FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Should the U.S. condone torture? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Should the U.S. condone torture?
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
We've touched on this before, but the question is coming to light again. In brief, Senator McCain (R-Az) is the chief sponsor of an anti-torture provision that is to be added on to a needed military spending bill. The provision explicitly bars inhumane treatment of enemy combatants both here and abroad. It was attached to the Senate's fiscal 2006 defense spending bill Oct. 6 by a vote of 90-9.
The White House has said that if the bill contains this provision it will be vetoed. This would be the first veto of this administration.
Vice-President Cheney has requested changes to the provision, specifically exemptions for covert operations so that intelligence-gathering would not be hampered by a one-size-fits-all law.
McCain said his intent is to prevent abuses such as those at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He vowed today that his measure would be "on every vehicle that goes through this body" until it's enacted into law. "It's not going away," he said on the Senate floor. "This issue is incredibly harmful to the United States of America and our image throughout the world."
Very recently it was reported in the Washington Post that the CIA is maintaining secret prisons in different countries.

(summary pulled from several sources, just google for "mccain torture" and choose the source you trust)

What do you think? Should this provision become law? Would such a thing limit our possibilities in the war on terror, or would it reaffirm our ideals and our compliance with the Geneva Convention? Or should we ban it but leave the option for the president, upon discussion with the appropriate people, to make exceptions in emergencies?

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
If we stand for anything, we should stand for this. No terrorist can do as much damage to the idea of the United States as "secret prisons".

And we are about an idea.

Other countries have shared ethnicity or shared tribal origins or shared religions - if you're France or Spain, you are still France or Spain no matter what kind of government you have.

We don't have that. What we have that defines us as American is our adherence to a set of ideals. When we lose those, as we are seeming to these days, we forget who we are.

Senator McCain should have our gratitude for reminding us.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
No! The US should not condone torture or anything similar to torture.

The importance of fighting terrorism can not be used to justify what is otherwise unjust. We can not defeat terrorism by resorting to terror.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Torture is wrong. Just because someone else is doing it doesn't mean we should condone doing it to them.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
I have no moral qualms against torture, but it's such a waste of time: more often than not, the person being tortured ends up "surrendering information" that you want to hear, just to get you to stop.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
It doesn't surprise me the Sen. McCain is the sponsor of this bill. His personal history means that he speaks not just from an ethical standpoint but from a standpoint of great experience.

McCain, with this, is working hard towards the America we should be. We owe him a debt of thanks for his efforts now, as well as then, and our current Administration owes him their ears to hear from a real victim of torture why this is so important.

But then again, while McCain was trying to survive at the Hanoi Hilton, our President's biggest travail was the long walk to the ice machine at the Houston Hilton.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
What is torture?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

But then again, while McCain was trying to survive at the Hanoi Hilton, our President's biggest travail was the long walk to the ice machine at the Houston Hilton.

Oh, snap. :lol:

Do you think he'll run for president in '08? I've heard some people say he's too old, but he seems pretty feisty to me.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
That was my question, Stormy and you stole it! [Smile]

I wonder if it wouldn't turn into trying to apply the 'cruel and unusual punishment' ambiguity to warfare.

But aside from that, it's very nice for us to sit in our comfortable chairs and contemplate right and wrong. Should we endorse torture (whatever that is)? Obviously not. But as someone whose closest experience with a warzone is my 12 year old's bedroom, I don't feel qualified to decide what soldiers may or may not do on the field of battle. To suppose I have such judgement qualifications is either hubris or ignorance. I don't feel that anyone short of a war veteran like McCain can make a judgement like this.

Since he has, it's worth looking at, but I wonder if the word has been defined. As it is, it's too ambiguous a word to just throw out there and say 'don't do that'.

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Megan
Member
Member # 5290

 - posted      Profile for Megan           Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe it's like the obscenity laws; you'd (non-specific you) know it if you saw it.

[Dont Know]

Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
Defining what torture is leads to brinksmanship.

Once you set what a limit is, the folks who have the proclivity to use torture in the first place, will heartily go right up to the line of it. Or worse, find a loophole.

"You said I shouldn't physically hurt him, so all I did was mess with his sleep schedule and show him some doctored photos that we had his children in a death camp."

Really, torture is torture. The law should be worded as simply as possible instead of creating a laundry list of what can and can't be done.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
Normally, I'd agree with you, Sopwith. I prefer general guidelines so you know the spirit of the restriction rather than the letter of it. But unless we make an attempt at defining the word, such a law would be ambiguous to the point of uselessnes. In other words, the limits of the law would be determined in courts.

