NationStates Jolt Archive

What with all the furore about Senator Durbin's statement on Guantanamo Bay,I thought I'd see what people's feelings are about torture, but in the abstract as opposed to that specific case. What do you think of torture? Can it ever be justified? What do you feel constitutes torture?

Personally, torture is an issue I'm quite ambivalent on, which is strange for someone who usually holds highly polarised views. It's probably because torture is such a fluffy definition. Do you take torture to mean just physical torture, or do you take it to mean all the other things too - sensory deprivation? Psychological torture? Solitary confinement? Up in Northern Ireland, back in the '70s, the British Army used those kinds of tactics to interrogate republicans. The European Court of Human Rights said these actions were illegal, and constituted torture. Now, while one part of me agrees, another part (the utilitarian part) says: Well, how else are we gonna get information from them?
Now, I know that physical torture is worse than useless - people will confess to anything to stop the pain. But sensory deprivation? That's different. It will 'persuade' people to release information they wouldn't otherwise. Still, it seems to me like the violation of human rights. In normal circumstances, people will not be subjected to sensory deprivation, etc. to force them to reveal their secrets - i.e. in prison/before trial. So why shoul it be any different for terrorists?
Sorry if this post is a little rambling, but tis late. Hopefully I'm going to get some interesting answers that can help me decide what my position is.

I would say that anything that causes any deliberate harm, of any sort, to a person is torture. I would also say that it is never justified, but that it is sometimes /necessary/. Just like war. You should never say 'We were right to go to war', but you can say 'We had to go to war'. Same for torture. If someone's planted a bomb to blow up your city, it's necessary to use torture to find out where it is. It's still not right to do so.

While I abhor the deliberate fucking mistreatment of anyone by anybody, what never ceases to fucking astound me is the rampant hypocrisy of some of the assholes I hear who on the one hand will tell you that we were right to take out Saddam because he was an evil prick who tortured and killed people, but it's OK when we do it to our enemies.

Newsflash: Saddam wasn't torturing his fucking friends either!

What most people wind up doing is trying to split some fucking hair about the degree of torture. "Hey, we're not AS bad as Stalin, so I guess we're still OK!"

When your benchmark is reduced only to a degree of evil, it's still fucking evil.

The ends justify the means. If one life must suffer to save many, so be it. I do not think that torture should ever be used unnecessarily but it is better that an innocent suffers unjustly than for many innocents to die unjustly.

Not only is information obtained under torture very unreliable, torturing prisoners who may or may not have anything to do with terrorist groups makes us no better than the people we hate.

When you're trying to take the moral high ground (as most western states try too) torture will not just be morally problem, but counter-productive even in an amoral, pragmatic sense. It undermines so many of the wests aims, and makes military action in places like Iraq so much harder to justify to an already skeptical population.

interesting that several people claim information taken from torture isn't reliable... then how would you get the information then.

Senory Deprivation? That pushes the mind to the edge of sanity... where reason and emotions mingle and delsions appear. you would trust information taken from an insane (even temporarily insane) over information gleaned from physical pain?

also, purposely pushing someone to the edge of sanity can also be defined as torture.... thus some would call Sensory Deprivation torture.

Torture is a tool that needs to be used with responsibility. While innocents will be caught, procedures need to be inplace to minimise the innocent.

Sensory Deprivation can actually be quite fun, even therapeutic. It's a bit of a trip.

Then again, so is electrocution.

torture is wrong.

aside from that, i would very seriously question the accuracy of any information obtained through torture

people will tell you anything to get you to stop.

torture is wrong.

aside from that, i would very seriously question the accuracy of any information obtained through torture

people will tell you anything to get you to stop.So if Mr. X has information, that you know he has, about the next terrorist action that would make 9/11 seem like a school yard fight... how would you get the information from him?

So if Mr. X has information, that you know he has, about the next terrorist action that would make 9/11 seem like a school yard fight... how would you get the information from him?
And if he tells you through torture, how do you know you werent wrong and he hasnt told you just to get you to leave him alone?

:headbang:Torture is wrong. 'nuff said

we used to pride ourselves on being better than that

now we torture prisoners, keep them in cages, ignore the geneva conventions, keep them indefinitely without charge in a "war" that will have no END.

it honestly reminds me of the way our prisoners were treated by the vietnamese. they were tortured long after they had any useful information to give. these men at guantanamo bay can have no useful information left years after they got picked up and interned. so what is the point of treating them this way? their knowlege is too old to matter any more.

it sickens me and makes us look even worse in the eyes of the world.

torture is a very bad idea.

And if he tells you through torture, how do you know you werent wrong and he hasnt told you just to get you to leave him alone?
the assumption is that all other evidence point to him... so the situation is you are now in charge of getting the information out of him. you have witnesses saying he met OBL on several occasions (after 9/11) you have photos of him meeting with other known terrorists, the Intelligence community (international as well as National) have evidence that he is setting in motion something that will make 9/11 seem small... so now he is in your care and you need to get the info from him.

Fail and MILLIONS will die and it will be your fault for you are in the position to prevent them from dying.

What would you do to get the information from him, the What, Where, When, and How?

EDIT: this is not an argument avocating Torture... but alternatives... if you can come up with a way to get the information from him without torture... then contrats!

the assumption is that all other evidence point to him... so the situation is you are now in charge of getting the information out of him. you have witnesses saying he met OBL on several occasions (after 9/11) you have photos of him meeting with other known terrorists, the Intelligence community (international as well as National) have evidence that he is setting in motion something that will make 9/11 seem small... so now he is in your care and you need to get the info from him.

Fail and MILLIONS will die and it will be your fault for you are in the position to prevent them from dying.

