NationStates Jolt Archive

The US uses torture on prisoners in Guantanemo Bay

Here in the UK we are holding 8 people without trial based on "information" gained through this torture.

These guys aren't accused of terrorists acts, merely that they were members of a terrorist organisation.

For all sorts of reasons this is wrong, and despite his attempts to justify it just points out how detached from reality David Blunket (our home secretary).

What are your thoughts on this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=550499

The US uses torture on prisoners in Guantanemo Bay

Here in the UK we are holding 8 people without trial based on "information" gained through this torture.

These guys aren't accused of terrorists acts, merely that they were members of a terrorist organisation.

For all sorts of reasons this is wrong, and despite his attempts to justify it just points out how detached from reality David Blunket (our home secretary).

What are your thoughts on this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=550499
Under torture a human will say just about anything you want him to say, so info gained that way is useless and those who tortured should instead be jailed for life.

There's not much I can add to that. Well said.

yay a thread on a rhetorical question

Hmm...

What alternative methods would you suggest?

Torture may force the prisoner to give up the actual location of Osama Bin Laden, or actual info that will prevent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives (nuclear terrorism). Then these people would still remain alive.

This is assuming the prisoner gives actual info, and not lies.


BUT....

If the prisoner gives false information, then what would you consider alternatives to acquire the ACTUAL info then? Lives are in the balance. What will you do?


What if....

The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by torturing a captured Al-Quaeda or affliated terrorist. Then all those families would still have their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, etc. and people would still have their best friends, financees, close friends, etc.

Something to chew on, guys.

Problem is: there is no telling wheter or not the info is accurate. The only way to know is to interrogate others too which will have to tell the same things indepentantly AND without torture (or you'll get in a loop), which will cause the torture to be obsolete because some one you didn't torture told the whole story.

Hmm...

What alternative methods would you suggest?

Torture may force the prisoner to give up the actual location of Osama Bin Laden, or actual info that will prevent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives (nuclear terrorism). Then these people would still remain alive.

This is assuming the prisoner gives actual info, and not lies.


BUT....

If the prisoner gives false information, then what would you consider alternatives to acquire the ACTUAL info then? Lives are in the balance. What will you do?


What if....

The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by torturing a captured Al-Quaeda or affliated terrorist. Then all those families would still have their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, etc. and people would still have their best friends, financees, close friends, etc.

Something to chew on, guys.Then what is the difference between us and Ossama ben laden?

Don't they use information from torture in divorce trials?

What if....

The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by torturing a captured Al-Quaeda or affliated terrorist. Then all those families would still have their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, etc. and people would still have their best friends, financees, close friends, etc.

Something to chew on, guys.

The problem here is that you should know about this before you torture someone. I don't think that people should be tortured because they might have some info. Of course anyone would agree with substituting torture for 9/11. I bet everyone would accept murder if the year was 1930 and the victim Hitler. It just doesn't look like the US military is getting anything truly useful out of the prisoners. They might have a few gems there, but it doesn't justify torturing the lot of them. Hell, you could start torturing almost anyone for this reason, 'cause he might just know something.

The US uses torture on prisoners in Guantanemo Bay

Here in the UK we are holding 8 people without trial based on "information" gained through this torture.

These guys aren't accused of terrorists acts, merely that they were members of a terrorist organisation.

For all sorts of reasons this is wrong, and despite his attempts to justify it just points out how detached from reality David Blunket (our home secretary).

What are your thoughts on this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=550499
information gained by torture is no more accurate than information gained through the use of a lie detector test:evidence only used as a last resort because it is not always correct

Don't they use information from torture in divorce trials?
This is one of those posts that make this forum worth my while. Keep it up.

Then what is the difference between us and Ossama ben laden?

We'd actually be saving lives. Osama Bin Laden seeks to take away lives.

AFAIK, I have yet to hear about any recent US prisoner being killed under torture.


This arguement is based on torture of terrorists, not on the events in Iraq.

The problem here is that you should know about this before you torture someone. I don't think that people should be tortured because they might have some info. Of course anyone would agree with substituting torture for 9/11. I bet everyone would accept murder if the year was 1930 and the victim Hitler. It just doesn't look like the US military is getting anything truly useful out of the prisoners. They might have a few gems there, but it doesn't justify torturing the lot of them. Hell, you could start torturing almost anyone for this reason, 'cause he might just know something.

A good point.

However, I hate to say this but....

If not for Hitler, then the world's depression would have continued for longer. The war itself helped the world emerge from the Great Depression, thanks to the war industries.

Also, our modern industralized Germany, with its fine goods, bullet trains, etc. wouldn't exist. Germany would still be stuck in the Versailles treaty, stifling it.

Finally, there probably wouldn't be the modern U.N. as we know it.



For the record, I don't support or am "aganist" torturing. I have a neutral stance towards it.

The thing is, if you do that it gives it a air of legality. Its like taking neighbour into your house who you suspect of 'borrowing' a lawnmower, and torturing him until he gives in. And then taking that evidence to court.

If not for Hitler, then the world's depression would have continued for longer. The war itself helped the world emerge from the Great Depression, thanks to the war industries.

Also, our modern industralized Germany, with its fine goods, bullet trains, etc. wouldn't exist. Germany would still be stuck in the Versailles treaty, stifling it.
I know that you're joking, but I'm a mindless voodoo zombie, so I have no free will and I ... must ... answer.

A. Are you claiming that the Great Depression lasted until the WW2?

B. Any German could have said "enough is enough" to the Versailles Treaty. You didn't have to start a war. Hitler had broken the treaty BEFORE the war started.

We'd actually be saving lives. Osama Bin Laden seeks to take away lives.

AFAIK, I have yet to hear about any recent US prisoner being killed under torture.


This arguement is based on torture of terrorists, not on the events in Iraq.
your kidding right? there are at least ten deaths known to be caused by us to pironsers, another dozen suspect, and those are the non ghost prisoners, we dont know anything about the ghosts

your kidding right? there are at least ten deaths known to be caused by us to pironsers, another dozen suspect, and those are the non ghost prisoners, we dont know anything about the ghosts
Link?

A. Are you claiming that the Great Depression lasted until the WW2?

I'm claiming that WW2 itself helped lift the Great Depression as our economies geared for war, creating more jobs.

B. Any German could have said "enough is enough" to the Versailles Treaty. You didn't have to start a war. Hitler had broken the treaty BEFORE the war started.

I was referring to the fact that the Weirmach (sp?) Republic would have continued upholding the Versailles Treaty if Hitler didn't come to power. In fact, it was the Versailles Treaty that contributed to the Great Depression. Germany struggled a lot to pay up, and had its economy go down the toliet because of that, as well as strict "victor rules" imposed on them. Then as Germany economy collapsed, it set a chain reaction around the world's economies.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if not for Hitler, we would have a LONGER Great Depression than we actually did. This is because we wouldn't be gearing up for war, giving more jobs to people to work in the factories, etc.

Link?
it was in the usatoday a month back

your kidding right? there are at least ten deaths known to be caused by us to pironsers, another dozen suspect, and those are the non ghost prisoners, we dont know anything about the ghosts

In all honesty, I had NOT known about that. That's the first time I heard about that.

In all honesty, I had NOT known about that. That's the first time I heard about that.
Maybe thats because it didn't happen.

I think Chess Squares is talking about the happenings in Abu Ghraib prison, where torture certainly took place and where prisoners' deaths have been blamed on the captors, namely, their US military jailers.

you can't advocate torture on any grounds, eventually we'll end up in the situation presented at the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm"

how many people can you fairly torture for the greater good? One? Two? Ten? A hundred? A million?

if you think about it you'll see that torture is never justified, and given Blunkett's record he's probably going to start torture as a legal procedure in the UK if we let this one stand.

Under torture a human will say just about anything you want him to say, so info gained that way is useless and those who tortured should instead be jailed for life.

why should I try to say it better when you sum it up so good? :)

Hmm...

What alternative methods would you suggest?

Torture may force the prisoner to give up the actual location of Osama Bin Laden, or actual info that will prevent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives (nuclear terrorism). Then these people would still remain alive.

This is assuming the prisoner gives actual info, and not lies.


BUT....

If the prisoner gives false information, then what would you consider alternatives to acquire the ACTUAL info then? Lives are in the balance. What will you do?

What if....

The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by torturing a captured Al-Quaeda or affliated terrorist. Then all those families would still have their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, etc. and people would still have their best friends, financees, close friends, etc.

Something to chew on, guys.


So, just to be on the safe side, if we think someone is a terrorist we should torture them to see if their group is planning anything? and if they land up having no information, or are innocent, well sorry did not want a 9/11

A good point.

However, I hate to say this but....

If not for Hitler, then the world's depression would have continued for longer. The war itself helped the world emerge from the Great Depression, thanks to the war industries.

