quote:I think we were discussing to know if these actions can be called torture, and if torture can be justified. Yes, and no, as far as I'm concerned.
There's a third question Anna - if they are not torture, are these actions justified?
Someone deciding these aren't torture doesn't mean they have decided they should be done.
posted
If that isn't torture, by all means, go ahead. I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone on this thread who doesn't think it's at the very least sexual harrassment--it's whether or not they think it's deserved that's the real debate.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, what is wrong with you? You're not getting my attention with this.
----
The Atlantic Monthly had an article about torture a few months back.
There are a few sides to it, but if non-invasive, non-bodily harm things are done to fed, warm, and sheltered inmates that offend their sensibilities but produce actionable results, is it worth it? War is yucky - can you approve of the need for war but then quarrel with non-violent means used to reach its goals?
Would it have been better to shoot them in battle?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I, for one, like to be known as a citizen of the country that takes care to skirt the definition of torture as frequently as possible, sometimes arguably crossing the line.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We didn't shoot them in battle, we captured them. That question is already past (assuming they don't get out and then get shot, but I think our reticence in allowing them to go free is obvious).
And I don't particularly care to convince you, actually, you came into this thread with no apparent purpose but to attack me (and possibly people who agree with me), so I expect little I say will convince you.
Is it worth it if it gets information? I repeat, there's a reason besides inhumanity torture's out of vogue -- it just doesn't work all that well as a means of extracting information.
And yes, I can approve of (some) war and disapprove of this, easily. The only reason war has not destroyed this world is we operate under the polite fiction that war may be conducted in a civilized way. When we stop caring about that polite fiction, we jeopardize all that rests on it.
And this was not non-violent, this was non-physical (and in a strict sense it wasn't even that). That prisoner was tortured until he mentally broke down. We jail people in this country for long periods of time for doing stuff like was done to that prisoner.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Against the Geneva Convention? possibly... but not being members of a flagged army, they don't qualify...
But Jim-Me, what if they're not terrorists? The person mentioned, it seems like his crime is being a muslim who went to flight school. Obviously we don't know all the details, and there very well may be more compelling evidence against him, and the rest of the people detained without due process. But if you're saying that because they're not members of an army we can do this sort of thing, what's to stop us from pulling any foreign visitor off the street and shipping them off, too?
I wish we would follow the Geneva Convention anyway, on the grounds that if it ends up we were wrong and some/all of these people are innocent of plotting against us, at least we won't have tortured them for it. Just, you know, stolen three years of their lives and freedom.
And, frankly, if they've been in there three years without telling us anything of value, do you really think anything we get now is going to be helpful? (I realize that the actions described happened some time ago, I'm just not sure how long agao.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came into the thread because I want to talk about when not-quite-torture might be justified.
I can think of an occasion right now.
----------
I don't like the methods, and I think it is tacky and undeserving, and if it is just for kicks by the guards then everyone involved needs to be demoted and spanked, but if it actually getting results, I'm not sure I can dissaprove.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's worth it. I don't think they will find anything from doing something like that to these people and they will create more terrorists, or at least provide them with fuel for their anger. Plus, how in the world can America take a high moral ground after something like this?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saar said he witnessed about 20 interrogations and about three months after his arrival at the remote U.S. base he started noticing "disturbing" practices.
One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.
quote:Wasn't the US orignally one of the countries that supported the Geneva Convention?
Is interrogating someone in a thong, bra and miniskirt against the geneva convention?
I heard one of the last thing the terrorists who flew into the WTC did was check out porn.
That always confused me. Can anyone verify if that is true.
I also heard that the only movie theaters open IN Iraq were porn theaters.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I came into the thread because I want to talk about when not-quite-torture might be justified."
Out of interest, how do you measure "not quite torture," Katie? Do you keep a mental graph -- an X-axis of "importance" and a Y-axis of "severity of torment" -- and plot our behavior against it to verify that our actions are in fact "justified," if not good?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I have a low tolerance for violence and more than a little skepticism for our government, but I do think that it is better for a few people to be made uncomfortable (Not in pain, not starved, not molested. Uncomfortable.) than for a war that never should have begun to be dragged out for longer than it needs to be.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But doing this will not help. It will not do one big of good and it will only make things WORSE.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The link didn't tell that side of the story. It doesn't what intelligence, if any, was gathered. It doesn't say why these particular prisoners were being questioned. It doesn't say what the results of the interrogation were.