What would you do to get the information from him, the What, Where, When, and How?
I wouldnt care, as far as i am concerned torturing someone is wrong, and any information gained is entirely suspect

the assumption is that all other evidence point to him... so the situation is you are now in charge of getting the information out of him. you have witnesses saying he met OBL on several occasions (after 9/11) you have photos of him meeting with other known terrorists, the Intelligence community (international as well as National) have evidence that he is setting in motion something that will make 9/11 seem small... so now he is in your care and you need to get the info from him.

Fail and MILLIONS will die and it will be your fault for you are in the position to prevent them from dying.

What would you do to get the information from him, the What, Where, When, and How?

Well, what would YOU do? That's the real question here.

Me, I'd recommend interrogation. There are plenty of ways to get info out of someone who isn't willing, without resorting to violence. Police and psychologists have been doing that for years. As to specific methods, they depend on the specific situation, the individual, etc etc, and I doubt any of us here are exactly experts so you won't really get a universal, methodological answer here.

What with all the furore about Senator Durbin's statement on Guantanamo Bay,I thought I'd see what people's feelings are about torture, but in the abstract as opposed to that specific case. What do you think of torture? Can it ever be justified? What do you feel constitutes torture?

Personally, torture is an issue I'm quite ambivalent on, which is strange for someone who usually holds highly polarised views. It's probably because torture is such a fluffy definition. Do you take torture to mean just physical torture, or do you take it to mean all the other things too - sensory deprivation? Psychological torture? Solitary confinement? Up in Northern Ireland, back in the '70s, the British Army used those kinds of tactics to interrogate republicans. The European Court of Human Rights said these actions were illegal, and constituted torture. Now, while one part of me agrees, another part (the utilitarian part) says: Well, how else are we gonna get information from them?
Now, I know that physical torture is worse than useless - people will confess to anything to stop the pain. But sensory deprivation? That's different. It will 'persuade' people to release information they wouldn't otherwise. Still, it seems to me like the violation of human rights. In normal circumstances, people will not be subjected to sensory deprivation, etc. to force them to reveal their secrets - i.e. in prison/before trial. So why shoul it be any different for terrorists?
Sorry if this post is a little rambling, but tis late. Hopefully I'm going to get some interesting answers that can help me decide what my position is.

I wonder if your view would be different if you were one of those people lifted in the early 70s then mentally and physically tortured to the point of insanity all because of your religion? Your line of thinking could be expanded to just killing all the republicans in Northern ireland and there'd be no problem - which obviously wouldnt make any sense. Ergo to me, torture doesnt work.

Internment (of which the tortue was part of) for a start was completely ineffective, if not an outright IRA recruitment tool driven mainly by the fact that only a small percentage of those lifted actually knew anything about the IRAs plans and activities.

Torture..

is hypocritic
unreliable
evil
stupid
avoidable


i agree with what santa barbara said
theres always alternatives

Well, what would YOU do? That's the real question here.

Me, I'd recommend interrogation. There are plenty of ways to get info out of someone who isn't willing, without resorting to violence. Police and psychologists have been doing that for years. As to specific methods, they depend on the specific situation, the individual, etc etc, and I doubt any of us here are exactly experts so you won't really get a universal, methodological answer here.

Interrogation when stepped up a gear can be described a mental torture which is just as inhuman as physical torture. It has been said that many people put through mental torture never properly recover and many kill themselves.

I wouldnt care, as far as i am concerned torturing someone is wrong, and any information gained is entirely suspectSo in other words, you would condemn Millions of your countrymen to death without even trying to get the information needed.

You are tried for being a conspirator since you did nothing to gain the information from the man who set things in motion.

ok... just curious... anyone else?

So in other words, you would condemn Millions of your countrymen to death without even trying to get the information needed.

You are tried for being a conspirator since you did nothing to gain the information from the man who set things in motion.

ok... just curious... anyone else?
Oh, no. I would try my absolute hardest. I just don't know what I would try.

That's why I'm not in government ;)

Interrogation when stepped up a gear can be described a mental torture which is just as inhuman as physical torture. It has been said that many people put through mental torture never properly recover and many kill themselves.

What do you mean by "stepped up a gear" and "mental torture?"

Some people say SCHOOL is mental torture, or breaking up a relationship.

It's really, either interrogation or interrogation plus torture. Torture is pretty well defined. People are mistaking "verbal abuse" as "torture," I think. And I vehemently disagree that physical torture is no worse than 'mental torture.' Physical torture includes it's own mental aspect too - technically all pain is mental anyway, too - so it's definitely more inhumane.

If anyone tortured me I'd tell them what they'd want to hear, as Im sure you would too. that wouldnt always the right information though, and doesnt do anything but give those in power the right to move ahead with their own plans which in my mind always makes information gained through torture as dodgy.

Anyway, torture isnt about gaining information. Its for putting the shit up whoever it is you're fighting with and weakening their moral, spirit and reserve.

So if Mr. X has information, that you know he has, about the next terrorist action that would make 9/11 seem like a school yard fight... how would you get the information from him?

In the "ticking bomb" scenario, I think many of us would resort to torture. I know that I would.

I also hope that I would have the moral strength to, in the aftermath, turn myself in, confess to the crime, and accept its maximum punishment under the law.

Having never been in such a situation, though, I can't say with absolute certainty that I would.

What do you mean by "stepped up a gear" and "mental torture?"

Some people say SCHOOL is mental torture, or breaking up a relationship.

It's really, either interrogation or interrogation plus torture. Torture is pretty well defined. People are mistaking "verbal abuse" as "torture," I think. And I vehemently disagree that physical torture is no worse than 'mental torture.' Physical torture includes it's own mental aspect too - technically all pain is mental anyway, too - so it's definitely more inhumane.