Also, our modern industralized Germany, with its fine goods, bullet trains, etc. wouldn't exist. Germany would still be stuck in the Versailles treaty, stifling it.

Finally, there probably wouldn't be the modern U.N. as we know it.



For the record, I don't support or am "aganist" torturing. I have a neutral stance towards it.

And think of the starvation! All those people that died because of Hitler and pals would still be around and would have had kids!!!! (sarcasm)

Hmm...

What alternative methods would you suggest?

Torture may force the prisoner to give up the actual location of Osama Bin Laden, or actual info that will prevent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives (nuclear terrorism). Then these people would still remain alive.

This is assuming the prisoner gives actual info, and not lies.


BUT....

If the prisoner gives false information, then what would you consider alternatives to acquire the ACTUAL info then? Lives are in the balance. What will you do?


What if....

The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by torturing a captured Al-Quaeda or affliated terrorist. Then all those families would still have their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, etc. and people would still have their best friends, financees, close friends, etc.

Something to chew on, guys.And what if the prisoner is innocent, an option you don't seem to be considering? To give a specific example three Brits in Guantanamo Bay confessed to meeting up with Osama bin Laden under ill treatment. Later it came out that all had alibis and were in the UK at the time this supposedly happened- this was confirmed by British security services. Surely this suggests that any information gained under torture is worthless- so let us be blunt- the current US goverment policy is to torture innocents into confessing to imaginary crimes.

Totally apart from the moral issues, consider this: many reputable studies have found that information obtained under torture is often unreliable. People being tortured usually tell their torturers what they think they want to hear, which often isn't the truth.

Anyone ever seen a movie called "In the Name of the Father"? (Based on a true story). The main character falsely confesses to being an IRA activist after being physically and mentally abused, and after bith his and his father's life are threatened.

So, just to be on the safe side, if we think someone is a terrorist we should torture them to see if their group is planning anything? and if they land up having no information, or are innocent, well sorry did not want a 9/11

Would you be willing to take a chance that by letting a prisoner who actually knows a nuclear terrorist plan go... then boom! An entire city goes up in nuclear fire. Millions die.

But if you take no chances and torture that prisoner, then you'd recieve the information needed to prevent the nuclear attack. Millions of lives are saved.


I know information acquired via torture can't be 100% reliable. But still...

Torture may force the prisoner to give up the actual location of Osama Bin Laden, or actual info that will prevent hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives (nuclear terrorism). Then these people would still remain alive.


I suggest then that we start by torturing now, starting with you. You may or may not have information regarding terrorists, or other criminals. You will confess. Or you may tell lies, in which case we'll punish you anyway.

Or you may confess to some other crime you know about or are planning to commit, or maybe some sinful thought. We will stop you from doing any wrong.

If you won't cooperate we'll torture your family.

We are doing this to save lives and protecting our society. Now, more than ever, we must remain vigilant. The enemy is resourceful and can be anywhere.

PS. The problem with those condoning torture and war is that they only see these things happening to somebody else in a far away land.

Would you be willing to take a chance that by letting a prisoner who actually knows a nuclear terrorist plan go... then boom! An entire city goes up in nuclear fire. Millions die.

But if you take no chances and torture that prisoner, then you'd recieve the information needed to prevent the nuclear attack. Millions of lives are saved.


I know information acquired via torture can't be 100% reliable. But still...

Let me guess, you just watched True Lies and Sum of All Fears on DVD? ;)

Nuclear terrorists are a great bogeyman to justify blantant disregard for basic human rights, eh?

Hope you keep that mindframe if ever you or a friend find yourselves on the receiving end of some torture...oh, but of course, no innocent person would ever be accused, would they... *rolls eyes*

Would you be willing to take a chance that by letting a prisoner who actually knows a nuclear terrorist plan go... then boom! An entire city goes up in nuclear fire. Millions die.

But if you take no chances and torture that prisoner, then you'd recieve the information needed to prevent the nuclear attack. Millions of lives are saved.


I know information acquired via torture can't be 100% reliable. But still...

If this terrorsits knows of such a plan. Or you believe he knows of such a plan don't you think there might be other ways of finding out?
Oh yeah, torture the prisoner. He's going to tell you the real city, isn't he?
Or worse, he does but you don't believe him so torture a bit more. Or he says i know nothing, so torture a bit more......

Link?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3684381.stm

The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/may/05iraq2.htm

'25 deaths in US custody in 17 months'

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/09/death_of_25_held_in_us_custody_are_under_investigation/

Death of 25 held in US custody are under investigation

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/05/1083635207631.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

US admits 25 deaths in custody

-------

But I guess all 25 deaths were accidents or due to illness, right?

Man, just how thick are those rose coloured glasses of yours....

Mr Rumsfeld said those responsible for the "unacceptable and un-American" conduct would be brought to justice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3684381.stm

Seems very american to me. The USA has always had these sorts of "situations".

yay a thread on a rhetorical question
well what's wrong with that?

Mr Rumsfeld said those responsible for the "unacceptable and un-American" conduct would be brought to justice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3684381.stm
Your link's not working. :(

Man, just how thick are those rose coloured glasses of yours....
Now, I know context might not mean anything to you, but the thread was started and was on Guantanamo Bay, not places elsewhere, which is why I disputed the claim that those people had been killed by torture in Guantanamo.

The merry-go-round just keeps spinning.

Sodium Pentathal

Now, I know context might not mean anything to you, but the thread was started and was on Guantanamo Bay, not places elsewhere, which is why I disputed the claim that those people had been killed by torture in Guantanamo.

Excuse me, was not Nebbylands question:
Should information obtained by torture be used in court?

Excuse me, was not Nebbylands question:
Should information obtained by torture be used in court?
I wasn't answering Nebbyland's question. I was adressing the false claim made earlier in the thread, or at least one made with little care to announce the change from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib.

I wasn't answering Nebbyland's question. I was adressing the false claim made earlier in the thread, or at least one made with little care to announce the change from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib.

ahhh. ok fair enough

Excuse me, was not Nebbylands question:
Should information obtained by torture be used in court?
Yup,

I'd also like to point out that just because no one has died due to the torture at Guantanamo Bay neither excuses it, nor makes it in any way reliable.

Now, I know context might not mean anything to you, but the thread was started and was on Guantanamo Bay, not places elsewhere, which is why I disputed the claim that those people had been killed by torture in Guantanamo.
when we look at the big picture that is irrelevant, the commanding officer that was in charge of guantanmo was transplanted to abu-gharaib, thus bringing across the same tactics with him.

when we look at the big picture that is irrelevant, the commanding officer that was in charge of guantanmo was transplanted to abu-gharaib, thus bringing across the same tactics with him.
The general in charge at the time of the abuse was Janis Karpinski, Geoffery Miller, the former commanding officer at Guantanamo, was the one that was brought over after the abuse scandal to try to change things.

The general in charge at the time of the abuse was Janis Karpinski, Geoffery Miller, the former commanding officer at Guantanamo, was the one that was brought over after the abuse scandal to try to change things.

It's pretty irrelivant, there was (is) torture at Guantanamo. This in my opinion should not used nor should the evidence that it produces by admissable in any court.

It's pretty irrelivant, there was (is) torture at Guantanamo. This in my opinion should not used nor should the evidence that it produces by admissable in any court.
There's different degrees of torture, especially under the broad definitions.

If someone's being whipped until they say an answer, they'll pretty much say anything. If they're having mild sleep deprevation or forced into uncomfortable but not unbearable situations - "mild" torture - the situations would surely change.

I don't think we should use info for torture in court, however, that dosen't mean information from torture can't be used or useful.

There's different degrees of torture, especially under the broad definitions.

If someone's being whipped until they say an answer, they'll pretty much say anything. If they're having mild sleep deprevation or forced into uncomfortable but not unbearable situations - "mild" torture - the situations would surely change.

I don't think we should use info for torture in court, however, that dosen't mean information from torture can't be used or useful.

Are you saying that so-called "mild" torture produces reliable results, whereas "extreme" torture doesn't? If so, do you have any basis for this claim?

If someone's being whipped until they say an answer, they'll pretty much say anything. If they're having mild sleep deprevation or forced into uncomfortable but not unbearable situations - "mild" torture - the situations would surely change.
The situation I referenced earlier (that of three Guantanamo detainees confessing to meeting Bin Laden despite having unarguable alibis) suggests that the situation isn't as varied as you describe.

