Are we as bad as the Terrorists? Torture ok or not?

[Dahak]

Torture is never justifiable. It goes against everything the modern, enlightened world stands for.
One cannot fight for freedom and moral superiority, and then do as those you're fighting do.

Its really nice to sit and spew these abstract platitudes.

If you know the man you have in custody is at the center of a plot to detonate a nuke in a major metropolitan area, and he won't talk by other means and you can't find the bomb on your own. Do you torture him? Can you face the hundreds of thousands of dead with the knowledge that you didn't do everything you could to save their innocent lives vs. one pissant, piece-of-shit terrorist? At least Damien attaches qualifiers instead of this loony, dreamy-eyed abstract ethics that sounds like its out of a sixth grade religion class for kids.

As this is a hypothetical situation I can't say I wouldn't be tempted I might give in to some feelings. It would still be wrong.

THere was the case of a German police official, who used threats of torture to squeeze the location of a kidnapped child out of the kidnapper.
He got a mild sentence, but the judge had quite harsh words for it in the reasons for the verdict...

What the fuck is wrong with your Naziphobic country? The harm done (scary some asshole) is WELL WORTH the harm prevented (the death or abuse of a child).

What kind of ethics system are you peddling over there, Christ?

The key points of the judge were, among others that "no person may be made the object of national power/force" and that human dignity is inviolable (even that of the kidnapper in this case) and to protect it is the foundation of our constitution.
The judge also refered to our past and that "no person ever should be carrier of knowledge the state may torture out of him, not even in the service of justice." Furthermore, that "disrespect of the human dignity is condemnable, even if it is about the saving of a human life."
And she also ruled out the ticking-bomb-scenario in the reasoning of the verdict.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As this is a hypothetical situation I can't say I wouldn't be tempted I might give in to some feelings. It would still be wrong.

Sorry, but moral wrongs really are relative phenomenoa.

The key points of the judge were, among others that "no person may be made the object of national power/force" and that human dignity is inviolable (even that of the kidnapper in this case) and to protect it is the foundation of our constitution.
The judge also refered to our past and that "no person ever should be carrier of knowledge the state may torture out of him, not even in the service of justice." Furthermore, that "disrespect of the human dignity is condemnable, even if it is about the saving of a human life."
And she also ruled out the ticking-bomb-scenario in the reasoning of the verdict.

Jesus, we castrated your nation. It really is ridiculous the degree to which the Nazis became the ultimate boogeyman and people pretend it was some aberration. Things like the Nazis happen throughout history and up til now. It was a product of the times and cirumstances, and hardly something which was particular to the German nation (though racists have implied that it is).

[Falkenhayn]

As this is a hypothetical situation I can't say I wouldn't be tempted I might give in to some feelings. It would still be wrong.

Even if you saved thousands of lives? What in the hell kind of common sense does that make?

The key points of the judge were, among others that "no person may be made the object of national power/force" and that human dignity is inviolable (even that of the kidnapper in this case) and to protect it is the foundation of our constitution.
The judge also refered to our past and that "no person ever should be carrier of knowledge the state may torture out of him, not even in the service of justice." Furthermore, that "disrespect of the human dignity is condemnable, even if it is about the saving of a human life."
And she also ruled out the ticking-bomb-scenario in the reasoning of the verdict.

Why are you reinforcing one of Illumanatus' points? All you are saying is that the legal system of your country throughs its weight behind an ethically bankrupt style over substance argument.

[Falkenhayn]

I defer this line to Illumantus. He beat me to it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Can we be more careful with the quoting? It's getting a bit muddled.

I can see where Dahak is coming from, but it just doesn't work in reality. The security services have every right to use all means necessary including threat of force if necessary. While torture can work, it doesn't guarantee results. The interrogation methods employed by most officials are understood by most terrorists worth their salt. This can lead to certain problems given it means terrorists can know what to expect and therefore develop countermeasures and psych themselves up. Inevitably, everyone has a limit and no one can undergo harsh torture for long periods of time without breaking.

But time is of the essence for the most part, and with the increasing number of suicidal bombers, such techniques are of limited use. That does not mean we shouldn't try. It is paramount that we maintain a moral code that works for all humanity, yet, equally it is necessary to bend the rules when such a threat as the death of thousands is weighed up against the discomfort of one or a dozen men of nefarious intent.

[Mr Bean]

But time is of the essence for the most part, and with the increasing number of suicidal bombers, such techniques are of limited use. That does not mean we shouldn't try. It is paramount that we maintain a moral code that works for all humanity, yet, equally it is necessary to bend the rules when such a threat as the death of thousands is weighed up against the discomfort of one or a dozen men of nefarious intent.