Im not talking about verbal abuse, Im talking about interrogation, which when 'stepped up a gear' leads to physical and mental abuse, lack of food, sleep, being wuestioned for hours whilst standing etc etc etc. those things arent readily classed as 'tortue', but all the same they are.

its been mentioneearlier about tortue in northern ireland - the history of that shows just how inventive and subtle the change from interrogation to torture can be.

So in other words, you would condemn Millions of your countrymen to death without even trying to get the information needed.
It's just like rule utilitarians vs act utilitarians.
Yes, in this one act the greatest good for the greatest number may be attained through making one person suffer, but you set a precedent, you make it acceptable in society, and that will ultimately lead to many more suffering.
Your argument can very easily be used to justify genocide, or pretty much any other crime.

Well, what would YOU do? That's the real question here.

Me, I'd recommend interrogation. There are plenty of ways to get info out of someone who isn't willing, without resorting to violence. Police and psychologists have been doing that for years. As to specific methods, they depend on the specific situation, the individual, etc etc, and I doubt any of us here are exactly experts so you won't really get a universal, methodological answer here.
Honestly... I would do whatever it takes to get that information. Millions of lives vs one person's comfort? tho would I be able to carry it out... I really don't know. Even ordering it would scar me menatlly. I would take the responsibility, and I know I'll live with that haunting me for the rest of my life.

Interrogation is nice, but if done wrong, it can be worse than physical torture. There was one case where the interrogation of a minor lead to the unintentinal hypnosis and thus 'Rewriting' of his memories so that even he thought he was guilty. And he had to live with those new memories for the rest of his life.

Then there is the question of what is torture. one Female Soldier, put ink on her hand, pretended that it was menstal blood and proceeded to smear the prisoner's face has been included in the definition of torture. there was no physical harm, only the mental anguish. so now, the definition of torture now includes mental Torture and Emotional Torture as well (mishandling of the Koran, accidental or not.) so what's left? denial of food and water is now torture... playing off of fears is now torture... sleeping on anything less than a feather bed is torture... no cable is torture (in some US Prisons it was deemed so.)

Physical torture includes it's own mental aspect too - technically all pain is mental anyway, too - so it's definitely more inhumane.

i honestly wonder, if any of us every researched it, if it is true that physical torture is more destructive than mental. I have my doubts. if you go through torture and they break your arms and legs, you may recover over years depending on how bad the situation was - but if someone drives you out of your mind, it can never be fixed again.

i honestly wonder, if any of us every researched it, if it is true that physical torture is more destructive than mental. I have my doubts. if you go through torture and they break your arms and legs, you may recover over years depending on how bad the situation was - but if someone drives you out of your mind, it can never be fixed again.

If you go through torture, your sanity is risked already. So in addition to the possibility of going out of your mind, you have broken bones and excruciating pain and humiliation and despair. Sounds worse to me.

Then there is the question of what is torture. one Female Soldier, put ink on her hand, pretended that it was menstal blood and proceeded to smear the prisoner's face has been included in the definition of torture. there was no physical harm, only the mental anguish. so now, the definition of torture now includes mental Torture and Emotional Torture as well (mishandling of the Koran, accidental or not.) so what's left? denial of food and water is now torture... playing off of fears is now torture... sleeping on anything less than a feather bed is torture... no cable is torture (in some US Prisons it was deemed so.)

Theres a few things I dont get. why shouldnt the definition of torture include mental and emotional torture? And starving someone isnt torture? you're last two ideas of torture are a tad silly though.

If you go through torture, your sanity is risked already. So in addition to the possibility of going out of your mind, you have broken bones and excruciating pain and humiliation and despair. Sounds worse to me.

You obviously have no concept of what I mean. Ah well.

Comfy chair torture. :)

we used to pride ourselves on being better than that
That's the core of my problem with torture. It's not about the rights of the "victims", or "us versus them", or "let's get them because they torture too." It's about our own moral compass.

Your personal morality probably involves being offended or disgusted by murder, rape, torture, theft, or any of the myriad of other illegal actions in the world. Most or all of those things are also against the law where you live. If the government were to lift those restrictions, perhaps change the murder laws to allow the killing of your elderly parents, would your personal morality simultaneously change? Would you rush home and kill Mum and Pop because it's legal now?

Personal morality expands into community morality, which is encompassed by national morality. When we discard something on the national level that is a core component of our personal moral code, it hurts us all. If an American soldier is allowed to torture a prisoner, then it is my hand holding the whip too. It reflects all the way to all of us.

I don't give a rat's ass about the rights of the prisoners in Cuba, but I do care about what it means to be an American. Granting permission to use torture is an offense against me, not just against the "enemy". The United States of America used to stand against that sort of action. Allowing it now cheapens us all.

The hand that holds the whip cannot grant liberty and freedom to the oppressed. We're doing this wrong, and we know it.

Comfy chair torture. :)

fluffy cushions and all ;)

Oh, no. I would try my absolute hardest. I just don't know what I would try.

That's why I'm not in government ;)
Me neither... I hate to cause pain for anyone...

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes, tho it does hurt me to say this (squemish to the point where I can't even stand the thought of pain.) torture is inevitable at some point in time. while it is wrong and it should be condemned, 9/11 changed everything. Before 9/11, someone hijacks a plane it usually means days of negotiations but for the most part, the hostiages will be freed, nowdays, that is no longer a chance people can take.

I hate torture, but when time is a factor (for you don't know the WHEN...) that information is needed.

Torture is a tool that can be used, but it must'nt be used wantonly. The problem is that the public doesn't want it used, but there are times when there is no other choice.

That's the core of my problem with torture. It's not about the rights of the "victims", or "us versus them", or "let's get them because they torture too." It's about our own moral compass.