Are you saying that so-called "mild" torture produces reliable results, whereas "extreme" torture doesn't? If so, do you have any basis for this claim?
I'm saying it probably produces more reliable results. I don't have any stats to back it up, but we already know that when forced to, most people will admit or say anything. So, when they're not forced to, but encouraged to, would they not tell the truth? The reason these measures were adopted in the first place was because they know that they're more likely to get information out of people this way, whereas otherwise they might get none. Severe torture will always yield what you're demanding. The US dosen't want that in Guantanamo. Contrary to what some people would like to think, we are trying to get Osama and round up Al-Qaeda. Simply beating people into submission wouldn't achieve this.

In the end, yes, I'm using circular reasoning. Why would they use it? Because it works. How can you tell that it works? Because they use it. Given the extensive history of interrogation and torture, though, I'd believe that those who are in charge of the operations would know more about how to strike the right balance and get correct information than any of us would. The main goal isn't to make them confess to terrorist attacks so we can put them on a show trial and shoot them in the back of the head, its to help destroy global terrorism.

Are you saying that so-called "mild" torture produces reliable results, whereas "extreme" torture doesn't? If so, do you have any basis for this claim?

when talking about sleep deprivation and such, yes it helps. If someone is disorientated they are likely to make slip ups when questioning them. or are a least more likely too

I'm saying it probably produces more reliable results. I don't have any stats to back it up, but we already know that when forced to, most people will admit or say anything. So, when they're not forced to, but encouraged to, would they not tell the truth? The reason these measures were adopted in the first place was because they know that they're more likely to get information out of people this way, whereas otherwise they might get none. Severe torture will always yield what you're demanding. The US dosen't want that in Guantanamo. Contrary to what some people would like to think, we are trying to get Osama and round up Al-Qaeda. Simply beating people into submission wouldn't achieve this.

In the end, yes, I'm using circular reasoning. Why would they use it? Because it works. How can you tell that it works? Because they use it. Given the extensive history of interrogation and torture, though, I'd believe that those who are in charge of the operations would know more about how to strike the right balance and get correct information than any of us would. The main goal isn't to make them confess to terrorist attacks so we can put them on a show trial and shoot them in the back of the head, its to help destroy global terrorism.

But -- having already said that you have no basis for this belief -- how do you know that it works? I mean, it "worked" in the UK, too: our police arrested various Irish people, tortured them, they confessed, and we put them in jail, for life. Numerous members of our legal establishment bemoaned the fact that we didn't execute them as traitors. And yet, ten or fifteen years later, we found out that it was all bullshit, that the poor sods were all completely innocent; they just said anything to make the torture stop. None of this torture was in any way extreme. Most of it was mental pressure: a bit of physical intimidation backed up by a lot of fear.

By its very nature, the use of torture is self-sustaining. You torture people, they confess, they name others, you torture these others, they confess, they name others... soon you have masses of people in your jail. Yay! We're winning the war on terror! See how many we've locked up in our special terrorist jail? They wouldn't be there if they weren't terrorists; they are in there now; they must be terrorists or they wouldn't be in there; we only put them in there because they are terrorists; etc etc etc.

Your belief in the calm wisdom of your military and intelligence community, and the torturers therein, is touching, although again, I'd have to ask you: do you have any valid basis for this belief? Given the well-documented inefficiency, ineptness, and downright criminal stupidity that has been the hallmark of "military intelligence" since before the phrase was coined, I'm afraid I don't share your faith.

The main goal isn't to make them confess to terrorist attacks so we can put them on a show trial and shoot them in the back of the head, its to help destroy global terrorism.

No they want them to face the electirc chair, other than that I'm quite sure that the show "trial" is a big part of the US plans for these men.

Of course when I say trial I in no way mean military tribunal, a military whose comander in chief has already declared them guilty...

but what about all the allied troops that have been captured over the years. Have they or have they not admitted to all sorts of crimes.

when talking about sleep deprivation and such, yes it helps. If someone is disorientated they are likely to make slip ups when questioning them. or are a least more likely too

I don't know... I'd need to see some convincing research on this before I believe it. In my own experience sleep-deprived people are more likely to be incoherent and rambling. It's arguable that they'd also be less likely to argue, more compliant, and more willing to say what the questioner wanted to hear. If the suspect is, in fact, innocent -- something that has to be kept in mind -- then they can't make any "slip-ups". But they can find themselves, after hours, days of constant haranguing and questioning with little or no sleep, just agreeing with whatever their interrogators are saying just to shut them up and get some peace.

All information derived by torture, of any kind, is suspect. Its use debases the prosecution and destroys the credibility of the information gained. Worse, it means that innocent people get locked up (or indeed executed) and the real terrorist goes free, since nobody is looking for him any more.

The war on terror is different to domestic policing. In the situation in the UK, the British police didn't have to search through caves halfway around the world just for the prospect of finding someone. The US is not just going over to Afghanistan, going into a mosque, and then arresting random Arabs. We've released people from Guantanamo that we thought were innocent or no longer had any information. We didn't use them to create a chain of inmates so we could lock up thousands of Arabs and keep them there. Nor did we force a confession out of them.

No they want them to face the electirc chair, other than that I'm quite sure that the show "trial" is a big part of the US plans for these men.

Of course when I say trial I in no way mean military tribunal, a military whose comander in chief has already declared them guilty...
I guess thats why stuff like this happens.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=story_25-11-2003_pg7_40

I don't know... I'd need to see some convincing research on this before I believe it. In my own experience sleep-deprived people are more likely to be incoherent and rambling. It's arguable that they'd also be less likely to argue, more compliant, and more willing to say what the questioner wanted to hear. If the suspect is, in fact, innocent -- something that has to be kept in mind -- then they can't make any "slip-ups". But they can find themselves, after hours, days of constant haranguing and questioning with little or no sleep, just agreeing with whatever their interrogators are saying just to shut them up and get some peace.

All information derived by torture, of any kind, is suspect. Its use debases the prosecution and destroys the credibility of the information gained. Worse, it means that innocent people get locked up (or indeed executed) and the real terrorist goes free, since nobody is looking for him any more.

but that is how an interogation works! you keep on asking and asking and aksing. I'm not saying attache electrodes to their family jewel and turn the power on. Just disrupt their routine. give 'em sodium pentathol (spelling?)

The war on terror is different to domestic policing. In the situation in the UK, the British police didn't have to search through caves halfway around the world just for the prospect of finding someone. The US is not just going over to Afghanistan, going into a mosque, and then arresting random Arabs. We've released people from Guantanamo that we thought were innocent or no longer had any information. We didn't use them to create a chain of inmates so we could lock up thousands of Arabs and keep them there. Nor did we force a confession out of them.

After two or more years, a tiny number of people have been grudgingly released from Guantanamo, that's true -- although I suspect this has more to do with rumblings from the Supreme Court than any pressing concern for human rights. A great many people still remain there, locked up, with no charge against them or any hard evidence to hold them there. They are there merely because the US is suspicious of them. In many cases this suspicion is probably well founded; in other cases these people will just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, the use of torture -- "mild" or not -- to extract information will not help the "war on terror", since it will not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. Each guilty terrorist it imprisons is one less terrorist out there; but each innocent man behind its bars is a recruitment gift to al-Qaeda and its various associated bands of lunatics. Guantanamo is already a glaring orange stain on the USA's claim to represent a civilised society and the rule of law. The longer it goes on the more it will act as another reason for angry, disempowered young men to sign up to shoot an RPG or drive a carful of explosives.

fine correction then, the general in charge of abu ghraid borrowed tactics used in guantanamo

but that is how an interogation works! you keep on asking and asking and aksing. I'm not saying attache electrodes to their family jewel and turn the power on. Just disrupt their routine. give 'em sodium pentathol (spelling?)

And if the suspect is innocent?

You just keep asking and asking, depriving them of sleep and injecting them with drugs. Disrupting their routine, as you say. Eventually they'll say what you want. Then you can lock them up and say on network TV, "We're winning the war on terror!"

Keeping a guilty man off-balance might eventually get him to confess to his guilt. But keeping an innocent man off-balance might eventually get him to confess to his guilt, too -- even though he's not guilty. Then the guy you're really looking for, the real guilty one, he can get off scot free and go plan some other outrage.

The information we get isn't only about who's a terrorist and who's not.

We get good info on the inner workings of Al-Qaeda, the location of the big guys (I think we only have one of the top three right now), etc.

And if the suspect is innocent?

You just keep asking and asking, depriving them of sleep and injecting them with drugs. Disrupting their routine, as you say. Eventually they'll say what you want. Then you can lock them up and say on network TV, "We're winning the war on terror!"

Keeping a guilty man off-balance might eventually get him to confess to his guilt. But keeping an innocent man off-balance might eventually get him to admit to his guilt, too -- even though he's not guilty. Then the guy you're really looking for, the real guilty one, he can get off scot free and go plan some other outrage.

first off, if you read my previous posts, i feel its quite plain that i am against torture.
but in interogation, if you need information what should you do. what would YOU do?