I do think this is ugly and tacky and to a faithful Muslim more than a little offensive, but if disrespecting someone's religion is akin to rape then Hatrack would be shut down.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It will bring more insurgency and ugliness as the US continues to grow ugly itself in the eyes of others. We're not the good guys anymore.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We stopped being the good guys a long time ago. This isn't the final straw.
I want to know the other side of the story - the purpose, results, and usefullness of the interogation. If someone being smeared with ink saved someone else's life, it was worth it.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarina, you have to understand that to them, something like this is a violation of the highest degree. Their religion and culture forbids men from having contact with women who are not their wives. Having these women run around in thongs, taunting them, touching them and pretending to have their periods really just crushes these men. Sure, it's not peeling their fingernails off, or cutting them, but in some ways it's a lot worse. Just put yourself in their situation. Then think of the sort of BS you'd come up with just to get this torment to stop.
Something like this will not save anyone's life! If my life has to be saved by breaking someone, but hurting another person, I'd really rather not live... It's just that simple... If we can't act in a way that is honorable, and can't live up to our principles, what is the point? All this sis going to do is create more hatred, more chaos and more war and that is not what we need!
posted
"If someone being smeared with ink saved someone else's life, it was worth it."
Let's word that differently: If making someone believe that the bond between him and his god was shattered, perhaps eternally risking the future of his immortal soul, saved someone's life, it was worth it.
posted
Sometimes in police interrogations, the officers will tell an arrested person that his partners have already spilled everything, and that his only chance of getting less time is to admit everything and tell them where they hid the kid they kidnapped. He believes them, believes that his friends and adopted family have betrayed him, and believes he has nothing to lose by telling them the location. He does, and someone's life is saved. Do you call foul on that?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, just what is the Geneva Convention's position on the use of a thong and mini skirt?
Would there be other forms of lingerie that might be less torturous to the viewer? Perhaps flannel pajamas would be more humane?
But let's get down to something very important in this, what is the real crux of the power play between interrogator and detainee... A man from a Muslim society is being interrogated by a woman. The woman is in power. She's using dress and the threat of... oh my... her menstrual cycle, to get the upper hand.
She isn't beating him with a garden hose. She isn't having the skin flayed from the bottoms of his feet. She isn't having members of his family executed. She isn't drugging him.
And this is the "horrible torture" we're inflicting on the detainees? How many soldiers from other cultures would rather be "tortured" in this way?
Sheesh, there are men all over who pay money to be treated like this at your local strip clubs.
Really, it's not that different from US forces bombarding the Vatican Embassy in Panama with Led Zepplin and AC/DC music until Manuel Noriega came out with his hands up.
Our current conflict is a war of cultures. Their culture says it is okay to talk a young man into strapping explosives to himself and then set the bomb off in a crowded shopping center.
Ours says that a mini-skirt and a thong on the right gal isn't necessarily a bad thing.
War is Hell, but the torture techniques they are complaining about are might close to their "27 virgins in Paradise at your beckoned call" reward for Jihadist actions...
posted
Exactly why do I even bother? Seriously. I'd have more luck trying to break down a wall with my own head. The fact is, that the human species sucks. America is going right to the dogs, and this is proof of it. Would any of you, especially the men, what other men rubbing against you and molesting you? That's what it's like to them! That's why it's wrong. Telling someone that their partner has betrayed them is NOT the same thing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Syn. This is less equivalent to rape, and more equivalent to homosexual sexual harassment, especially if it was perpetrated against a Christian soldier who thought that homosexuality was a crime against God, and people who practiced it were going to hell.
How would the American military react if they found out that an American spy was sexually molested in prison, a prison where he was unable to have a lawyer or obtain due process. What if this person was a civilian imprisoned wrongly?
The fact is that the guards are taking advantage of what they know about these men's religious traditions and cultural taboos and using it against them. And that is not right.
quote: Sheesh, there are men all over who pay money to be treated like this at your local strip clubs.
That doesn't make it OK. There are people who go to gay bars to pick up a quickie in the alley, but that doesn't make inmates raping other inmates OK.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If making someone believe that the bond between him and his god was shattered, perhaps eternally risking the future of his immortal soul, saved someone's life, it was worth it.
It isn't worth it.
When you take away another person's humanity, you lose your own in the process.
Just because we stopped being the good guys long ago doesn't justify any actions that continue along that trend. Obtaining information in manners such as those instigates more violence and perhaps causes more lives lost than could be saved.