What does sucidie bombers have anything to do with it? Your not going to yank the sucided bomber off the street and stop him from bombing the building, you might shoot him as he trys to detonate but your not going to arrest him two or three weeks earily

However the bomb MAKER on the other hand you might nab, and all sorts of useful time critical information can be had from him, what has he made and when, who has he talked with, has someone made a bunch of requests latley

My personal belief's on the subject is that phyiscal torture is rarley useful in the ways we need it to be, sleep dep, phychologyical trickey and postive reforcement are much more effect though not anywhere near as quick as phyiscal torture

That being said if its nessary and in a situation where it would be much more effective than modern habits then by all means(But you sure as hell better have the right target)

[Admiral Valdemar]

What does sucidie bombers have anything to do with it? Your not going to yank the sucided bomber off the street and stop him from bombing the building, you might shoot him as he trys to detonate but your not going to arrest him two or three weeks earily

However the bomb MAKER on the other hand you might nab, and all sorts of useful time critical information can be had from him, what has he made and when, who has he talked with, has someone made a bunch of requests latley

The suicide bombers, which are common type now, are exempt from interrogation for obvious reasons. Though I should say that bombers that have nothing to lose and don't blow themselves up are the ones that should be applicable here. Have enough hatred for the enemy and giving in is unacceptable. Ruining you financially might mean squat and if you have no relatives or accessible friends, that won't add any leverage to the people wanting information.

[Edi]

The issue as I see it is that torture is not being used by the US on a case by case basis, but systematically, indiscriminately and without any sort of controls in place. Guantanamo detainees (the great majority anyway) hardly qualify as having time-critical information, since so many have been there for such a long time. When the Abu Ghraib scandal was fresh, it was clear that there were no controls on the perps and that such conduct was approved of and tolerated at the highest level, and there were credible allegations backed up by evidence that such practices and torture in general were widely used in US detainment facilities.

As I recall, most Americans here on this board and elsewhere blew off all such criticisms with vague handwaving, and even now there is a knee-jerk reflex defending US use of it despite it being abundantly clear that the usage is by and large COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. I give exactly fuck-all credibility to arguments about justifiable torture where the US is concerned because it has been amply demonstrated that there is zero control, zero responsibility and cabinet level approval of gratuitous torture. Get back to me when you've fixed the current problems.

Edi

[DocHorror]

When fighting monsters lest not ye become them.

[HemlockGrey]

The torturing of people being held in Guantanomo Bay and elsewhere is not acceptable. There is no "ticking time bomb" scenario for one, and, for two, we're not even certain that all the people in those facilities are actually terrorists or insurgents.

Blanket-approval of terrorism is not acceptable in a free state, and when the President's choice of Attorney General writes legal briefs saying that such torture is acceptable, then there is something seriously wrong.

[brianeyci]

Torture should only be done under the strict supervision by a panel of independent judges, preferably a very high body like the Supreme Court. The burden of proof for the law enforcement officials and the secret service would be incredibly high, and they would have to know for certain that person X knew where the bomb would go off at location Y. Also, torture should not be excessive. I don't know how many people are trained to survive breaking of bones, etc., not everybody is a James Bond and I'm sure there are drugs and methods out there that do not leave permanent damage.

Also, there should be a yearly sunset clause, and the "Torture Bill" should have to be renewed every year with independent politicians examining its use and application, which hopefully would be 0. As well, should it ever be found that torture was ever used on an innocent person, the law would be scrapped sort of like what would happen if Crime Stoppers suddenly revealed the identity of an anonymous informant (the basis of trust works this way). That way we can feel assured that like the Crime Stoppers program, if the Torture Bill was ever misused, the law would be scrapped.

Then I would be comfortable with torture.

Brian

How the fuck would the threat of agony be credible when so many caveats are put in place? You realize that legal codes are public domain?

There are a lot of things you can do to pressure someone rather than go towards torture. So what if the legal code was public domain, you could throw at the person the idea that you have a rock solid case against them, a judge is about to agree to the proceedure, and you're about to do a happy number on the guy's scrotum. The "caveats" as you call them are there for a reason -- so that torture is never used flamboyantly and only when there is no other choice.

For example, if you agree that a terrorist with knowledge of a bomb could be tortured, then how about terrorists in general, since they should know where a future bomb would be planted. What about pedophiles who return to their habits again and again, should they not be tortured to prevent little kids from being harmed? If we say that, why not base our educational system on the threat of torture, everybody will be so scared to forget to do their homework that society will be a better place because of this fear. You see how slippery the slope gets, and how necessary it is to limit torture to the most extreme of extreme cases?

