boy, are you naive. (While the US may not allow torture, our military history isn’t always so white hat, dude. My Lai, anyone?)
I’m not saying that what Bush did isn’t abhorent, or that the US has ever made torture legal. But we have our sordid past, same as any nation. (Although we usually got someone else to do the dirty work, usually supporting regimes that DID practice torture. You might to read up on the history of US involvement in Latin America) I’m a patriot, but I’m also a realist.
THAT BEING SAID, what makes that especially disgusting is that we are SUPPOSED to be better than that. We ARE supposed to be the good guys, and torture isn’t something the good guys are supposed to do. We then have no right to complain if it is done to our people. It puts our side in danger.
If we’re practicing torture…how does that make us any different from the enemy? Why are we even fighting then? How are we the “good guys”? (I know, I’m not expressing myself very well here)
Then you’re not paying attention, are you? You don’t even seem to know about the people who were tortured to death by the CIA, so you can’t have been paying attention.
The fuck?
If you’re inflicting pain on the prisoner, then you’re torturing the prisoner. Isn’t that, you know, obvious?
Don’t you think torturing people to death goes too far?
So if Nancy Pelosi approved, that means it couldn’t have been torture?
You somehow have the idea I’m only against torture because I believe the torturers were all Republicans. That turns out not to be the case. I’m against torture whether it’s ordered by Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, George Bush, Adolf Hitler, Torqemada, or Nancy Pelosi.
Fact is, we tortured prisoners. You know it. I know it. The American people know it. The difference is, I disapprove of torture, while you approve of torture. Well, if you like torture so much, why don’t you marry it?
I don’t see any method at all.
I think the difference he means (can’t speak for him of course) is that it has never been condoned officially.
Certainly in the heat and horror of war bad things happen. Really bad things. It’s not ok but hardly unexpected in such situations. Yet till this point the US has never officially backed these things (rape, pillage, torture, etc.).
In theory things like My Lai are prosecutable (which was actually attempted in that case although it seems most got off the hook…I am guessing as it was politically embarrassing it happened so another travesty there that it got swept under the rug).
Bush wanted to make some of the horrors “ok” legally and morally. That, I believe, has never been done in US history.
Instances like My Lai may happen in war but if the officers and government above them send an unambiguous message that such things will not be tolerated and aggressively police that policy then such evil is going to be far less frequent. Take the leash off, let the soldiers have their way with no consequences and we are back to rape and pillage.
That’s a valid question and one I cannot answer. It appears the memos released by Obama were attempting to address this in terms of the number of times a prisoner could be waterboarded per week, etc. I haven’t read the memos as I cannot download them for some reason. But, this is my understanding.
I doubt that they were using approved techniques. Much like Abu Ghraib there will be some individuals that act outside of the law.
I don’t believe you really think that inflicting any pain at all constitutes torture. If that were true most of our fathers would be doing serious time.
Nope, I don’t care who was in charge. On the contrary I think the dems are on a political witch hunt and that many, including Pelosi, were in favor of the techniques until they thought it more politically expedient to oppose them.
WTF?
Witch hunt?
Are you fucking kidding me?
People at the highest level of our government perverted the law, flat out contorted it, to allow TORTURE!
We have shown time and again on this Board, cites galore and all, that torture is not effective as a means to ensure our safety. It is morally reprehensible in the extreme. It is a classic slippery slope. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!
We are not talking about gray areas of swatting some kid on the ass once. We are talking about unambiguous torture. Methods the US has prosecuted people for doing in the past (see Japan and WWII).
There is no getting around this. I repeat, the US is NOT safer for this. Even if you want to ignore the moral implications, which are profound enough in their own right to preclude this, there is still NO justification WHATSOEVER to torture prisoners.
None! Zero! Zip! Nada! Zilch!
It is stunning that people here still try to defend it after numerous threads on this and cites (impeccable ones at that) saying over and over and over again that it is all bullshit. There is NO justification for it. None!
Torture only excels at one thing – eliciting false confessions (ok two if you include just wanting to inflict pain on someone).