Your personal morality probably involves being offended or disgusted by murder, rape, torture, theft, or any of the myriad of other illegal actions in the world. Most or all of those things are also against the law where you live. If the government were to lift those restrictions, perhaps change the murder laws to allow the killing of your elderly parents, would your personal morality simultaneously change? Would you rush home and kill Mum and Pop because it's legal now?

Personal morality expands into community morality, which is encompassed by national morality. When we discard something on the national level that is a core component of our personal moral code, it hurts us all. If an American soldier is allowed to torture a prisoner, then it is my hand holding the whip too. It reflects all the way to all of us.

I don't give a rat's ass about the rights of the prisoners in Cuba, but I do care about what it means to be an American. Granting permission to use torture is an offense against me, not just against the "enemy". The United States of America used to stand against that sort of action. Allowing it now cheapens us all.

The hand that holds the whip cannot grant liberty and freedom to the oppressed. We're doing this wrong, and we know it.
you know, you have exactly summed up the "rest of the worlds" feelings....the US claims to be about freedom, democracy etc, and then does that, and the rest of the world just laughs for the very reasons you have just outlined.

And You have just summed it up better than I ever could,

fluffy cushions and all ;)
Just remember to have all the fluff bunched up at a corner...

You obviously have no concept of what I mean. Ah well.

I think I do. My point is that physical torture includes mental torture within it. It is mentally tortureful to be physically tortured. So its by definition more tortureful than mental without the physical.

(And yeah I know there's no such word as "tortureful," but whatever.)

Me neither... I hate to cause pain for anyone...

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes, tho it does hurt me to say this (squemish to the point where I can't even stand the thought of pain.) torture is inevitable at some point in time. while it is wrong and it should be condemned, 9/11 changed everything. Before 9/11, someone hijacks a plane it usually means days of negotiations but for the most part, the hostiages will be freed, nowdays, that is no longer a chance people can take.

I hate torture, but when time is a factor (for you don't know the WHEN...) that information is needed.

Torture is a tool that can be used, but it must'nt be used wantonly. The problem is that the public doesn't want it used, but there are times when there is no other choice.


Would that mean it would also be acceptable for other countries to torture if there was no other way? I wonder how many people would find that a step to far, yet America has no other choice so it must be. Like, is it right for Iraq to torture americans as they feel that was the only way they'd get information?

thats where everything gets very gray and murky imho

It's just like rule utilitarians vs act utilitarians.
Yes, in this one act the greatest good for the greatest number may be attained through making one person suffer, but you set a precedent, you make it acceptable in society, and that will ultimately lead to many more suffering.
Your argument can very easily be used to justify genocide, or pretty much any other crime.
Sad but true... the only thing that keeps us going down that path is the moral strength of the countries citizens to not travel that road.

I think I do. My point is that physical torture includes mental torture within it. It is mentally tortureful to be physically tortured. So its by definition more tortureful than mental without the physical.

(And yeah I know there's no such word as "tortureful," but whatever.)

all im saying is that the level of mental torture changes. with physical torture, the mental aspect is a secondary result. With mental torture its the primary weapon and therefore much different with more far reaching effects.

all im saying is that the level of mental torture changes. with physical torture, the mental aspect is a secondary result. With mental torture its the primary weapon and therefore much different with more far reaching effects.

Well, I disagree that simply because mental torture is not the primary method used during physical torture the mental effects are any less devastating. I haven't been tortured, but I imagine having my testicles hooked to an electric zapper would have some disturbing impact on my psyche...

I also disagree that one can go irrevokably <sp> "out of your mind." That would assume the entire medical field can do nothing for 'insane' people, which just isn't true by any definition of insanity.

Would that mean it would also be acceptable for other countries to torture if there was no other way? I wonder how many people would find that a step to far, yet America has no other choice so it must be. Like, is it right for Iraq to torture americans as they feel that was the only way they'd get information?

thats where everything gets very gray and murky imhoyep... the only problem tho. is that Any American's caught, if they are soldiers, are protected by the Geneva Convention. Terrorists are not enemy soldiers... they are not members of a reconzied military outfit of Iraq or Afghanistan... so thus they don't have that protection. Two, like Gitmo, they torture, they pay the price. I'm not saying those soldiers in Gitmo were right. no, they were wrong (and stupid for taking pictures) the riots caused by those tortures are a result. Thus, any Americans found to be tortured, their captors will pay the price... and I don't think America will just 'riot.'

I'm not saying to make torture legal, but the fact it is sometimes needed should be on everyone's mind. The public outcry is needed to stop us from becoming the next Nazi's... to stop America from taking that step too far.

the assumption is that all other evidence point to him... so the situation is you are now in charge of getting the information out of him. you have witnesses saying he met OBL on several occasions (after 9/11) you have photos of him meeting with other known terrorists, the Intelligence community (international as well as National) have evidence that he is setting in motion something that will make 9/11 seem small... so now he is in your care and you need to get the info from him.

Fail and MILLIONS will die and it will be your fault for you are in the position to prevent them from dying.

What would you do to get the information from him, the What, Where, When, and How?

EDIT: this is not an argument avocating Torture... but alternatives... if you can come up with a way to get the information from him without torture... then contrats!

'the assumption is that all other evidence point to him'
Making assumptions is not what law is based on. Evidence 'pointing' to an accused is not evidence. Who do we 'trust' to make these dodgy assumptions on circumstancial evidence? The government? God help us if we trust the government to decide who's guilty or not.

'so the situation is you are now in charge of getting the information out of him. you have witnesses saying he met OBL on several occasions (after 9/11) you have photos of him meeting with other known terrorists, the Intelligence community (international as well as National) have evidence that he is setting in motion something that will make 9/11 seem small... so now he is in your care and you need to get the info from him.'
What witnesses? Who confirms their credibility? Will they state as much in an open court?
Who took these photos?
The 'intelligence' community? The same community that stated as cast-iron fact that Saddam had WMD? The same community that 'protected' the US on 9/11?