The information we get isn't only about who's a terrorist and who's not.

We get good info on the inner workings of Al-Qaeda, the location of the big guys (I think we only have one of the top three right now), etc.

Right. You've really got al-Qaeda on the ropes now, eh?

You have to stop thinking of these organisations as being like something from James Bond, with an arch-villain Leader, a secret underground base and a Master Plan To Take Over The World. Al-Qaeda is more a media construct than anything else, a loose affiliation of various groups, splinters, cells, sympathisers and random nutters. Osama doesn't issue orders from a cave in Afghanistan, and have loyal followers scuttling off around the globe. He spouts militaristic nonsense into a handheld camera and various bunches of thugs do horrible things in various parts of the world; the actual connection between the spoutings and the horrible events is tenuous at best. It's just easier to stick one big label on them all than try to describe just who one group claimed to be or what the hell they thought they were fighting for or against this week.

"Al-Qaeda" won't collapse if you capture Osama bin Laden. It won't collapse even if you take out the whole "leadership". It's a state of mind, a set of opinions and beliefs. When it's labelled and targeted, all we are doing is giving it a more concrete reality in peoples' minds. When we abuse or kill people "because they're a-Qaeda members" (what, do they have a badge and a magic decoder ring or something?) we just send out a recruitment call for anyone else out there who has a shitty life and a grudge against the west to take up arms against us. Lord knows there's enough of them out there.

first off, if you read my previous posts, i feel its quite plain that i am against torture.
but in interogation, if you need information what should you do. what would YOU do?

Yes, I know you're against torture. But there is more to police work -- and this is what any "war on terror" has to be -- than interrogation. You need corroborating evidence.

It can be very difficult. But let's be honest: we are never going to defeat global terrorism by military force. Like I've said in a previous post, these terrorist organisations are held together and maintained by states of mind. The only way to win is to make those states of mind so aberrant that they cease to exist in any numbers. We have to remove the grievances which turn whole nations into recruitment pools for suicide bombers, instead of letting ageing men pump up their political standing by posing on top of various bits of military hardware. We have to stop voting for ageing men who pose on top of various bits of military hardware, too. If we get the politicians we deserve, then we get the geopolitical fallout we deserve too.

I'm not going to deny that Al-Qaeda is very decentralized, especially after we took out Afghanistan. However, there is (or was) a command structure and there are people who are financing and masterminding the operations. There is basically no way that we will realistically eliminate both the underlying causes of terrorism and the recruitment base, we can do our best to hurt them, though. Al-Qaeda was and is the most dangerous and potent of all the terrorist organizations as evidenced by the repeated successful terrorist attacks against the United States, therefore we have to try to dismantle it as best we can. No, we're not going get all of the low-level terrorists and stop them from joining Hamas or some other group. We can do our best to keep them from being organized, which makes it harder for them to pull of complex attacks.

I'm not going to deny that Al-Qaeda is very decentralized, especially after we took out Afghanistan. However, there is (or was) a command structure and there are people who are financing and masterminding the operations. There is basically no way that we will realistically eliminate both the underlying causes of terrorism and the recruitment base, we can do our best to hurt them, though. Al-Qaeda was and is the most dangerous and potent of all the terrorist organizations as evidenced by the repeated successful terrorist attacks against the United States, therefore we have to try to dismantle it as best we can. No, we're not going get all of the low-level terrorists and stop them from joining Hamas or some other group. We can do our best to keep them from being organized, which makes it harder for them to pull of complex attacks.

Afghanistan was not, and is not, the main centre of al-Qaeda activity. The country you're looking for is Saudi Arabia: home of Wahabbism, home of Osama bin Laden, and home of 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists. Just to clear that up.

You can make things a bit more difficult for the various fundamentalist groups, particularly on the financial side of things -- although I have to say that hasn't worked too well to date in the "war on drugs". Still, nothing ventured, eh?

There are no grand master plans. 9/11 was a pretty simple operation, and probably involved no more than a few dozen people. I don't think it cost very much, either. A few flying lessons, a few box cutters, a few airline tickets: no big deal. Low-level groups can have high-level effects: this is what "asymmetric warfare" is all about. I'm afraid that the US military blundering around the globe bombing things is just sending more people, money and resources towards the various groups who are prepared to try to do these sorts of things.

The terrible truth is that terrorism is neither hard nor expensive to do, and does not require much in the way of planning or brains. Most terrorists are pretty dim. Most terrorist attempts fail dismally, often before they ever reach anything like a dangerous phase. But if they get lucky, then the effect can be hugely disproportionate to the resources involved.

To get back to the original point, torturing people will not destroy these groups. Even if useful information is extracted, the best you can hope for is half-a-dozen arrests. Maybe you avert a major bombing, maybe you stop some numbskull blowing himself up because he forgot that the video timer circuit he used on the bomb is 24 hour. But when you torture people, you merely confirm to people across the globe that you are a brutal pack of killers, who should be resisted at all costs. You reinforce the terrorist mindset. You make your enemy stronger. That's a stupid tactic.

Afghanistan was not, and is not, the main centre of al-Qaeda activity. The country you're looking for is Saudi Arabia: home of Wahabbism, home of Osama bin Laden, and home of 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists. Just to clear that up.
At the time, the Afghanistan and the Taliban which ran it harbored Al-Qaeda and its organization. Saudi Arabia is ultimate source, but it's extremely hard to stop it at its source, at least right now. Thats why we went after Afghanistan, to stop the river even if we're not getting the source.

You can make things a bit more difficult for the various fundamentalist groups, particularly on the financial side of things -- although I have to say that hasn't worked too well to date in the "war on drugs". Still, nothing ventured, eh?
The War on Drugs is underfunded and undermanned. So is the War on Terror to some extent, although to say that because the War on Drugs hasn't been a spectacular success, the WoT won't work either is false.

There are no grand master plans. 9/11 was a pretty simple operation, and probably involved no more than a few dozen people. I don't think it cost very much, either. A few flying lessons, a few box cutters, a few airline tickets: no big deal. Low-level groups can have high-level effects: this is what "asymmetric warfare" is all about. I'm afraid that the US military blundering around the globe bombing things is just sending more people, money and resources towards the various groups who are prepared to try to do these sorts of things.
No, it was planned by Khalid Shaik Mohammed in Afghanistan. 9/11 wasn't something decided by twenty guys from a splinter cell. Of course it was financed by Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, another one we captured in Afghanistan. This was planned and financed by Al-Qaeda leadership, and involved quite a bit more people than just the hijackers.

To get back to the original point, torturing people will not destroy these groups. Even if useful information is extracted, the best you can hope for is half-a-dozen arrests. maybe you avert a major bombing, maybe you stop some numbskull blowing himself up because he forgot that the video timer circuit he used on the bomb is 24 hour. But when you torture people, you merely confirm to people across the globe that you are a brutal pack of killers, who should be resisted at all costs. You reinfoce the terrorist mindset. You make your enemy stronger. That's a stupid tactic.
What is going on in Guantanamo is not going to cause the masses of Arabs to flock to Al-Qaeda. Perhaps what happened in Abu Ghraib, but thats a totally different situation.

If I tortured you long enough, I could get you to confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, to starting the Chicago fire, to just about anything. The person being tortured will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, just so you stop. Thus in probably 90-95% of cases, the information will be totally useless.

At the time, the Afghanistan and the Taliban which ran it harbored Al-Qaeda and its organization. Saudi Arabia is ultimate source, but it's extremely hard to stop it at its source, at least right now. Thats why we went after Afghanistan, to stop the river even if we're not getting the source.

Al-Qaeda doesn't have an organisation, or a headquarters. Like I said, it's a state of mind, an attitude, a set of opinions. There were (and probably still are) training camps in Afghanistan. There was also, and still is, a large pool of militarised fundamentalists with an abiding hatred of the West. Afghan heroin production, a large source of funds for all manner of criminal enterprises around the world, is up significantly since the Taliban were deposed (they had cracked down on it in the hope of getting US funds and US recognition in exchange for an oil pipeline, but that deal -- obviously -- fell through). Afghanistan, as a source of problems for the West, is very far from being solved.

The War on Drugs is underfunded and undermanned. So is the War on Terror to some extent, although to say that because the War on Drugs hasn't been a spectacular success, the WoT won't work either is false.

It's not false; it's just not necessarily true. It certainly doesn't give any reason to confidently predict success, though.

No, it was planned by Khalid Shaik Mohammed in Afghanistan. 9/11 wasn't something decided by twenty guys from a splinter cell. Of course it was financed by Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, another one we captured in Afghanistan. This was planned and financed by Al-Qaeda leadership, and involved quite a bit more people than just the hijackers.