Why are you looking for some loophole?
We all want to be safe. Torture is, provably and without a doubt, NOT a means to that end. Indeed it is arguably the opposite. It makes us LESS safe not to mention demeans us in rather upsetting ways.
We are diminished as a people for doing it. Our children, families, friends and ourselves are in greater danger for engaging in the practice.
Why on God’s green earth would you defend torture? How do you think it is a “witch hunt” to see those who BROKE THE LAW and endangered all of us called to justice?
As they say, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. The CIA has tortured people to death in your name, and you toss it off as
Blame it on politics:
and laugh off waterboarding as a fun time:
Just for a laugh, any cite for your absurd claim that
or would you man up and withdraw it?
Probably doesn’t make us less safe, when you think about it. It merely confirms what they already believed about us, that we are evil infidels who hate God, and who can be expected to behave like savages in freshly ironed shirts. They won’t hate us any more due to these revelations, they aren’t revelations to them, only to us. They already knew who we were, we are the ones shocked to find out.
Let’s review for those who are new to this universe:
-
It’s less effective at getting information than asking nicely over and over again.
-
Torture is not nice.
-
It’s against the law and we are a nation of laws.
Ok, the big bright line is not yet clear (which i’d say is fair enough). But you must have some reason to consider, for example, waterboarding someone once not torture, while doing it more frequently is. Instead of some examples close to the line, what about a couple of examples of ones you are confident in placing on either side, and what makes that difference between them?
Many people have said it. The argument against torture is simple.
The good guys don’t do it. Americans are (or are positioning themselves as) the good guys. Ergo. Don’t torture.
The second reason - by torturing you are removing the reason for going to war in the first place, which presumably (alturistically) is to offer the local populace a “better option”. How is it better to replace one torturer with another?
Lost freedom is only the worst that can happen if they actually, you know… surrender. If they choose to fight, they have just as much chance of eating a bullet as against anyone else.
We *have *changed the fundamental rules of war. Notice we don’t go sweeping into territories and kill every man, woman and child in them. That approach was done in antiquity, and certainly brought lasting peace (and no pesky natives to engage in asymmetric warfare). This approach, by the way, *will *be entirely effective, and give us territories with no trouble for centuries to come.
You *want *the old rules of war applied now? Lets just glass Iraq and kill everyone there. For some reason, however, the concept of genocide has over the years become distasteful.
Errr, no. Genocides are a relatively recent devellopment, really. In antiquity and the Middle Ages, local populations were a valuable ressource to be dominated and assimilated, not put to the sword. What good are huuuuge tracts of land if there’s not one bloody peasant alive to cultivate them ? The old rules of war were based on slavery, not murder.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of three such omnicidal conquests in pre-industrial Western history : Carthage, Genghis Khan’s rampages and the conquest of the Americas (and some argue that one wasn’t even entirely intentional). All three were remarked upon (and for the most part, reviled) in their time.
This just needs repeating.
Guinn, you never were the ‘good guys’.
Your propaganda is just better.
I’ve read the whole thread, and found lot of arguments like “it’s unlawfull” and “it’s unefficient”, and, alas, too few arguments about… moral values.
Some years ago, you were asking all the “free nations” to join you in the “war against the axis of evil”(*) in order to “spread democraty and freedom” and now you are gently chatting about wether or not it is “efficient” to torture someone (**).
So, look at yourself. And try to figure out how other “civilized”() nations might see you nowadays.
() and abundantly insulting some uncooperative nations, if you see what I mean.
() And I don’t even mention the fact that following the Geneva convention seems to be lot of people’s least worry. Geneva, baaah, that sounds so French anyway.
(***) As incredible as it may sound, there are still some civilized nations around. Like… Well. I think you can guess which one I have in mind.
Pssst, we were “uncivilized” long before they ever were, cousin ;). We may have turned around since Indochina and Algeria (and even that’s debatable), but I wouldn’t say that gives us one Everest of a moral highground, there…