Personally, I'd prefer that they define the word to convey at least the generality of the spirit intended, rather than try to delineate specifics. That, as you said, would just lead to brinksmanship.

Unlike obscenity laws, this proposed law is a matter of careers in the service of our country and in some cases, life and death. It would be grossly unfair to those we employ to send them out with 'Good luck, and don't torture anyone today!', not giving them any idea what that word actually means. Does it mean they must observe the religious sensibilities of those they interogate? Or is it torture when they use violating those sensibilities in a way that would not be offensive to us, but is obscenely offensive to the interogatees? I don't want to limit our military to the point they can only hold cocktail parties for our enemies.

edited for clarity in pronouns

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Doesn't the proposal simply reiterate that America will abide by international conventions to which it is a party?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enochville
Member
Member # 8815

 - posted      Profile for enochville   Email enochville         Edit/Delete Post 
I support the anti-torture provision as long as it is worded well (see everyone's comments on that).

I strongly disagree with jeniwren when she said, "I don't feel that anyone short of a war veteran like McCain can make a judgement like this [what soldiers may or may not do on the field of battle]."

Intelligence gathered from torture is most often useless. It does not deter future aggressions, but creates and motivates new enemies. Plus it damages the person carrying out the torture. Treating people better than they deserve engenders respect and devotion from most who hear of it. Granted we must do all that is within our power to prevent further injury to our people and interests.

Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tern
Member
Member # 7429

 - posted      Profile for tern   Email tern         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that it is right to obtain information by torture, but I question the definition of torture that is often used. Britney Spears music? Getting yelled at? Ask our Vietnam POWs what torture really is. And that kind of torture should not be condoned.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
Torture is not only wrong, but I have seen little reason to believe that our secret prisons and questionable techniques have made us safe from terrorism. The terrorist threat will exist whether or not we torture our prisoners. The torture will thus serve to increase our security very little, while eliminating whatever moral highground we have.

It should also be noted, on a very practical level, that the prisoner abuse in Iraq illustrates how condoning torture will only lead to scandal when that torture becomes public. The War on Terror is much more a war of perceptions than a physical war. We make ourselves look like the bad guy when we torture, and when we are percieved as the bad guy, we are losing the War on Terror.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aerto
Member
Member # 8810

 - posted      Profile for Aerto   Email Aerto         Edit/Delete Post 
A distinction has to be drawn between torture and what has recently be called "coerced interrogation." The best way to define them is probably by example. Coerced interrogation would include such measures as sleep deprivation, bright lights, restricting food and water, and making someone stand for long hours. Essentially, they are tactics that, while making the subject uncomfortable are not likely to result in any sort of permanent impairment or disfigurement.

Torture is wrong in virtually every situation, whereas coereced interrogation has its place, in my opinion.

Whether McCain's rider would prevent coerced interrogation is something I don't know the answer to.

Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps we should hold prisoners of war to have no less rights than we guarantee incarcerees in our own prison system. It may bind our hands when it comes to interrogation, but sometimes being good means taking the more difficult path.

On a note about the "secret" prisoner of war camps, something that hasn't been mentioned is the possibility, minor though it is, that the individuals weren't sent there for torture purposes. Perhaps they were sent there to be "disappeared" so the other side wouldn't know if they had been captured or killed in action.

If that was the case, there could be numerous intelligence advantages to it. However, with the general vibe our Administration has been giving off throughout this, I hold little hope in it.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
From a Washington Post article:

One McCain amendment would set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department and would limit interrogation techniques to those listed in the Army field manual on interrogation, now being revised. Any changes to procedures would require the defense secretary to appear before Congress.

It would further require that all foreign nationals in the custody or effective control of the U.S. military must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross -- a provision specifically meant to block the holding of "ghost detainees" in Iraq, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The provision would not apply to detainees in CIA custody at nonmilitary facilities.

[...]

Another McCain amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- which the United States has already ratified -- is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post 
Of course torture is never under any circumstances justified. It serves no good purpose ever. It does horrible, unspeakable damage to those tortured. And that is absolutely nothing compared to the damage it does to those who torture. There is no more bitter cup of poison that we could drink, as a nation, than to become a nation of torturers. I honestly think this is just about the stupidest, foulest, most revolting, appalling, sickening, vomitous, repulsive idea that has ever come from any political leadership in U.S. history. That torture should be condoned is far worse than anything I can even imagine happening in our country. I sincerely believe that if we accept torture then we have thrown in our hats with Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Gadianton, and every other evil force in the history of the world. If we do this, then we've made ourselves into servants of Morgoth and we deserve to be utterly destroyed off the face of material existence.