'Fail and MILLIONS will die and it will be your fault for you are in the position to prevent them from dying.'
It will be the fault of the people that perpetrate the murder. No-one can know in advance that they are in a position to avert such a disaster, you could be grilling the wrong people or person.

'What would you do to get the information from him, the What, Where, When, and How?'
As has been said, I would employ the only proven, reliable method; proper supervised interrogation. Resorting to torture under such circumstances is failure, any information 'gained' could be false or incorrect and the murders are carried out due to your haste.

There is no way to say this without sounding soft, but the fact is that throughout history, states that resort to torture (and sensory deprivation is torture no matter how you try to lessen the meaning) eventually fail.

Theres a few things I dont get. why shouldnt the definition of torture include mental and emotional torture? And starving someone isnt torture? you're last two ideas of torture are a tad silly though.The last two are taken from prisions in the US. Where it was deemed below basic minimum living because people in solitary were feed bread and water and they didn't have cable television.

this was a study in the mid 80's... the running gags at the time was that the homless would commit crimes to live better than middle class Americans.

Me neither... I hate to cause pain for anyone...
Heh....if I ever hurt someone (usually emotionally) I always feel really bad about it not too long later and then have to go to speak to them to make sure their OK.

I'm so weak heh :p

Would that mean it would also be acceptable for other countries to torture if there was no other way? I wonder how many people would find that a step to far, yet America has no other choice so it must be. Like, is it right for Iraq to torture americans as they feel that was the only way they'd get information?

thats where everything gets very gray and murky imho

It is unacceptable for any government to torture its citizens or those of another country. America does have other choices, if the US government relied on torture for information, who's to say where it stops? There's no grey area, torture is wrong, decent, civilised countries have managed to fight wars without it, without having to resort to the evil that they fight.

The ends justify the means. If one life must suffer to save many, so be it. I do not think that torture should ever be used unnecessarily but it is better that an innocent suffers unjustly than for many innocents to die unjustly.

I keep hearing this "whenever necessary" bullshit. Torture is never necessary and never useful. Do you know what happens when you lie to people to get them to tell you things? They make shit up!

Torturing people only ever serves one purpose and one purpose only. To hurt people.

It doesn't promote safety of Americans, it doesn't get information, it doesn't help anyone do anything.

There is not one single reason to torture ever.

Obviously someone didn't understand the senario... so allow me to re-iterate it.
'the assumption is that all other evidence point to him'
Making assumptions is not what law is based on. Evidence 'pointing' to an accused is not evidence. Who do we 'trust' to make these dodgy assumptions on circumstancial evidence? The government? God help us if we trust the government to decide who's guilty or not.no, the assumption is for the benifit of berivity. I am starting the senario with you having the right man. thus no argument about innocents getting tortured.

'so the situation is you are now in charge of getting the information out of him. you have witnesses saying he met OBL on several occasions (after 9/11) you have photos of him meeting with other known terrorists, the Intelligence community (international as well as National) have evidence that he is setting in motion something that will make 9/11 seem small... so now he is in your care and you need to get the info from him.'
What witnesses? Who confirms their credibility? Will they state as much in an open court?
Who took these photos?
The 'intelligence' community? The same community that stated as cast-iron fact that Saddam had WMD? The same community that 'protected' the US on 9/11?yep. so do you let him go then?

'Fail and MILLIONS will die and it will be your fault for you are in the position to prevent them from dying.'
It will be the fault of the people that perpetrate the murder. No-one can know in advance that they are in a position to avert such a disaster, you could be grilling the wrong people or person. really... tell that to the survivors when it becomes known that you had all the information there... with the mastermind in your hand and you did nothing... after all, people are still wondering if the Administration Knew about 9/11... here you know something will happen, just not the details, the What, When, Where, and How. So it can be argued that you have the evidence, but did nothing... or worse, you could be labled a co-conspirator.

'What would you do to get the information from him, the What, Where, When, and How?'
As has been said, I would employ the only proven, reliable method; proper supervised interrogation. Resorting to torture under such circumstances is failure, any information 'gained' could be false or incorrect and the murders are carried out due to your haste. Details... which methods and in what order...
Would you will ask nicely and send him back to his suite?
What if he says he knows nothing... would you believe him and release him?
There is no way to say this without sounding soft, but the fact is that throughout history, states that resort to torture (and sensory deprivation is torture no matter how you try to lessen the meaning) eventually fail.so what "Proven, Reliable Method" would you use? you got him. I made the scenario to avoid the "Tortured Innocent" situation.

[QUOTE=Nekone]'Obviously someone didn't understand the senario... so allow me to re-iterate it.
no, the assumption is for the benifit of berivity. I am starting the senario with you having the right man. thus no argument about innocents getting tortured.'
Who says you have the 'right man' without proof?


'yep. so do you let him go then?
Nope. I interrogate him. I thought I made that pretty clear.

'really... tell that to the survivors when it becomes known that you had all the information there... with the mastermind in your hand and you did nothing..'
Again, based on what evidence? Would it stand up in court? What did Brush tell the 'survivors' of 9/11?

'Details... which methods and in what order...
Would you will ask nicely and send him back to his suite?'
No, but I wouldn't use torture to obtain suspect information that could lead to a wild goose chase.

'What if he says he knows nothing... would you believe him and release him?'
I might believe him, I might not, but I'd need real information.

'so what "Proven, Reliable Method" would you use? you got him. I made the scenario to avoid the "Tortured Innocent" situation.'
And I've said what I'd do.

The last two are taken from prisions in the US. Where it was deemed below basic minimum living because people in solitary were feed bread and water and they didn't have cable television.

this was a study in the mid 80's... the running gags at the time was that the homless would commit crimes to live better than middle class Americans.