It definitely involved some more, but not a huge number. And none of the people involved in the planning, funding or execution were remotely vital or irreplaceable. Terrorism is cheap and easy. We should be thankful that only a very, very few terrorists are intelligent and capable.

What is going on in Guantanamo is not going to cause the masses of Arabs to flock to Al-Qaeda. Perhaps what happened in Abu Ghraib, but thats a totally different situation.

Guantanamo is just one more injustice that acts as a rallying cry to those who oppose America and the West in general. Even if the inmates were treated with punctillious courtesy, the mere fact that they are being held indefinitely in a legal and political limbo would be enough. I'm sure it's not as bad as Abu Ghraib was -- although you can bet that terrorist recruiters and general rumour will be saying that it's worse. Given the secrecy and lack of access, who is going to be able to disprove it?

Now, I know context might not mean anything to you, but the thread was started and was on Guantanamo Bay, not places elsewhere, which is why I disputed the claim that those people had been killed by torture in Guantanamo.

I missed that, sorry. So US policy is it's OK to torure and kill people as long as it's in a "hot zone". Gotcha.

The war on terror is different to domestic policing. In the situation in the UK, the British police didn't have to search through caves halfway around the world just for the prospect of finding someone. The US is not just going over to Afghanistan, going into a mosque, and then arresting random Arabs. We've released people from Guantanamo that we thought were innocent or no longer had any information. We didn't use them to create a chain of inmates so we could lock up thousands of Arabs and keep them there. Nor did we force a confession out of them.

Well, actually, in a large number of cases this is EXACTLY what they are doing - simply substitute the word "private house" for "mosque" and you're spot on.

Many of those detained were simply named by others, and with no more coroborating evidence than that, they were locked away, some for months before being released, some are still there...

Face facts, only a minisucle amount of detainees were actually caught with the proverbial "smoking gun" in their hands...

If I tortured you long enough, I could get you to confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, to starting the Chicago fire, to just about anything. The person being tortured will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, just so you stop. Thus in probably 90-95% of cases, the information will be totally useless.
This is one of the few times we will ever agree, CM, but you're absolutely right. I'd confess to being the second shooter on the grassy knoll if someone wired my balls up to a car battery, even though I wouldn't have been born for another 5 years.

This thread is mostly going on about how reliable torture is or is not. When you look it from another viewpoint, torture can be a awful thing to do to another person (believe me, I know. I've been living in a relationship for some years now. Deprivation of various things can be cruel and harsh and in the end you'd confess to anything just ... to ... make ... it ... stop).

Anyway, torture sucks when you're on the receiving end. I'd bet the war on terror could be won by nuking every arab and third world country to oblivion. Try recruiting someone after that! That's just too unhuman to do, if only for the fact that untold innocent people die.

Nuking every arab and third world country is just on the end of the sliding scale of how far we are willing to go. I'd say torture, as it happens, is too far down the line too. The US military seems to be torturing people left and right. I'm willing to accept torture IF you can be, say, 80-90% sure that the guy knows something. For example, if Osama was caught, you could torture him 'cause he probably knows some pretty useful stuff even though he might have spent the last years in an even deeper hole than Saddam used.

This thread is mostly going on about how reliable torture is or is not. When you look it from another viewpoint, torture can be a awful thing to do to another person (believe me, I know. I've been living in a relationship for some years now. Deprivation of various things can be cruel and harsh and in the end you'd confess to anything just ... to ... make ... it ... stop).

True Dalekia, but the main reason the debate has taken this turn is that some people (i.e. those who think torture for information is A-OK) refuse to even consider the subject from a moral or humantarian point of view. The only way to appeal to these kind of zealots is to try to explain to them that torture isn't reliable - to try to point out to them that it is inhuman and barbaric falls on deaf ears.

Also, most pro-torture advocates have a romantacized view of torture from watching too many spy thriller movies - they see torture as some abstract concept that happens offscreen. If you handed most of these bozos a pair of pliers and a suspected terrorist, most would puke their guts up after about 30 seconds of seeing what real torture is all about. Those who didn't puke, would be cold, soulless, nationalist psychos...

Should information obtained by torture be used in court?

Are you out of your mind, of course not. In fact the only people who should be in court are the people who preformed the torture.

the options as I see them:
(the terms in brackets after the objections are suggestions, and are not meant to carry any perjorative or valorising connotations)


Torture is immoral, therefore we moral types should not use it in our legal processes (Principled objection)

Torture is immoral, yet we dont mind about that, and can use it (sheer pragmatism?)

Torture is immoral, we wouldnt use it if there was another option, but if necessary we will, and will use the information in court (highly qualified acceptance)

torture is immoral, we wouldnt use if there was a better otion, but if necessary we will, and will use the information in court (qualified acceptance)

Torture isnt immoral. Use torture to get information and use it in court or to defeat the enemy - the information is accurate enough ( acceptance??)

torture isnt immoral, but the information produced by it is flawed, so unreliable, so shouldnt bother with torture. (pragmatic objection)

Torture is both immoral and any information produced by it is flawed so we shouldnt use it (complete objection)

(also I guess we have a difference between the reasons for tortue being wrong, deontological (it's just wrong) or consequentialist (it's wrong because of its effects etc))

I missed that, sorry. So US policy is it's OK to torure and kill people as long as it's in a "hot zone". Gotcha.
No, I didn't say it was ok to torture them to the extent they did in Iraq, I just said that it didn't happen at Guantanamo. (The deaths).

No, I didn't say it was ok to torture them to the extent they did in Iraq, I just said that it didn't happen at Guantanamo. (The deaths).
So you are saying that torture is permissible? Just want to be clear on this.

Depending on the form.

Can you give specifics? What kind of torture? What sort of circumstances? Does it matter--if you're trying to extract information--that information extracted from torture is generally unreliable?

Well I went through it earlier in the post about all of this, basically forms of "mild" torture such as mild sleep deprevation, uncomfortable but not unbearable physical situations (ie being asked to stand for long periods of time), etc. I don't support Abu Ghraib-style torture. Earlier everyone went over the things about information via torture being unreliable, of course if you whip someone they're going to stop being uncooperative and simply say what you want them to say.

Well I went through it earlier in the post about all of this, basically forms of "mild" torture such as mild sleep deprevation, uncomfortable but not unbearable physical situations (ie being asked to stand for long periods of time), etc. I don't support Abu Ghraib-style torture. Earlier everyone went over the things about information via torture being unreliable, of course if you whip someone they're going to stop being uncooperative and simply say what you want them to say.

You still haven't dealt with a major objection to this so-called "mild" torture. What if the person whom you are depriving of sleep, forcing to stand for long periods of time etc. is innocent? They keep on denying any guilt, so you keep on torturing them. Where does it stop? Is there a cutoff point where the torturers say, "Ya know, I reckon this guy is on the level"? If so, how do they know the difference between a hardened thug with a fanatical devotion to his cause and a bewildered innocent civilian, given that they are assuming that everyone they are torturing is, in fact, a fanatic?

All your assumptions about the justification of "mild" torture depend on the rather fanciful notion that only guilty people ever get tortured.

You still haven't dealt with a major objection to this so-called "mild" torture. What if the person whom you are depriving of sleep, forcing to stand for long periods of time etc. is innocent? They keep on denying any guilt, so you keep on torturing them. Where does it stop? Is there a cutoff point where the torturers say, "Ya know, I reckon this guy is on the level"? If so, how do they know the difference between a hardened thug with a fanatical devotion to his cause and a bewildered innocent civilian, given that they are assuming that everyone they are torturing is, in fact, a fanatic?

All your assumptions about the justification of "mild" torture depend on the rather fanciful notion that only guilty people ever get tortured.
Thats a risk that goes in with any sort of interrogation. Even if we did nothing but sit them down at a table and ask them questions, we could still run into that problem and have them be wasting their lives away in Guantanamo, even though they're innocent. Again, in Guantanamo we're not interrogating for guilt (at least on the person himself), we're doing it for further information on Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. If someone refuses to answer, just to be uncooperative, then thats why the mild torture is brought in, to help them along. If they say that they're innocent and their account generally fits in with the hundreds of others from Guantanamo, then we'd let them go, as we did with others earlier this year.

Exactly my problem with this entire discussion! It wasn't until earlier in this page that people started questioning the moral aspects of *human torture*; their only objection was that it wasn't very efficient! (A question to all of you pragmatists: if human torture was 100% effective, would you have any qualms about it? If there was a technique whereby you could extract any information you wanted from a person's memory against their will, and in so doing absolutely destroy their mind, would you?) Even so-called "mild" forms of human torture are unspeakably immoral and should *never* be used! Someone before me mentioned the slippery-slope argument, and it really does hold true here - how many individuals is it acceptable to sacrifice to the "greater good"? Because, of course, if you carry the "greater good" argument to its logical extreme, there are no individuals left; they have *all* been sacrificed. We're already edging towards a totalitarian state, and it seems to me that condoning human torture is one of the litmus tests for how far gone a society is. (And, yes, by that standard humans have yet to produce a really admirable society) All of my arguments basically come down to one idea: it is unacceptable for one human to harm another, even if such harm is for the good of other humans. That is, essentially, placing greater values on *these* lives over *those*, and I for one do not believe that being an American gives you a greater inherent right to human dignity than other people, even if those people have already committed horrible crimes. Remember preschool? Two wrongs don't make a right? Hey, that didn't suddenly reverse itself when you got out of middle school.