Or are we talking about US lives and not counting those of the opposing force?
Would we do this to Jews? Make them eat pork? Or force a Mormon to drink until drunk and then get information from them?
It isn't right to do to ANYone.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Like the molesting part, and the being rubbed up against by other men.
Why do you need to exaggerate it to make it sound bad? Because on its own it doesn't sound that bad? If something's only horrifying when exaggerated, then it's not enough to be horrifying on its own.
quote:Or force a Mormon to drink until drunk and then get information from them?
The Lord would not hold them responsible for it. Are they withholding information that means someone will die? Is it worth forcing a Mormon to drink alchohol to save someone else's life? I think so. The Mormon can make the decision for their own life that it isn't worth it, but they can't make that decision about someone else's.
I don't think it is good. I think it's ugly and tacky and if the guards were ordered to do it by their superiors they have a good case to throw a fit, but you can't go to war and expect everyone to throw sensitivity parties in the prisons. That what it MEANS to go to war. That's why war is bad!
That's why most religions have an exception killing done by a soldier as opposed to killing done by a civilian - because war has started, that means ugly things have to happen. I do think there is a line, but if the honest goal of the interrogations was useful information that hadn't been spilled in the three years before (NOT doing it just for kicks, but for a legitimate purpose), then forcing young men to see a guard in a miniskirt and tight shirt and be smeared with ink didn't cross it.
[ January 28, 2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not exagerating. To them it really is that bad! It's not just some frat boy prank gone wrong, although, hazing is pretty disturbing. It's using someone's cultural taboos against them. It's dehumanizing them. What's worse is they probably will not even find useful information. Torturing people does not work. Read about the witch hunts. About people confessing to dancing naked with the devil and all of that stuff. Torture is WRONG. I don't care why it's done. It's wrong.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The witch hunts are a fairly old example.. Here's the wikipedia article, which contains a lot more evidence that torture is not very efficient.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's using someone's cultural taboos against them. It's dehumanizing them.
Yeah. It is. It's breaking them down to get information without causing physical pain. So is putting them in jail, shining bright light, and telling them there is no home to go home to.
Syn, where is your line? I'm not posing here - where, exactly, do you draw the line? Do you object to taking prisoners at all? What about questioning for 24 hours straight? Don't just react to the story - what do you think the policy should be?
quote:What's worse is they probably will not even find useful information. Torturing people does not work.
If this is true, then it wasn't worth it.
But I'm not convinced it is true. We are missing a great deal of the story.
The Truth about Torture Dang it, you have to be a subscriber, I think. I wish there was another link to it.
[ January 28, 2005, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking prisoners is one thing. Holding them for 24 hours is reasonable. But parading around in skimpy clothes in front of a devote Muslim, purposely disregarding their culture. It's wrong. Plus, you stand the risk of crushing a person's spirit so much you won't even get useful answers from them, so it's useless.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holding them in prison, away from their family, preventing them from attending a mosque, forcing them to let their families starve, denying them the power to control their own destiny, their own schedule, denying them news - taking their lives. Why is that okay?
Their bodies may be living, but to those they left behind, they might as well be dead - they are gone just as surely. Why is that okay?
I'm not trying to twist anything. I do think it is okay, if there are compelling reasons. I also think forcing them to see a girl in a tight shirt is okay, if there are compelling reasons. For you, why is the first okay but not the second?
[ January 28, 2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suppose it's not an opperative of al Queda. Suppose it's just someone snagged off the street because they have an Arab name. Suppose they don't know anything because they are innocent. Are you saying it would be worth breaking an innocent mind because they might be a terrorist?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the compelling reasons part. If the capturing officers have determined to the satisfaction of the person appointed to decide these kind of things that there is enough evidence that there is a very good chance that the person has information that if known will prevent deaths, then there are compelling reasons.
No one is deafening taunting people for fun.
In Lost Ashes' situation, what is okay to do, and what isn't? Where's your line?