No, they were given those conveniences in order to prevent another Attica State Prison Riot. You see, when you treat murderers and rapists to subhuman living conditions, they don't see the error of their ways so much as they try to find ways of butchering the guards, and people don't want to see innocent guards butchered. So, if cable TV keeps the murderers and rapists docile, that's a pretty fair trade.

This also has little or nothing to do with Gitmo.

Obviously someone didn't understand the senario... so allow me to re-iterate it.

He understands it perfectly. He's questioning exactly how likely such a theoretical scenario would be in the real world, as well as questioning the underlying impetus for torture.

You see, if you have all the information that points to a certain person as being a linchpin member of a terrorist organization in the end stages of committing a heinous act, you usually also have information on what that act is, where and when it will take place, etc. If that information is not provided, then its unclear how the police can even act, because there is no information about a crime even being committed, just a shadowy figure who tells you that Person A is guilty of a future Heinous Act B. That claim doesn't amount to jack crap in a legal forum, much less an excuse to torture a person for information. If, however, said source does provide that information, then you have enough intel to stop the terrorist act anyway, without needing to torture the suspect.

So what you are really proposing is logically fallacious: if you have enough evidence to bring in a suspect, you generally also have enough to foil what his nefarious plot, thus negating the need for torture. If you don't, you also have no compelling reason to arrest, and no compelling reason to believe that torture would be beneficial.

He then further argues that even supposing you did take said person A into custody, interrogation would be the best method of information extraction, not torture. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Well, I disagree that simply because mental torture is not the primary method used during physical torture the mental effects are any less devastating. I haven't been tortured, but I imagine having my testicles hooked to an electric zapper would have some disturbing impact on my psyche...

I also disagree that one can go irrevokably <sp> "out of your mind." That would assume the entire medical field can do nothing for 'insane' people, which just isn't true by any definition of insanity.

that i think is where we disagree. someday if I have the patience, I'll see if i can find the info I was reading on interrogation in northern ireland where its generally accepted that mental torture alone is just as devastating as physical torture based on the lifes of those interned in the 70s

[QUOTE=Nekone]'Obviously someone didn't understand the senario... so allow me to re-iterate it.
no, the assumption is for the benifit of berivity. I am starting the senario with you having the right man. thus no argument about innocents getting tortured.'
Who says you have the 'right man' without proof? so you let him go because you ignore all the evidence... say bye bye to a Million of your people.
'yep. so do you let him go then?
Nope. I interrogate him. I thought I made that pretty clear.what tone of interrgations... ask nicely... yell and scream... do you deny him anything like water to drink during the interrogations... if he needs to go to the bathroom, would you let him? Details please.

'really... tell that to the survivors when it becomes known that you had all the information there... with the mastermind in your hand and you did nothing..'
Again, based on what evidence? Would it stand up in court? What did Brush tell the 'survivors' of 9/11?it was deemed that the intelligence services had enough evidence to prevent 9/11. but due to shoddy handling, it wasn't prevented. and the question is what would you tell the survivors?

'Details... which methods and in what order...
Would you will ask nicely and send him back to his suite?'
No, but I wouldn't use torture to obtain suspect information that could lead to a wild goose chase.again, what would you do. what Proper methods would you use.

'What if he says he knows nothing... would you believe him and release him?'
I might believe him, I might not, but I'd need real information.how would you get that "Real Information"

'so what "Proven, Reliable Method" would you use? you got him. I made the scenario to avoid the "Tortured Innocent" situation.'
And I've said what I'd do.only in general non committal terms. Interrogation can cover a broad degree that also slides into the areas of torture. would you hit him (physical abuse) make him as uncomfortable as possible (emotional/mental abuse) all can be defined as interrogation... heck, strapping him to a wire chair and running electrical currents through it can also fall into Interrorgation... so details... what reliable proven methods would you use?

Let me put it this way. If torture has been proven beyond doubt to never be useful then it should not be used. However, I doubt that it is never useful. I do agree though that the U.S. should not have used torture due to political concerns. As well torture could also be used in methods of re-education that could conserve useful human life through breaking down the existing flaws and putting loyalty to the favored group in the mind of the tortured. Yes that idea is similar to what happened to the main character in 1984 and that fact alone will get lots and lots of people to be mad at my argument.

if someone murdered my family, it would be useful for me to kill that person, but not only wouldnt it be legal, but morally it would be wrong as I would be no better a person for doing it. Now you imagine if I didnt really know who murdered my family and I decided to kill those i suspected of it, so I could be either right opr wrong. thats a bit liek using torture for information - you can tortue but you cant trust the info, so it could be correct, but it also mightnt be. Though torture obviously will sometimes reveal true information what good is that if you dont know for certain if its true or not?

Torture isnt for information gathering, its for intimidation.

No, they were given those conveniences in order to prevent another Attica State Prison Riot. You see, when you treat murderers and rapists to subhuman living conditions, they don't see the error of their ways so much as they try to find ways of butchering the guards, and people don't want to see innocent guards butchered. So, if cable TV keeps the murderers and rapists docile, that's a pretty fair trade.

This also has little or nothing to do with Gitmo..Never said it was... just saying what can fall under the definition of "Torture." and about the prision thing, it was by memory and for me, that was ages ago... :(

He understands it perfectly. He's questioning exactly how likely such a theoretical scenario would be in the real world, as well as questioning the underlying impetus for torture.

You see, if you have all the information that points to a certain person as being a linchpin member of a terrorist organization in the end stages of committing a heinous act, you usually also have information on what that act is, where and when it will take place, etc. If that information is not provided, then its unclear how the police can even act, because there is no information about a crime even being committed, just a shadowy figure who tells you that Person A is guilty of a future Heinous Act B. That claim doesn't amount to jack crap in a legal forum, much less an excuse to torture a person for information. If, however, said source does provide that information, then you have enough intel to stop the terrorist act anyway, without needing to torture the suspect.