Exactly my problem with this entire discussion! It wasn't until earlier in this page that people started questioning the moral aspects of *human torture*; their only objection was that it wasn't very efficient! (A question to all of you pragmatists: if human torture was 100% effective, would you have any qualms about it? If there was a technique whereby you could extract any information you wanted from a person's memory against their will, and in so doing absolutely destroy their mind, would you?) Even so-called "mild" forms of human torture are unspeakably immoral and should *never* be used! Someone before me mentioned the slippery-slope argument, and it really does hold true here - how many individuals is it acceptable to sacrifice to the "greater good"? Because, of course, if you carry the "greater good" argument to its logical extreme, there are no individuals left; they have *all* been sacrificed. We're already edging towards a totalitarian state, and it seems to me that condoning human torture is one of the litmus tests for how far gone a society is. (And, yes, by that standard humans have yet to produce a really admirable society) All of my arguments basically come down to one idea: it is unacceptable for one human to harm another, even if such harm is for the good of other humans. That is, essentially, placing greater values on *these* lives over *those*, and I for one do not believe that being an American gives you a greater inherent right to human dignity than other people, even if those people have already committed horrible crimes. Remember preschool? Two wrongs don't make a right? Hey, that didn't suddenly reverse itself when you got out of middle school.Since I was one of the people using the "unreliable information" argument, let me respond.

I think torture under any circumstances is immoral. To me, the most important of human rights is the right to be secure in one's own person, so for me, torture, no matter how certain the information gathered as a result, is immoral. It's as close as I get to an absolutist position on anything.

I only use the pragmatic argument because it's the most effective in this discussion. There would be a legitimate argument for the use of torture if it worked consistently--not one that would convince me, but one that could be made. But since torture almost always results in bad intel, then why bother to use it at all?

torture is outlawed by the geneva conventions. how could evidence obtained under torture EVER be legal in court? not only that, but in the US, it would probably be declared fruit of the poisoned tree and it would all be tossed out no matter what other evidence you would have found against someone.

at this point they have gotten all the useful information they are going to get from these men. its been 3 years, they know nothing that is current enough to matter. it is starting to remind me of what happened to OUR pows in vietnam.

the ONLY time torture is justtified is where there is a huge bomb goig to go off in 1 hour and a group of men know where it is and how to disarm it. then you start shooting them one by one until someone tells you what you need to know. any other circumstance leads to unrelyable information (not that its necessarily reliable in my scenario, but you have to try whatever you can do to stop that bomb from detonating)

Thats a risk that goes in with any sort of interrogation. Even if we did nothing but sit them down at a table and ask them questions, we could still run into that problem and have them be wasting their lives away in Guantanamo, even though they're innocent. Again, in Guantanamo we're not interrogating for guilt (at least on the person himself), we're doing it for further information on Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. If someone refuses to answer, just to be uncooperative, then thats why the mild torture is brought in, to help them along. If they say that they're innocent and their account generally fits in with the hundreds of others from Guantanamo, then we'd let them go, as we did with others earlier this year.

But you are assuming that all innocent people will continue to successfully maintain their claims of innocence in the face of so-called "mild" torture. What if a bewildered civilian is hauled off to Guantanamo, tortured "mildly" and -- because they're frightened, brutalised, a long, long way from home, cut off from any help and relentlessly questioned day after day after day under conditions which are far more oppressively unpleasant than anything they have ever faced before (however "mild" they may be compared to what MIGHT be done to them) -- finally "confess" to whatever crimes their interrogators suggest to them, just to make the torture stop?

How many innocent people are compelled by "mild" torture into confessing to anything? Once they have confessed, what's the chance that their case will ever be looked at again? Do you think that there's a special branch of military intelligence devoted to finding out if the people who've confessed to terrorist involvement are actually innocent?

The use of torture, "mild" or otherwise, is not only hideously immoral and a betrayal of the principles which the "war on terror" is supposedly defending. It is also catastrophically stupid, handing a huge propaganda gift to terrorist recruiters in a war which thrives on propaganda and public perceptions.

But you are assuming that all innocent people will continue to successfully maintain their claims of innocence in the face of so-called "mild" torture. What if a bewildered civilian is hauled off to Guantanamo, tortured "mildly" and -- because they're frightened, brutalised, a long, long way from home, cut off from any help and relentlessly questioned day after day after day under conditions which are far more oppressively unpleasant than anything they have ever faced before (however "mild" they may be compared to what MIGHT be done to them) -- finally "confess" to whatever crimes their interrogators suggest to them, just to make the torture stop?
How can the conditions be that much worse than war-torn and poverty-stricken places like Afghanistan where warlords and violence reign supreme in much of the country? They're in no danger of starving in Guantanamo, they have a roof over their heads, and no one's going to put a gun to their head. Again, as I said, I don't think that the USA is trying to make these guys confess in order to put them on trial, because we know that that dosen't accomplish anything. It isn't Uncle de Sade's house of torture down there.

How many innocent people are compelled by "mild" torture into confessing to anything? Once they have confessed, what's the chance that their case will ever be looked at again? Do you think that there's a special branch of military intelligence devoted to finding out if the people who've confessed to terrorist involvement are actually innocent?
I don't know because I'm not in the military and I don't know how it works. Perhaps if your the commanding officer at Guantanamo you can help me. If you look at the three British people who were posted about earlier in the thread who gave wrong stories, their cases were reviewed and they were found to be innocent, were they not?

The use of torture, "mild" or otherwise, is not only hideously immoral and a betrayal of the principles which the "war on terror" is supposedly defending. It is also catastrophically stupid, handing a huge propaganda gift to terrorist recruiters in a war which thrives on propaganda and public perceptions.
I disagree. You can't be so absolute about things. I, for one, can see a difference between sleep deprevation and mutilation, but perhaps I'm missing something here. There's no doubt that the pictures of Abu Ghraib were counter productive and what went on there was immoral. I have different thoughts about Guantanamo.

How can the conditions be that much worse than war-torn and poverty-stricken places like Afghanistan where warlords and violence reign supreme in much of the country? They're in no danger of starving in Guantanamo, they have a roof over their heads, and no one's going to put a gun to their head. Again, as I said, I don't think that the USA is trying to make these guys confess in order to put them on trial, because we know that that dosen't accomplish anything. It isn't Uncle de Sade's house of torture down there.


I don't know because I'm not in the military and I don't know how it works. Perhaps if your the commanding officer at Guantanamo you can help me. If you look at the three British people who were posted about earlier in the thread who gave wrong stories, their cases were reviewed and they were found to be innocent, were they not?


I disagree. You can't be so absolute about things. I, for one, can see a difference between sleep deprevation and mutilation, but perhaps I'm missing something here. There's no doubt that the pictures of Abu Ghraib were counter productive and what went on there was immoral. I have different thoughts about Guantanamo.
how naive and right wing, oh and just to remind you, practices used at al-ghraib were adotped from guantanamo, and i dare anyone to challenge me on that, i will flood you with sources, plenty of news stations and papers have quoted the person in charge of abu ghraib as saying that

How can the conditions be that much worse than war-torn and poverty-stricken places like Afghanistan where warlords and violence reign supreme in much of the country? They're in no danger of starving in Guantanamo, they have a roof over their heads, and no one's going to put a gun to their head.

They might have more food, but at least back home they probably don't get deprived of sleep and tortured, however "mildly", on a regular basis while being aggressively questioned by intimidating foreigners. At least back home they are at home, with their families and friends, where they probably have a fairly good idea about what to expect every day. And how do they know, stuck in a prison camp halfway round the world, denied contact with anyone who might help them, that someone WON'T put a gun to their head? I can't be certain, but I'm willing to bet that they don't have an unswerving faith in the goodwill of Uncle Sam.

Again, as I said, I don't think that the USA is trying to make these guys confess in order to put them on trial, because we know that that dosen't accomplish anything. It isn't Uncle de Sade's house of torture down there.

I didn't say it was. But how long can a frightened civilian last under oppressive conditions before they confess to anything? There's a reason that police can only (usually) hold people for 24 hours before charging or releasing them.