A "Torture Bill" would scare terrorists IMO. Terrorists would no longer be able to hide behind a WOI, and although law enforcement would in actuality never use torture and would never be able to meet the burden of proof to get a judge to sign on the dotted line, they could threaten the terrorist with torture, and that might be enough to get him to talk.

Brian

[weemadando]

If the insurgents want to be treated like POWs when captured, let them put on uniforms and stop operating completely outside the rules of war. Fuck with with a rusty railroad spike otherwise.

What about the Taliban fighters (Taliban - not AQ) who are still being held, interrogated and tortured by US forces in Gitmo?

They were part of the standing army of a land, so don't they deserve those rights?

And the moral highground can only be claimed by those who are actually willing to enforce it on ALL sides.

[Joe]

Hence the use of the term "insurgents."

[CJvR]

What about the Taliban fighters (Taliban - not AQ) who are still being held, interrogated and tortured by US forces in Gitmo?

They were part of the standing army of a land, so don't they deserve those rights?

I don't think the US brought any Talibans to Gitmo, only non-Afghan went there and A-Q organized all the foreign fighters. Members of the Taliban milita captured during the invasion is absolutely PoWs, Taliban-loyal resistance fighters captured afterwards are more doubtful.

[CJvR]

A line from "The thin blue line"

The public is never in greater peril than when those who should protect them from crime become criminals themselves.

As tempting and as satisfying as it is torture is not generally a good idea.

[Falkenhayn]

There are a lot of things you can do to pressure someone rather than go towards torture. So what if the legal code was public domain, you could throw at the person the idea that you have a rock solid case against them, a judge is about to agree to the proceedure, and you're about to do a happy number on the guy's scrotum. The "caveats" as you call them are there for a reason -- so that torture is never used flamboyantly and only when there is no other choice.

Interesting. You say "so that torture is never used flamboyantly, and only when there is no other choice." Implying that it will be used.

You conclude your rebuttal with:

A "Torture Bill" would scare terrorists IMO. Terrorists would no longer be able to hide behind a WOI, and although law enforcement would in actuality never use torture and would never be able to meet the burden of proof to get a judge to sign on the dotted line, they could threaten the terrorist with torture, and that might be enough to get him to talk.

Which of these statements is your position?

For example, if you agree that a terrorist with knowledge of a bomb could be tortured, then how about terrorists in general, since they should know where a future bomb would be planted. What about pedophiles who return to their habits again and again, should they not be tortured to prevent little kids from being harmed? If we say that, why not base our educational system on the threat of torture, everybody will be so scared to forget to do their homework that society will be a better place because of this fear. You see how slippery the slope gets, and how necessary it is to limit torture to the most extreme of extreme cases?

Which is precisely what I am advocating. My point was, any terrorist organization could read the language of your bill and determine your intent, ie: That the burden of proof for torture could never realistically be met, and that since we are bound by the law you have laid down in this situation, they will never be subject to any harm.

Therefore, on a case by case basis, individuals with knowledge related to known, pending attacks, the imminent threat, could be tortured for information regarding said attacks.

Torture replaces the test of their willingness to die, which we know is beyond doubt, with the test of their willingness to suffer, which we know to be...less concrete from experience.

[Falkenhayn]

A line from "The thin blue line"

The public is never in greater peril than when those who should protect them from crime become criminals themselves.

As tempting and as satisfying as it is torture is not generally a good idea.

So you admit that there can be circumstances where it is?

[Axis Kast]

Torture should always remain among the repertoire of tools with which to obtain vital intelligence for purposes of national security.

I agree that there are many situations in which the use of torture might prove counter-productive; but that does not mean it should be summarily scrapped as a sometimes-useful fall-back.

[brianeyci]

There are a lot of things you can do to pressure someone rather than go towards torture. So what if the legal code was public domain, you could throw at the person the idea that you have a rock solid case against them, a judge is about to agree to the proceedure, and you're about to do a happy number on the guy's scrotum. The "caveats" as you call them are there for a reason -- so that torture is never used flamboyantly and only when there is no other choice.

Interesting. You say "so that torture is never used flamboyantly, and only when there is no other choice." Implying that it will be used.

You conclude your rebuttal with:

A "Torture Bill" would scare terrorists IMO. Terrorists would no longer be able to hide behind a WOI, and although law enforcement would in actuality never use torture and would never be able to meet the burden of proof to get a judge to sign on the dotted line, they could threaten the terrorist with torture, and that might be enough to get him to talk.

Which of these statements is your position?