So what you are really proposing is logically fallacious: if you have enough evidence to bring in a suspect, you generally also have enough to foil what his nefarious plot, thus negating the need for torture. If you don't, you also have no compelling reason to arrest, and no compelling reason to believe that torture would be beneficial.

He then further argues that even supposing you did take said person A into custody, interrogation would be the best method of information extraction, not torture. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.interrogation is a broad term. I can sit you down and ask a few questions then let you go. That is interrogation and what makes you say that the person will reveal the truth. Then there are interrogations that border on torture and other methods of interrogations that is torture... Then he could lie... would you believe him? and then what... let him go? after all, by your statements, he can't be held. what if he lies, how would you get the Real information... Being the mastermind is not the same as being the lynchpin person. someone else can be doing that. he can sit nice and comfy in his cell and the act can still take place... or maybe not. he just has the information.

so you, with lack of evidence will let the person go... and the act takes place.

The Intelligence community has less to work with, yet people expect them to be better at preventing events like 9/11.

oh, and this scenario isn't about approval of torture, it's what would you do to save millions of your people.

[QUOTE=Globes R Us] so you let him go because you ignore all the evidence... say bye bye to a Million of your people.
what tone of interrgations... ask nicely... yell and scream... do you deny him anything like water to drink during the interrogations... if he needs to go to the bathroom, would you let him? Details please.

it was deemed that the intelligence services had enough evidence to prevent 9/11. but due to shoddy handling, it wasn't prevented. and the question is what would you tell the survivors?

again, what would you do. what Proper methods would you use.

how would you get that "Real Information"

only in general non committal terms. Interrogation can cover a broad degree that also slides into the areas of torture. would you hit him (physical abuse) make him as uncomfortable as possible (emotional/mental abuse) all can be defined as interrogation... heck, strapping him to a wire chair and running electrical currents through it can also fall into Interrorgation... so details... what reliable proven methods would you use?

I think it's you that doesn't understand. I'm not gonna reiterate what I've said. Xenophobialand understands what I'm saying (thanks Xen) you are too focused on your argument to see any other points.

On the topic of physical, mental, and emotional tortures, my view is that they are all torture and all unacceptable. Whether one is worse than the others is impossible to determine, as the effects are bound to vary from person to person. One person might have his legs broken and suffer nothing beyond the physical pain of broken legs; another might be haunted by nightmares about the event for the rest of his life. Correspondingly, one person might have "menstrual blood" smeared on his face (as in the case mentioned earlier on this thread) and merely find it unpleasant, while another might feel horribly violated. Speaking as someone who is unfortunately well acquainted with domestic abuse (which, while certainly not the same as the torture of political prisoners, does have many psychological similarities for its victims), sometimes the things that damage a person the most deeply and fundamentally are impossible to predict. Given that, I really believe that all forms of torture are wrong (and, as others have already pointed out, highly ineffective in extracting reliable information).

You know, the whole issue of torture boils down to the need for safety any given country/population has. Give up our moral highground for what we hope will lead to a higher degree of overalll safety? Truthfull, as long as there is unhappiness, there will be the need to blame it upon someone, and as long as that need continues, violence and danger shall as well, at least population scale. And of course, that 5-10% that really enjoys causing others pain and lives only for themselves will always exist. So, we will never be safe, and torture will not help get us there.
While I dissagree with socialism, communism, etc etc and consider my ideal world to be republican (real republican, not the crud put on by U.S. politicians), I'd have to say that we need to make sure everyone is able to make themselves happy before we will ever be as safe as we want to be.

I think it's you that doesn't understand. I'm not gonna reiterate what I've said. Xenophobialand understands what I'm saying (thanks Xen) you are too focused on your argument to see any other points.so you cannot answer the one question as to how do you interrogate someone?

I'm only looking for methods. you say interrogation. but what form does that interrogation take? What is the Reliable method? Have their lawyers present? Would you be nice and polite? How is that going to encourage him to tell the truth? Would you threaten him? What if he calls your bluff. Do you carry out your threats? That can be seen as torture.

Nekone, I think it's unreasonable to expect a civilian, (presumably) non-police, average person to have detailed methods.

Torture does often provide unreliable information (look at how many "witches" confessed in the middle ages) but it can be acceptable if other evidence confirms that it's the only possible option.

Beyond that, though, there are other options, such as bribery (I firmly belive that everyone has their price).

so you cannot answer the one question as to how do you interrogate someone?

I'm only looking for methods. you say interrogation. but what form does that interrogation take? What is the Reliable method? Have their lawyers present? Would you be nice and polite? How is that going to encourage him to tell the truth? Would you threaten him? What if he calls your bluff. Do you carry out your threats? That can be seen as torture.

All right, one last try. The FBI, Scotland Yard and others have excellent methods of interrogation. They get results, torture doesn't, that's the point.

[QUOTE=Mahria]

Beyond that, though, there are other options, such as bribery (I firmly belive that everyone has their price)

That's a good option actually.

Nekone, I think it's unreasonable to expect a civilian, (presumably) non-police, average person to have detailed methods.

Torture does often provide unreliable information (look at how many "witches" confessed in the middle ages) but it can be acceptable if other evidence confirms that it's the only possible option.

Beyond that, though, there are other options, such as bribery (I firmly belive that everyone has their price).True, but I'm not looking for detail methods (and he did mention "reliable proven" methods.) but general tone of the interrogation. how nasty or nice... do you physically touch the person (grab and shake but not hit) or do you get Physical on the person (hitting).

