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

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2004-12-22 12:24pm

The enclosed article was an editorial in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution. I'm horrified that our leaders continue to practice torture against the alledged terrorists.

My question is do people think this is an acceptable interrogation method for a supposid nation that abides by its own laws?

Needless to say I agree 100% with the editorial.

Article:

Laws, not lip service
Appoint independent prosecutor to determine how high responsibility goes in torture cases

Published on: 12/22/04
Top officials of the Bush administration, including the president and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have repeatedly promised the American people and the world that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba were being treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The United States long ago adopted those conventions not just as policy but also as part of U.S. law, with strict criminal penalties for those who violate them.

But those officials lied. E-mails, memos and other internal government documents generated by American eyewitnesses to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay detail beatings, stranglings and psychological abuse of prisoners. The documents, made public through Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, include accounts of lighted cigarettes placed in prisoners' ears, of prisoners dropped naked onto barbed wire and other barbarities. Those accounts provide powerful evidence that U.S. law has been broken not occasionally or by rogue individuals, but systematically and with approval — or at the very least, clear acceptance — at the highest levels of our government.

EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
MOST POPULAR

Unfortunately, the man nominated by President Bush to serve as our next attorney general, the person who as the nation's top law-enforcement official would ordinarily be charged with prosecuting these clear violations of federal law, has himself written memos that purport to explain how federal anti-torture laws can be avoided.

That alone should be cause to reject the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as head of the U.S. Justice Department. But given the meek reluctance of this Congress to confront the Bush administration on its excesses, that is unlikely to happen. At the very least, senators must use upcoming confirmation hearings to force a pledge from Gonzales to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the allegations of torture and cover-up. As a potential witness or even a target, Gonzales himself cannot possibly lead such an investigation.

This issue goes to the very heart of who we are as a country. We call ourselves a nation of laws, but do our laws mean anything when members of the executive branch declare themselves exempt, and that exemption is not challenged? We depict our struggle against terrorists as a battle between good and evil, but are we willing to abide by the values and standards of humane conduct that we claim to want to spread to others?

The growing evidence of cruel and systematic torture, often undermining valid interrogation, cannot be ignored. In the eyes of the world, a continued refusal to hold ourselves accountable will make us seem little better than our enemies and will be a setback as great as any we have experienced in our war against Islamic extremism.

And that defeat will be entirely self-inflicted.

[/i]

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-22 12:31pm

Torture is only useful under very select cases. If you've got a terrorist in custody with critical information about an impending threat, then torture might be an option to consider.

But otherwise, torture has been shown to yield inaccurate, unreliable information. The person being tortured will simply say whatever the torturer wants him to say to stop the pain, or if it goes on long enough, will keep silent just to spite the torturer. As an information extraction method, torture is very limited in its usefulness.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-22 12:44pm

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.

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...

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-12-22 12:59pm

why do something which isnt effective?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-22 01:03pm

Dahak wrote: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.

If there is immediate danger, and it serves the greater good, I have no problems employing torture. If, say, the FBI had apprehended one of the 9/11 hijackers before he got on his plane and used torture to get the numbers of the other flights before they took off, I'd consider that perfectly justifiable.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-12-22 01:16pm

Dahak wrote: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.

What and who are you willing to sacrifice in order to maintain the moral highground that you seem to cherish so much?

Dahak wrote: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...

So what?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-22 01:35pm

The current situation makes torture less than useless. It's unlikely to reveal any useful information, quite likely will grant only false leads, and simply pisses off people who are already ready to go against us. Unfortunately, those in charge are either turning a blind eye or actively encouraging it.. Proving once again, they're completely unfit for their duties.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-22 01:44pm

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.

That said, I do not support torture on the grounds that it is probably ineffective in the context we're using it in right now, it sets a bad precedent and could endanger our soldiers, and it counterproductive to winning the support of the civilian populace.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-22 01:58pm

Falkenhayn wrote:
Dahak wrote: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.
What and who are you willing to sacrifice in order to maintain the moral highground that you seem to cherish so much?

The way to hell is paved with good intentions.
When to use torture? If there is one life in danger? 10, 100, 1000? Once you start to hollow out the founding principles of a nation and tread on the rights and human decency of someone else, why stop?
It's either prohibited, or not. I don't see a middle ground for torture, not if you still want to be true to your own principles and constitution.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-12-22 02:17pm

It's called a "ticking bomb scenario".

And don't even bother telling me that you wouldn't do anything in your power to get information from someone who kidnapped your wife or child.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-12-22 02:56pm

even if I beat the crap out of him, how do I ensure hes telling the truth?

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-22 03:19pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:It's called a "ticking bomb scenario".

And don't even bother telling me that you wouldn't do anything in your power to get information from someone who kidnapped your wife or child.

I know about the ticking bomb scenario.
And I don't see how a hypothetical scenario would change my mind about torture being injustifiable.
Principles are there for a reason and should never be broken.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-12-22 03:30pm

One of the later episodes of season 3 of Spooks deals with this problem quite well with a scenario where a merc is caught raiding an old Soviet arms cache in the UK to get a modern ATGM placed there for a job to take out a building in London. Needless to say, torture is a grey area and some saw limits earlier on than others. It's a fine line between interrogation for the greater good and dismantling morals to open up someone's mind.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-22 03:48pm

Dahak wrote:The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Appeal to fortune cookies wisdom.

When to use torture? If there is one life in danger? 10, 100, 1000? Once you start to hollow out the founding principles of a nation and tread on the rights and human decency of someone else, why stop?

It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That's how morality works. You're honestly telling me that if there's a ticking bomb that could kill thousands of people, you're going to sit there and nicely keep asking Mr. Terrorist where it is and how to disarm it? Oh sure, maybe he'll cooperate.