Both. Torture can be used to scare general run-of-the-mill terrorists, but when dealing with a hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenario national security and law enforcement if they have no other choice and meet the burden of proof should have torture as a tool. It is not a simple black and white thing -- it is not use torture or not use torture (duh). My position is not inconsistent -- I can agree with using torture in extremely limited situations and at the same time say that torture can be used as a threat more than a tool.

Which is precisely what I am advocating. My point was, any terrorist organization could read the language of your bill and determine your intent, ie: That the burden of proof for torture could never realistically be met, and that since we are bound by the law you have laid down in this situation, they will never be subject to any harm.

You're not supposed to harm prisoners according to the law anyway. People still get harmed, pressure put on them, and an individual in a torture situation looking at a needle and having a huge white guy rolling up his sleeves would have a hard time rationalizing it to himself. The torture bill would create an option where there was none. What is the alternative? Legislate torture so that it is used at the discretion of law enforcement at all times? No, torture is such a despicable act that it should only be used in the worst case scenario and only be authorized by clear minded individuals who see the bigger picture and know the consequences of their actions. Why do we respect even a pedophile's human rights when in all justification he should be stripped naked and left out to die being eaten by vultures? Because there is the bigger picture, and violating one person's human rights means you open a can of worms. Judges know about legal precedent, know about the consequences of ordering torture, and see the bigger picture.

Therefore, on a case by case basis, individuals with knowledge related to known, pending attacks, the imminent threat, could be tortured for information regarding said attacks.

Only if law enforcement meets the kind of burden of proof I've suggested, or better, I'm sure I could find loopholes in my own wording.

Torture replaces the test of their willingness to die, which we know is beyond doubt, with the test of their willingness to suffer, which we know to be...less concrete from experience.

Yes, but there is the big picture and the slippery slope to consider, which is why you need the high standard of evidence.

Brian

[Tom_Aurum]

Hmph. Sort of on topic, and not arguing, here seems a somewhat reasonable way to treat actual POW's:

Imprison them (duh.) Give them the basics allowed by law. Don't act like sherrif jo(k)e however. Have a loudspeaker running around wherever they go, explaining that you can turn yourself in, explain what's going on. Sort of an Indoctrination tape.

Reward those who provide you with valid information. Make it so that they get better room, desirable food, et cetera, and cannot share this with those who don't "buy in."

Make sure to punish (put in solitary) those who provide you with false information. Let this be known.

Notice, no actual torture here, but I think subtlety would work far better than torture.

[Falkenhayn]

Hmph. Sort of on topic, and not arguing, here seems a somewhat reasonable way to treat actual POW's:

Imprison them (duh.) Give them the basics allowed by law. Don't act like sherrif jo(k)e however. Have a loudspeaker running around wherever they go, explaining that you can turn yourself in, explain what's going on. Sort of an Indoctrination tape.

Reward those who provide you with valid information. Make it so that they get better room, desirable food, et cetera, and cannot share this with those who don't "buy in."

Make sure to punish (put in solitary) those who provide you with false information. Let this be known.

Notice, no actual torture here, but I think subtlety would work far better than torture.

Perhaps on Joe Grunt. On someone as educated and fantical, on the level of say Ayman Al-Zawahiri, we'll have to wait and see.

[Tom_Aurum]

Well, there is the irritating fact that Arabs have been "adopted" as orphans by fundementalist groups. A simile in our society would be, say, the KKK adopting orphans and teaching them their ways.

[Howedar]

The issue as I see it is that torture is not being used by the US on a case by case basis, but systematically, indiscriminately and without any sort of controls in place. Guantanamo detainees (the great majority anyway) hardly qualify as having time-critical information, since so many have been there for such a long time. When the Abu Ghraib scandal was fresh, it was clear that there were no controls on the perps and that such conduct was approved of and tolerated at the highest level, and there were credible allegations backed up by evidence that such practices and torture in general were widely used in US detainment facilities.

As I recall, most Americans here on this board and elsewhere blew off all such criticisms with vague handwaving, and even now there is a knee-jerk reflex defending US use of it despite it being abundantly clear that the usage is by and large COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. I give exactly fuck-all credibility to arguments about justifiable torture where the US is concerned because it has been amply demonstrated that there is zero control, zero responsibility and cabinet level approval of gratuitous torture. Get back to me when you've fixed the current problems.

Edi

Edi, I think you should read (or reread) the whole thread. Nobody, not even Axis Kast, has said that the US actions at Abu Ghraib are appropriate. The topic has changed as topics are wont to do.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well unlike the terrorists, we have kind of written out a formal statement that if we do engage in this, you can slap us with economic isolation tarriffs type agreements...

of course china is probably going (took you long enough to loose your cherry)