Like the bribery idea tho, and add to the package, a new identity (News flash: "Mr. X died while in custody, Government no closer to terror plot" may give the terrorist a false sense of security, while Mr. G enters his new life, somewhere else.) That's an idea, and to cover the bribe, the Government buys another load of $2,000 toilet seats. ;)

I'll say that works... if no one else objects.

All right, one last try. The FBI, Scotland Yard and others have excellent methods of interrogation. They get results, torture doesn't, that's the point. first off.. I'm not avocating torture, I agree that answers under duress are not doubt free.

I'm just looking for other alternatives. After all, you have reports of Police Abuse everywhere, even in Scotland Yard. If done by the Police, it's brutality, if done by the military, it can be called torture.

There are other things that can be used in interrogation (ablet slightly illegal) the Infamous 'Truth Serum' or it's very cheap counterpart, Alcohol. a Polygraph machine can be employed but also fooled. some use the "good cop/Bad cop" or even friendship to gain their confidence. Those basic methods is what I was asking for as well as tone used... hostile, or nice. do you appeal to his sense of Humanity? or perhaps to his Religious (if he has one) side?

you say supervised but again, by whom or what. cameras? Superior officer? or/and civilian (lawyer or something?)

But basically you will treat him not as a terrorist but a criminal. Slow I would say, but, it will succeed.

-snip-
The goal oughta be to convince your alleged criminal that he should speak out. It is the only reliable way to get information from him/her.
We live in a society with certain bounds. All these rules (above law even) have come naturally from the necessities that people were faced with over history.
Things like the Geneva convention for example are expressions of those bounds. It was written without anyone's national interest in mind, and merely serves as a guarantee for soldiers on any side that they will not suffer needlessly. If you violate it, you can expect the other side to do the same to you. It's game theory, and if there is any rationality to either side, they will do well to adhere to the convention.
Same thing with torture. There is a reason it is outlawed and despised by modern society, outside of any political interest. It is simply because you don't want it to happen to you that you don't do it to anyone else.
And just like in game theory, your short term profits from doublecrossing may be good, but in the long term everyone is worse off.

The goal oughta be to convince your alleged criminal that he should speak out. It is the only reliable way to get information from him/her.how would you convince him then? and in what way to insure that its the truth that he's telling? again not looking for specifics but please don't be too general.

For instance. would you place a plant (spy) in his cell area to gain confidence? Get a guard to be friendly and sympathetic? or do you have something else in mind?

We live in a society with certain bounds. All these rules (above law even) have come naturally from the necessities that people were faced with over history.
Things like the Geneva convention for example are expressions of those bounds. It was written without anyone's national interest in mind, and merely serves as a guarantee for soldiers on any side that they will not suffer needlessly. If you violate it, you can expect the other side to do the same to you. It's game theory, and if there is any rationality to either side, they will do well to adhere to the convention.I Believe the Geneva Convention only protects members of the countries reconized armed forces. which terrorists are not a part of. could be wrong tho.
Same thing with torture. There is a reason it is outlawed and despised by modern society, outside of any political interest. It is simply because you don't want it to happen to you that you don't do it to anyone else.
And just like in game theory, your short term profits from doublecrossing may be good, but in the long term everyone is worse off.I completely agree with you on this.

how would you convince him then? and in what way to insure that its the truth that he's telling? again not looking for specifics but please don't be too general.

For instance. would you place a plant (spy) in his cell area to gain confidence? Get a guard to be friendly and sympathetic? or do you have something else in mind?
I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know how far you can go. I would simply begin stating my argument, my belief system to (for example) the terrorist. Most terrorists that would attack eg the USA don't actually know much about the US, they have been misinformed. So a simple explanation may sometimes be enough. In Iraq Muslim clerics have also been able to free many hostages by convincing them through their belief system.
All that will take time though, but seeing the long term consequences, even if there was a nuke hidden in NYC, and you caught a terrorist who may know where it is, if he doesn't talk, then you must proceed to find it another way.


I Believe the Geneva Convention only protects members of the countries reconized armed forces. which terrorists are not a part of. could be wrong tho.
I'm not a legal expert. I brought it up specificly in relation to Camp X-Ray. The point there is that legal loopholes are used to go around the Geneva convention, as if it was some sort of foreign hindrance and against US national interest. That completely ignores the spirit of the thing, and qualifies anyone who captures an American to label him an "unlawful (Iraq & international law still debatable) enemy combattant" and that would be just as valid as labelling an Afghani goat herder as such.
Which leaves the door open for all kinds of things to happen to this US soldier.

I'm not a psychologist, and I don't know how far you can go. I would simply begin stating my argument, my belief system to (for example) the terrorist. Most terrorists that would attack eg the USA don't actually know much about the US, they have been misinformed. So a simple explanation may sometimes be enough. In Iraq Muslim clerics have also been able to free many hostages by convincing them through their belief system.
All that will take time though, but seeing the long term consequences, even if there was a nuke hidden in NYC, and you caught a terrorist who may know where it is, if he doesn't talk, then you must proceed to find it another way.Interesting, time consuming but possibly effective. you would have to get through his fed propganda but it is possible.

I'm not a legal expert. I brought it up specificly in relation to Camp X-Ray. The point there is that legal loopholes are used to go around the Geneva convention, as if it was some sort of foreign hindrance and against US national interest. That completely ignores the spirit of the thing, and qualifies anyone who captures an American to label him an "unlawful (Iraq & international law still debatable) enemy combattant" and that would be just as valid as labelling an Afghani goat herder as such.
Which leaves the door open for all kinds of things to happen to this US soldier. Sad but true... Good luck if you're deployed... if you came back, welcome home.

Sad but true... Good luck if you're deployed... if you came back, welcome home.
Oh, I myself don't worry too much. I'm a German citizen, currently living in Australia, and therefore didn't even have to serve.