In such a scenario, there is no time to properly break him so that he willingly tells you what he knows.

It's either prohibited, or not. I don't see a middle ground for torture, not if you still want to be true to your own principles and constitution.

False dilemma fallacy. Declaring the issue to be black-and-white does not make it so.

I know about the ticking bomb scenario.
And I don't see how a hypothetical scenario would change my mind about torture being injustifiable.

Because in that hypothetical scenario, your moral high-ground bullshit would cost a whole lot of lives. And for what? So you could sit comfortably and think, "Well, at least no one tortured the terrorist" while the charred remains of innocent people are being scraped off the street?

Principles are there for a reason and should never be broken.

And sometimes principles conflict. The value of human life is considered a high priority, and when it's torturing known terrorist vs. letting thousands of innocent people die, anyone with a shred of decency would choose the former. People willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people just to appease their own moral values are under the delusion that their strict adherence to their principles makes them morally superior. In reality, it makes them rigid, inflexible and patently despicable.

This is like Sokatawi's (or whatever her name is) bullshit about how all killing, anywhere at any time, is wrong and how she'd rather let someone kill her than resist. You're being naïvely idealistic if you actually think such a system would ever work in real life.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-12-22 03:49pm

durandel, your assuming torture will get you what you want to know. if that were so, its legit to save lives - but there is no assurance that youll get a true answer, or any answer at all.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-12-22 03:51pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:even if I beat the crap out of him, how do I ensure hes telling the truth?

You don't, which is why torture is rather inefficient. However there are exceptions to that rule. When you are short on time or the facts you are looking for is easily verified you can probably get good results from torture - unfortunately.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-22 04:05pm

At least one massive terrorist attack - Operation Bojinka - has been stopped by torture. The Filipinos tortured the guy in such a way that would have been unacceptable in the West and after enough beating and psychological mindfuckery the cocksucker sang like a bird. The plot would have brought down 11 planes, blown up the CIA building, and assassinated the Pope if it had been successful. So in your worldview, would it have been preferable to let all those people die rather than torturing some Jihadist fuck?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-12-22 04:14pm

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

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-22 04:23pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:durandel, your assuming torture will get you what you want to know. if that were so, its legit to save lives - but there is no assurance that youll get a true answer, or any answer at all.

Check the location of the bomb that he gives you. If it's not there, then obviously he's lying. You can also ask specific questions about what the bomb looks like, how much time is left and what its destructive capacity is to evaluate his story for consistency.

Also, getting something out of him is better than wallowing about in ignorance with the clock ticking. A lie can tell you a lot about the truth. If he gives a false location, then the bomb is probably located far away from there, like on the other side of town.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-22 04:25pm

Dahak wrote: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.

Dahak wrote: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?

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-22 04:25pm

[quote="Durandal"]And sometimes principles conflict. The value of human life is considered a high priority, and when it's torturing known terrorist vs. letting thousands of innocent people die, anyone with a shred of decency would choose the former. People willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people just to appease their own moral values are under the delusion that their strict adherence to their principles makes them morally superior. In reality, it makes them rigid, inflexible and patently despicable.
[quote]
Well, I know I'm emotionally dysfunctional and you can also consider me despicable.
But I refuse to surrender a principle for any reason. This is at the core of myself.
And a nation is also built on principles. No one should ever be subject to torture by means of a state's power. It is something fought for pretty hard and I rather not have it surrendered again.

Tzeentch · Post by **Tzeentch** » 2004-12-22 04:26pm

Torture can be effective, but only under certain circumstances. The way it was used in continental law for quite some time was to get quickly verifyable answers - "where is the murder weapon?" "where did you hide the body?"

Torture is almost useless, as others have said, when trying to find out things that aren't easily independantly verifyable.

The morality is another story.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-12-22 04:29pm

brianeyci wrote: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?

The purpose of torcher in these situations is to provide information that no other method in the respective time frame would aquire. Once you indicate the will to torcher, THAT'S IT. You go to hell and back. You do whatever you have to.

If he dosen't talk by the time you reach for the blow torch and the needle nose pliers, too damn bad. If you aren't willing to go through with it, then you've no business considering it as an option.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-22 04:34pm

Dahak wrote:Well, I know I'm emotionally dysfunctional and you can also consider me despicable.

I don't give a shit about your emotional dysfunction. You're a descpicable moron because you hold your black-and-white moral ideas as being more important than the lives of other human beings.

But I refuse to surrender a principle for any reason. This is at the core of myself.
And a nation is also built on principles. No one should ever be subject to torture by means of a state's power. It is something fought for pretty hard and I rather not have it surrendered again.

Restating your point doesn't make it any more valid. I (and others) have proposed scenarios where your brand of ethics would callously sentence thousands of innocent people to death to avoid torturing a terrorist. You have responded to these criticisms with "No one should be tortured, ever." Yes, we know that's what you think. Now either offer some sort of rebuttal to what we've been saying, or just concede the god damn argument.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-12-22 04:37pm

Dahak wrote:
Durandal wrote:And sometimes principles conflict. The value of human life is considered a high priority, and when it's torturing known terrorist vs. letting thousands of innocent people die, anyone with a shred of decency would choose the former. People willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people just to appease their own moral values are under the delusion that their strict adherence to their principles makes them morally superior. In reality, it makes them rigid, inflexible and patently despicable.
Well, I know I'm emotionally dysfunctional and you can also consider me despicable.
But I refuse to surrender a principle for any reason. This is at the core of myself.
And a nation is also built on principles. No one should ever be subject to torture by means of a state's power. It is something fought for pretty hard and I rather not have it surrendered again.

If your ethics are based on manufacturing absolutes, what makes you different from any other zealot?