This post does not express strongly enough how I feel about condoning torture.

Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
Member
Member # 5505

 - posted      Profile for FIJC   Email FIJC         Edit/Delete Post 
The current conflict/confusion is not whether or not torture is wrong...the problem right now is coming up with clear guidance as to what it is/where it begins.

Would you temporarily deprive someone of food, light, warm temperatures, peace/quiet (i.e. make someone physically uncomfortable), if the intelligence gained could potentially save hundreds of lives? Some would consider this torture, some wouldn't. Either way, we haven't had the equivalent to 9/11 on US soil since President Bush began the Global War on Terror/OEF/OIF.

Just be glad that you currently aren't the one making these agonizing decisions. It's easy to sit on the sidelnes and say "I oppose torture." But if you would put yourself in the position of actually developing policy around this, it isn't so easy, especially considering what is at stake--the safety of the American people.

quote:
"The provision would not apply to detainees in CIA custody at nonmilitary facilities."
That is a significant passage. I can see much benefit in clearing up any confusion there may be for the military. In fact, this should have been done long ago. As for CIA activities, they have little meaningful oversight as it is.

[ November 05, 2005, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
WashingtonPost: Bush orders ethics training for staff
while at MSNBC: Cheney urges exception to torture ban

A slight disconnect there?

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm on the side of 'no' to this thread's question, but I have to admit...not as much as I'd like to be. I'm closer to the fence than I think I ought be sitting.

Bear that in mind when I say the following: torture works. Sometimes. In certain situations, folks, let's face it, ripping off a guy's fingernails works to get the information so desperately needed.

Screwing up someone's sleep schedule drastically, semi-brainwashing, works, sometimes.

And I'll be honest-and frankly I think there are few if any people who aren't of like mind on this-if a loved one of mine was, for instance, being tortured by someone else and I had that someone else's buddy with me who knew where my loved one was, but wasn't talking fast enough...

...yeah, I'd torture them. I'd apply every ounce of creativity and maliciousness I've got into the effort.

This is one of those ambiguous things. My feelings on it-especially the last part-make me want to be both for and against torture, because I realize sometimes it's justice to stop an individual or organization from doing something they want so badly.

-----

My position would become almost immediately much more in favor of never condoning torture if I wasn't convinced that we would be the only ones singing that tune, and unwilling (and unable, but the lack of will is more important) to make others sing it with us.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
This whole question is why I shudder everytime I hear the phrase "Homeland Security."

There are reasons they picked that phrase. Home-Land, land that is our home, is not the same as America, or These United States. There are many things I would be tempted to do to protect my home that would be neither legal, ethical, nor humane. I could not do them to protect America because they are things that are in opposition to what the ideal of America is.

Homeland, much like Der Fatherland and Da Motherland, is in a category I call polis-familia. It implies that the state is something much closer, almost sacred in its origins, and personally more important to us than a set of ideals that binds us together as a community. It says the import is not what we believe, but where we live.

To torture the outsider, regardless of their guilt, to save the sacred state is a page out of facism.

As to particulars:

1) We have no proof that they are toturing anyone. However, we have no independent verification that they are not. After Abu-Graib, where our government told us "Trust us. We wouldn't do that kind of thing." as an American I can not trust them with this.

2) We may be holding them hidden only as a tactic. Hasim is having a meeting with 5 other Al Queda. We capture him. If we announce his capture, the meeting will move and his associates will go deep knowing we are on to him.

This makes sense as a tactic, as long as there is an endgame. Disappearing someone can only be useful in this way for a limited time. Years are far to long for us to assume that his buddies won't figure out what we are doing. Sure, they may not know if he's dead or giving us info, but they have shown themselves to be smart enough to assume the worse.

3) Cheney wants an exception on the torture ban for the CIA. This will turn the CIA into America's legalized Inquisition. Right now, what they are doing overseas has not been confirmed as illegal. McCain's ammendment that intends to make Torture illegal, would, with this exception, in fact legalize it for the CIA. No wonder McCain refuses to back down on this.