I don't know because I'm not in the military and I don't know how it works. Perhaps if your the commanding officer at Guantanamo you can help me. If you look at the three British people who were posted about earlier in the thread who gave wrong stories, their cases were reviewed and they were found to be innocent, were they not?

The British citizens who were eventually, reluctantly, released only got out because of pressure from the British government, and mutterings from the US Supreme Court. So far we have evidence that at least some of the people held in Guantanamo were completely innocent. The tiny number who were released may have been unusually resilient, but even so, if they had been Afghanis, they would still be in there, being questioned and "mildly" tortured. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the system.

I disagree. You can't be so absolute about things. I, for one, can see a difference between sleep deprevation and mutilation, but perhaps I'm missing something here. There's no doubt that the pictures of Abu Ghraib were counter productive and what went on there was immoral. I have different thoughts about Guantanamo.

America, and the west in general, claims it is fighting for freedom and democracy. And yet it is subverting its own, as well as international, law, and holding hundreds of people without trial for an unlimited period of time in political and legal limbo. If you can't see how this plays directly into the hands of those who want to paint the USA as an unscrupulous enemy of Muslims, then I can't help you. But I can assure you that Guantanamo is not only a blight on America's reputation as a democracy and a just society, but is a rallying cry to everyone who seeks to label it as an enemy of freedom. It is a permanent propaganda gift to America's enemies.

They might have more food, but at least back home they probably don't get deprived of sleep and tortured, however "mildly", on a regular basis while being aggressively questioned by intimidating foreigners. At least back home they are at home, with their families and friends, where they probably have a fairly good idea about what to expect every day. And how do they know, stuck in a prison camp halfway round the world, denied contact with anyone who might help them, that someone WON'T put a gun to their head? I can't be certain, but I'm willing to bet that they don't have an unswerving faith in the goodwill of Uncle Sam.
They know what to expect every day there. They have meals, time to pray and read the Koran, interrogation, etc. Its probably a more regular schedule than going into town and perhaps having a bomb blow up in the middle of the marketplace or perhaps instead having terorrists shoot at someone who looks American. I mean, heck, its a military prison and its better than some other countries :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3135447.stm
Also from the BBC :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1766037.stm

They also say that with three meals a day, medical care and pens to write home with, the prisoners are living in better conditions than they did before they were captured.

The British citizens who were eventually, reluctantly, released only got out because of pressure from the British government, and mutterings from the US Supreme Court. So far we have evidence that at least some of the people held in Guantanamo were completely innocent. The tiny number who were released may have been unusually resilient, but even so, if they had been Afghanis, they would still be in there, being questioned and "mildly" tortured. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the system.
Tiny Number? Back in December of '03, 140 out of 660 were released.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=WORLD&oid=39479
Contrary to what you (or may want to) believe, Guantanamo is not a concentration camp and we're not looking to imprison innocents. The fact that 140 of them, a significant number, in addition to other releases throughout time have been let go is a sign that it is not just a small minority of people who maintain the innocence while others confess to imaginary crimes.

America, and the west in general, claims it is fighting for freedom and democracy. And yet it is subverting its own, as well as international, law, and holding hundreds of people without trial for an unlimited period of time in political and legal limbo. If you can't see how this plays directly into the hands of those who want to paint the USA as an unscrupulous enemy of Muslims, then I can't help you. But I can assure you that Guantanamo is not only a blight on America's reputation as a democracy and a just society, but is a rallying cry to everyone who seeks to label it as an enemy of freedom. It is a permanent propaganda gift to America's enemies.
I doubt Guantanamo has had that much of an effect as you would like to think. I'd imagine it would have much more effect as anti-American propoganda in Europe than in the Islamic world. In countries where no such rights have been established, it would be hard to argue that it is so bad that the Muslims in Guantanamo are not receiving them.

They also say that with three meals a day, medical care and pens to write home with, the prisoners are living in better conditions than they did before they were captured.
who wants me to put the whole quote?

Human Rights Watch described the 1.8m by 2.4m open-sided wire cells in which the men are being held as "a scandal".

There was also concern that the detainees were seen handcuffed, blindfolded and masked. Later images showed them being manacled and clamped into leg irons on trolleys to be wheeled to interrogation huts.

The US says these restraints are only used during transit. They also say that with three meals a day, medical care and pens to write home with, the prisoners are living in better conditions than they did before they were captured.

OF COURSE THE US SAYS THAT, you think they are going to ADMIT they are abusing prisoners and human rights violations

how naive and right wing, oh and just to remind you, practices used at al-ghraib were adotped from guantanamo, and i dare anyone to challenge me on that, i will flood you with sources, plenty of news stations and papers have quoted the person in charge of abu ghraib as saying that
Fine, expand on this.

OF COURSE THE US SAYS THAT, you think they are going to ADMIT they are abusing prisoners and human rights violations
Also information on Guantanamo :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm

Also information on Guantanamo :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm
which doesnt even address my point

Its another source, is it not?

Geez, talk about blind faith in your administration: they get caught torturing people red handed at one concentration camp, and have to (grudgingly) fess up; so you naievely believe they aren't torturing people at another just because they say so...

...hey, you wanna buy a bridge? ;)

Geez, talk about blind faith in your administration: they get caught torturing people red handed at one concentration camp, and have to (grudgingly) fess up; so you naievely belive they aren't torturing people at another just because they say so...

...hey, you wanna buy a bridge? ;)
Geez, talk about hasty generalizations. One bad prison camp and somehow the whole system is bad.

Better to err on the side of caution i.e. not hideously abusing basic human rights.

Were talking about, for a large part, THE SAME PEOPLE running things. No, not down to every last man and commander, but a significant number of the personnel there have also served at Guantanamo, during the admitted torture.

Look, I see you've got your mind fixed on the "fact" that the US admin team never tell a lie, and if they told you the sky was bright green you'd probably deny the evidence of your own eyes.

But at least try to understand why the rest of the world is a little more skeptical, eh?

That's like saying if Usama appeared on TV and said "hey sorry about S11, I promise we'll never do anything like that again", would you think "oh great, swell, Usama told me so, so it must be true". No? ;)

Better to err on the side of caution i.e. not hideously abusing basic human rights.
I'd make people uncomfortable if it means we're saving, or have a chance, at ultimately saving lives.

Ah yes, but you're running on the assumption that nothing worse than sleep deprivation is going on - that is the main point, I believe, that you and the other side of the argument (i.e. myself and others) differ on.

If we thought "nothing worse" than sleep deprivation were going on, do you really think so many people would be so upset?

Yes, I know you're against torture. But there is more to police work -- and this is what any "war on terror" has to be -- than interrogation. You need corroborating evidence.

It can be very difficult. But let's be honest: we are never going to defeat global terrorism by military force. Like I've said in a previous post, these terrorist organisations are held together and maintained by states of mind. The only way to win is to make those states of mind so aberrant that they cease to exist in any numbers. We have to remove the grievances which turn whole nations into recruitment pools for suicide bombers, instead of letting ageing men pump up their political standing by posing on top of various bits of military hardware. We have to stop voting for ageing men who pose on top of various bits of military hardware, too. If we get the politicians we deserve, then we get the geopolitical fallout we deserve too.

Yes fair enough. But in terms of torture what would you do?
If you need information from your captive what would you do?

Kwangistar, even if the conditions in a place like Gitmo were a thousand times better than they were in Afghanistan, torture is still torture. At the very least, the people in custody are worse off because--listen carefully here--they are being held against their will and until just recently, had absolutely no hope of being able to argue that they were being held unjustly. And for the record, if you think these tribunals are going to be fair, and that Gitmo detainees will have a realistic shot at getting out, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Kwangistar, even if the conditions in a place like Gitmo were a thousand times better than they were in Afghanistan, torture is still torture. At the very least, the people in custody are worse off because--listen carefully here--they are being held against their will and until just recently, had absolutely no hope of being able to argue that they were being held unjustly. And for the record, if you think these tribunals are going to be fair, and that Gitmo detainees will have a realistic shot at getting out, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Gitmo detainees have already been released, if they're innocent.

Its a shame that the legal situation is what it is, however, terrorists have found ways to abuse their rights when we give them. For example, the one terrorist, who I believe was responsible for the original WTC bombings (the Blind Sheik or whatever) communicated via his lawyer. The USA does not have a grudge against everyone who ever goes into Guantanamo and we have no want to pay for them more than we have to.

Gitmo detainees have already been released, if they're innocent.

How can you possibly assume that is correct? How can you possibly know that every innocent person has been released...

And even assuming for one second that it is true - how long were those innocent people held against their will and abused before it was decided they were innocent. Imagine if it was you, just in the wrong place at the wrong time, held on foreign soil, locked up like an animal for months/years, vigorously interrogated (tortured according to me, mildly discomforted according to you, either way), and then one day "Oh, sorry Mister Arab, us boys is mighty sorry for that awful mixup, here's yer ticket home and five shiny quarters for yer trouble, now on yer way. PS tell your friends that the USA is their friend!"