[ January 28, 2005, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synth.. work with me here. This was a gun-toting al Qaeda member snagged in a camp in Afghanistan. He was carrying an Osama bin Laden lunchbox stuffed with Death to America twinkies.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interragating is one thing... Keeping them up 24 hours a day with some bright light, that's reasonable. Keeping them without sleep, feeding them bread and water, that doesn't cross the line. If it wears them down enough to talk, then yes. But you do not disrespect another person's culture. You do not press half naked men against a straight Christian anymore than you do what these women did to those men. In their eyes they are being violated, their culture is being stepped on and crushed. If you think that will save lives, you are mistaken. It will give the insurgents and excuse. It will prove their leaders right. It will be a danger to all Americans and those who support America. Stuff like this has to be handled with the delicacy of surgery. What they are doing is open heart surgery with a sledgehammer.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's the compelling reasons part. If the capturing officers have determined to the satisfaction of the person appointed to decide these kind of things that there is enough evidence that there is a very good chance that the person has information that if known will prevent deaths, then there are compelling reasons.
I both agree and disagree with the above statement. The clincher is the part that I italicized. If that person is decent and trustworthy and has a respect for humanity then it would be fine. If however that person has their respect for humanity nibbled at around the edges and is viewing terrorests as varelse instead of ramen, you get in major trouble. Just watched a thing on the history channel on the guys that headed up the SS. They were wonderful loving fathers in most cases, and showed no remorse for what they'd done.
(and if you want to shoot me down by invoking Godwin's law fine, but the case is extremely relevant to this topic, I'm not invoking Godwin in an argument on why the sky is blue.)
posted
Syn, I love that you want everyone to always have their dignity. Part of the reason war is hell is that it isn't possible. In your scenario, one conspirator's dignity is worth more than a dozen lives that have been entrusted to you.
The people doing the interrogations are not only working to protect themselves - they are making the decisions on behalf of people whom they have sworn to protect. They have a responsibility toward those people. What are those lives and that oath worth?
------------------------
AJ: Me too - that's why I added the statement. The entire situation needs someone who can be trusted to make a decision based on the evidence. The real travesty would be the lack of that.
[ January 28, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This does no change the fact that torturing people is WRONG. How many times do I have to say that? Everytime something like this is uncovered, it hurts America's reputation.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Syn, I love that you want everyone to always have their dignity. Part of the reason war is hell is that it isn't possible.
Some would say this places a very strong constraint upon when a war should be started. Specifically:
1) We should never start a war unless the moral benefits of winning it outweigh the moral cost of the atrocities we know our people will surely commit.
2) We should never start a war whose purpose can only be accomplished if our people refrain from committing atrocities.
Failing to follow these two principles is what's gotten us mixed up in this Iraq/War on Terror mess.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This does no change the fact that torturing people is WRONG. How many times do I have to say that?
On the one side, taking away someone's dignity.
On the other, allowing people to die and failing to live up to an oath to protect.
Sometimes we don't get to choose between good and evil - sometimes the choice is between two evils.
Destineer: I completely agree. I don't think we should have gone at all. That's what I meant by no longer being the good guy - we stopped being that when we invaded Iraq.
[ January 28, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if exploiting religious and cultural taboos is definitely wrong, what about more general non-physically-harmful stuff, like sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, denying them use of a toilet until they soil themselves? It'll certainly cause psychological distress, enough so that eventually they'll probably tell the interrogators anything they know just to make it stop (though I suppose information given by someone who's clinically insane after a week of no sleep might not be the most reliable). Should stuff like that be permitted, that's not culturally specific?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it okay to violate things that important to them as a human being, but not things that are important to them as a Muslim?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So where do you draw the line between torture and legitimate interrogation? Anything that's not designed to exploit a specific cultural taboo, and that doesn't cause physical harm?
posted
I don't know... We should have never got involved in this in the first place. Now, every second we are there it just gets worse and it leads to this sort of pointless behaviour. Perhaps it has ceased to even be about getting information. Maybe they enjoy tormenting people like this. I'm tired of trying to explain over and over why torture is wrong no matter what.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that you believe torture is wrong no matter what. I'm inclined to agree. I'm just curious where you (and others, if they feel like answering) draw the line between what constitutes torture and what constitues legitimate interrogation.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Torture is wrong, no matter what. My argument is that actions may not be torture and can be justified when the alternative is so much worse. Letting people die whom you have sworn to protect is also wrong no matter what.
[ January 28, 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This just occurred to me, and I don't know how feasible it would really be, but what about exploiting individual phobias that prisoners happen to have? Like say, hooking them up to a polygraph machine, ask questions about heights, claustrophobia, total darkness, spiders, whatever, and record which images give them the strongest stress responses, and subject them to those? Would that be legitimate? (Not asking Syn in particular, just whoever feels like responding.)
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