4) Cheney has said that with AlQueda electronic intelligence is not very useful and the defectors that were so useful in the Cold War are not forthcoming, so torture is our only option.

The man scares me.

It is not our only option, and if it were, I would still fight to have its use denied.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps the question could be answered more easily if we first rephrased it a little :

Should China condone torture?
Should Iraq condone torture?
Should Russia condone torture?
Should Europe condone torture?

No? Well then. Why is America special?

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ser Bronn Stone
Member
Member # 8759

 - posted      Profile for Ser Bronn Stone   Email Ser Bronn Stone         Edit/Delete Post 
I want to live in a nation that sets the highest standard for treating captives. If that means less information for intelligence, so be it.

In the short term, we'd lose out because our reputation has been sullied by recent actions. But if we properly restored our principles, the friends we'd gain would help us in the long term.

Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
Because we are God's chosen people!! The Jews thought they were, but they were wrong. Americans are.

"But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side."
—Bob Dylan.

Dylan was being ironic of course, but he uncovered the real truth about the superiority of Americans to lesser life forms, like the French.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note, this was a sarcastic post. I mention this because no one can tell, apparently when I am being serious.

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tern
Member
Member # 7429

 - posted      Profile for tern   Email tern         Edit/Delete Post 
So what defines torture?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
One McCain amendment would set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department and would limit interrogation techniques to those listed in the Army field manual on interrogation, now being revised.
There are some pro-torture-the-Isamic-#@$@# that try to derail this topic by saying, "Define torture and then we'll stop."

I find that a bit lame. The debate about whether sleep deprivation is or is not torture can wait until we have quit sicking dogs on our detainees.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ser Bronn Stone
Member
Member # 8759

 - posted      Profile for Ser Bronn Stone   Email Ser Bronn Stone         Edit/Delete Post 
I would prefer that we define torture in such a fashion that we have the most restrictive laws in the world.

I want to be the best. I want to be the nation that others respect the most.

Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tern
Member
Member # 7429

 - posted      Profile for tern   Email tern         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd rather define torture in a way which is moral and logically consistent, rather than leaving it up to the World to decide. I don't care if other nations don't respect us as long as we're doing the right thing.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
All right, let's start high and work our way down. Should America condone the application of electric current to genitals?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Only after the second date.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Posted by Dan_Raven

quote:
There are reasons they picked that phrase. Home-Land, land that is our home, is not the same as America, or These United States. There are many things I would be tempted to do to protect my home that would be neither legal, ethical, nor humane. I could not do them to protect America because they are things that are in opposition to what the ideal of America is.

Exactly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
It's official: Bush declares: 'We do not torture'

President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects lawful. "We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.

Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.

"We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law."

===========================

Which really, really begs the question: why are they so adamant about opposing McCain's provision? The provision defines what can and can't be done, and it includes a measure for the president to request exemptions. Apparently we're all against torture, why not approve the law that affirms it?

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
because, we don't torture, we gather intelligence via the discriminate use of high intensity pain. McCain's ammendment would make that illegal unless we change it. Once we change it then DUOHIP (Discriminate Use Of High Intensity Pain) is completely legal.

Besides, if McCain's law passes then it will appear that we will not use torture. While we don't use torture, we still can threaten to use torture to terrify our enemies. It will be brinksmanship with cattle prods. Why should they be the only ones to use terror?

Did you notice that what the President emphasised was the home part--saving lives. He did not mention the American Ideal part, after he used the word "but". (ie, In this great country we do not torture our enemies, but....)

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
I hate to say this, but the first thing I thought after reading Chris's latest post was 'Define "is"'.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tern
Member
Member # 7429

 - posted      Profile for tern   Email tern         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM: No.

Starting low and working our way up: Should America allow it's interrogators to yell at suspects?

Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm with Rakeesh. There are certainly moments, moments in which only hours remain to ensure the safety of large groups of people, that I would be whole-heartedly behind basically any torture that didn't result in permanent damage or death.

For the normal, day-to-day collection of intel, however, I'm opposed to hard-core application of pain. Deprivation, however, is okay in my book when it's an issue of national security.

Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Starting low and working our way up: Should America allow it's interrogators to yell at suspects?
How about IM'ing them IN ALL CAPS!!!