And even assuming for one second that it is true - how long were those innocent people held against their will and abused before it was decided they were innocent. Imagine if it was you, just in the wrong place at the wrong time, held on foreign soil, locked up like an animal for months/years, vigorously interrogated (tortured according to me, mildly discomforted according to you, either way), and then one day "Oh, sorry Mister Arab, us boys is mighty sorry for that awful mixup, here's yer ticket home and five shiny quarters for yer trouble, now on yer way. PS tell your friends that the USA is their friend!"
Its unfortunate that this has to happen. In a better world, it wouldn't.

Unfortunately, due to the way terrorists operate and the way the War on Terror has to be conducted, this is going to happen. There are wrongful arrests in domestic cases all the time. There always will be. We shouldn't let that deter us from catching the criminals or terrorists who happen to be the target.

Gitmo detainees have already been released, if they're innocent.

Its a shame that the legal situation is what it is, however, terrorists have found ways to abuse their rights when we give them. For example, the one terrorist, who I believe was responsible for the original WTC bombings (the Blind Sheik or whatever) communicated via his lawyer. The USA does not have a grudge against everyone who ever goes into Guantanamo and we have no want to pay for them more than we have to.Unless I'm mistaken--and I very well could be--I think those charges were dropped. The problem with Gitmo is that so far, we have no proof that the people there are guilty of anything more than being in a war zone--a situation that was a bit beyond their control. Seems like we have this major difference in point of view--you're willing to trust this administration and give them the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not.

Its unfortunate that this has to happen. In a better world, it wouldn't.

Unfortunately, due to the way terrorists operate and the way the War on Terror has to be conducted, this is going to happen. There are wrongful arrests in domestic cases all the time. There always will be. We shouldn't let that deter us from catching the criminals or terrorists who happen to be the target.

Yes, torture and unlawful imprisonment of innocents by a supposedly civilised nation is "unfortunate". Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this EXACTLY the type of thing Saddam was demonised for doing? Obviously on a larger/more extreme scale, but when you resort to the tactics of villains, you BECOME the villain...

Let me pose a hypothetical situation to you:

A research scientist comes to the government and says "I'm a very confident that if you let me experiment on 100 babies, I can cure SIDS. Most of the babies will die, and others will be left hideously damaged, but I am 90% sure the research will provide a cure for SIDS, thereby saving thousands of babies a year."

Would you be comfortable signing off on the order to round up 100 babies and sentencing most of them to a torturous death through experimentation?

I know I sure as hell wouldn't. But if you are really an "ends justifies the means" and "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" kind of guy, you should have no moral dilemma about this whatsoever. I'll make it easier for you - let's suppose all the babies are Iraqi and from Muslim familes...

And don't try to use the excuse "But babies are innocent! Terrorists aren't!" as you have already admitted that many of the detainees ARE innocent.

The US uses torture on prisoners in Guantanemo Bay


I am sorry, that is a false statement.

Yes, torture and unlawful imprisonment of innocents by a supposedly civilised nation is "unfortunate". Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this EXACTLY the type of thing Saddam was demonised for doing? Obviously on a larger/more extreme scale, but when you resort to the tactics of villains, you BECOME the villain...
You said it, on a larger and more extreme scale. There's a difference between punching someone in the stomach and kiling them. .001 does not equal one million.

A research scientist comes to the government and says "I'm a very confident that if you let me experiment on 100 babies, I can cure SIDS. Most of the babies will die, and others will be left hideously damaged, but I am 90% sure the research will provide a cure for SIDS, thereby saving thousands of babies a year."

I'd make him go through normal procedures, and if he couldn't find a way to get the thing without killing, no I wouldn't let him. One problem you have trouble understanding is that not everything is absolute. Can the ends justify the means? Sometimes. Its not an either it always does or it always dosen't situation.

Yes fair enough. But in terms of torture what would you do?
If you need information from your captive what would you do?

I wouldn't use torture, because a) I find the idea abhorrent, it would be a betrayal of all the things we are supposedly fighting for, and it merely aids the recruitment of the enemy; and b) the information obtained from torture -- "mild" or not -- is hopelessly suspect, and once you start down that route it just gets worse and worse as the noise-to-signal ratio spirals out of control (you torture an innocent person on the assumption that he's guilty. In desperation he says anything, names any names he can think of. You rush out and arrest these people, and torture them; they "confess" and name more names. You rush out and arrest these people, and so on and so on).

Kwangistar's comments about "the end sometimes justifying the means" echo my own beliefs when I was younger, before I realised the fundamental stupidity of such a statement. It must be remembered that there are no ends. There is never a point at which you can say, "this is the end result of that action, and there are no further consequences." Perticularly on this scale, what is done today will continue to reverberate through time for decades to come, influencing future events which will influence yet more future events and so on. Therefore, since there are no "ends", they can never justify the means. The entire concept is logically fallacious.

What are we left with? At best, we can only try to do what is right in any given circumstance, and hope. Deluding ourselves with the pernicious lie that "sometimes, the end justifies the means" -- in other words, a little bad today is OK, because we'll be really good tomorrow, we promise -- merely opens the floodgates to the justification of ever-more hideous behaviour.

Torture is not right. It is immoral, it is ineffective, it is a figleaf to cover the military's shameful lack of proper intelligence, it is a barrier to rectifying that lack, and, however "mild" or otherwise, it is a standing propaganda gift to all those who want to depict America as a tyrranical monster with no regard for law and justice.

One problem you have trouble understanding is that not everything is absolute. Can the ends justify the means? Sometimes. Its not an either it always does or it always dosen't situation.

I completely agree that sometimes the end can justify the means. Torturing people who may or may not know anything, and may or may not even be terrorists, falls into the "not justified" category for me.

The problem with allowing so called "mild" torture, is who defines what is and isn't mild? (Totally aside from the issue that you and I have very different ideas of what form of torture/interrogation is occuring). It's a slippery slope. One day it's "sleep deprivation and slapping people around isn't so bad". Next day it's "Hmm, this guy won't crack, better beat him a little harder". A few days down the track it's "hey, electrodes on the testicles aren't that big of a deal, are they?".

If the US want to use torture to protect themselves from a perceived threat (the ever-present "nuclear terrorists" of the corners of our minds contaminated by Tom Clancy's fiction), go ahead and do it, but DO NOT try to claim that you are any better than the alleged terrorists you are torturing...

In response to both Jelred and New Fubaria, the thing is both of you are using the slippery slope (fallacy). It can be applied to anything and to justify any sort of reasoning. I don't see any proof as to how mild torture in Guantanamo in '01 has led to worse today, or why it would probably lead to worse in the future. Its easy to say its a possibility. But then again you can say that just because we curtail one right domestically to fight the war on terror, pretty soon all of them will be. It dosen't work that way.

Again, though, you are running on the assumption that sleep deprivation is the worst thing going on - those on the other side of the argument assume there is MUCH worse going on already. (i.e. we are both assuming - unless you have contacts in the CIA or upper eschelons of the US military)

The fact of the matter is that US forces and intelligence agencies have kept a total stranglehold on information in this conflict moreso than any other in history. It's actually quite amazing that even the abuses of Guantanamo managed to see the light of day - you can bet your bottom dollar that if pictures and video hadn't been leaked, it would still be a strict policy of denial.

I think it is somewhat naieve to assume that only "mild" torture/interrogation is being used simply because this is what the US propoganda machine is telling us. If they want to dispel such ugly speculation, open the detainment centres up for inspection by an independant group like Amnesty International...

:mp5:

A good point.

However, I hate to say this but....

If not for Hitler, then the world's depression would have continued for longer. The war itself helped the world emerge from the Great Depression, thanks to the war industries.

Also, our modern industralized Germany, with its fine goods, bullet trains, etc. wouldn't exist. Germany would still be stuck in the Versailles treaty, stifling it.

Finally, there probably wouldn't be the modern U.N. as we know it.



For the record, I don't support or am "aganist" torturing. I have a neutral stance towards it.

:sniper:

So your saying that killing millions of jews was a good thing?
:confused:

I think it is somewhat naieve to assume that only "mild" torture/interrogation is being used simply because this is what the US propoganda machine is telling us. If they want to dispel such ugly speculation, open the detainment centres up for inspection by an independant group like Amnesty International...
We've had enough scares past and present with terrorists finding ways to communicate via outsiders. Some were dropped (army chaplains come to mind) and others are still being investigated. Guantanamo is opened up to the Red Cross, anyway.

OK, that is just rampant paranoia - A.I. being used to disseminate secret terrorist communications...:(

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree - you see nothing wrong with anything happening there, I do.