There is a differnce between gathering emergency information needed before the bomb blows from setting up an international network of beaurocratic Torture camps.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
In case any of you want a faith-based way to do something about it...

http://www.stopthetorture.org/about/

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a differnce between gathering emergency information needed before the bomb blows from setting up an international network of beaurocratic Torture camps.
Yes Dan, but the fact remains that people who are absolutely against torture under any circumstances would prohibit both.

Then again, honestly I wonder how much of this is a moot point. Certainly such a law would cut down on torture which unfortunately I am convinced is happening under USA hands (or auspices, as in farming out prisoners to Saudi Arabia)...but the fact remains that since it actually works if done properly, torturing human beings for information will continue to go on.

But of course just because something will happen anyway is no reason not to prohibit it. All laws will be broken. But I think many people would support such a law at least a little bit to soothe their own conscience, because they don't want to admit that they would torture another human being, with my own hands, in certain circumstances. With such a law, they can wash their hands of the affair, even though it will still continue.

Is there anyone here who after careful consideration can say differently? This is one of those situations that we cannot be sure of until we face it, I realize. But I really, really think that very, very few people would face all circumstances and not torture.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by David Bowles:
I'm with Rakeesh. There are certainly moments, moments in which only hours remain to ensure the safety of large groups of people, that I would be whole-heartedly behind basically any torture that didn't result in permanent damage or death.

For the normal, day-to-day collection of intel, however, I'm opposed to hard-core application of pain. Deprivation, however, is okay in my book when it's an issue of national security.

Can you show me any example of such a moment. As far as I know this is nothing more than a theoretical point with little practical value. Can you name any major terrorist act that has been prevented because we could pull it out of a terrorist along with his fingernails?

The fact is, the BIG ones, the 9-11s, the Spanish metro bombings, hell, even the Oklahoma City bombings, just go BANG! Then we run around looking for the perpetrators and piecing it all together.

Tick tock, tick tock, "Tell us where the bomb is you dirty piece of *$^*" tick tock, only happens in Hollywood.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tern
Member
Member # 7429

 - posted      Profile for tern   Email tern         Edit/Delete Post 
It could be argued that we can't show any examples of such a moment because when they happened, they stopped the major terrorist act and thus nobody knew about it.

By the way, I have a polished stone I carry around that wards off tigers.

Tiger stone aside, I'm with David as well. If it's a choice between the lives of my loved ones and a little bit'o'torture...

Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, okay then. But if you take that option away from your country, you force them to act illegally in the event life should every imitate art.

I suppose I'm okay with that.

Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
Torture would have to be defined very well in a lot of cases. There is a huge difference between mental and physical torture.
Such as:
Would it be torture to not provide religious materials such as Bible or Koran? Or not let a prisoner know what time it is but still keeping them on a time schedule (8 hours sleep a night, regular meals and so on)? How about keeping them in a small room with no windows but with lights, and not let them outside? How about not providing them with anything to do (read books and the like)? What about serving them meals irregardless of their beliefs (vegetarians or not eating pig products)? How about lying to them like saying we captured Bin Laden? What about threatening them with physical harm but never doing it (although I would say to NOT allow that because the line is too easy to cross)

Physical torture is easier to define. Breaking bones is torture, physically maiming is torture, those are easy ones. Beating, kicking, and the like are also easy to define as not allowable.

I guess the question is what level of comfort do we allow them to live at?

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by David Bowles:
Well, okay then. But if you take that option away from your country, you force them to act illegally in the event life should every imitate art.

I suppose I'm okay with that.

I would hope that we would be forgiving of a man who stole bread to feed his starving family, but I'd also hope we don't make stealing legal just in the off case it's necessary for a few.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I say again, "The provision defines what can and can't be done, and it includes a measure for the president to request exemptions." If there is a case where immediate and extreme measures are required there is a mechanism in place to address the need.

The difference would be that there would be acountability. We would know who asked, we would know (even if after the fact) who was being tortured, and we could judge if the exemption was warranted which would help us better judge the validity of further exemptions.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
Torture should be outlawed.

If there ever is a scenario where we need information *right now* to save lives, the investigators can decide to torture anyway, save the lives, and then lose their jobs/go to prison as punishment.

If the info isn't needed badly enough to go to prison to get it, then it isn't needed badly enough to torture people.

Torture is bad. If you decide you have to do it, be willing to pay the price. Don't ask that we allow you to torture with impunity.

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Karl,

I realize this is an unprovable argument, but it's a case of not hearing something that doesn't make a noise.

And besides, you know that big successes in the intelligence community go unreported for decades.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2