What is Torture?

[COSPRINGS]

Hello. I am rather new here, so let me introduce myself. I am a lifelong democrat and I was looking from a like-minded people on the web. I just found this website, and I have to say, it looks GREAT.

That being said, I wanted to post something interesting as my first thread. I would like to know, in the minds of fellow progressives, what acts should be considered torture and what acts should be considered justified techniques that the CIA or our military should be able to use. I have composed a list below.


Extended solitary confinement
Being held incommunicado
Exploitation of phobias, e.g. leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders
Being kept in confined spaces
Extended sleep deprivation
Being forced to sleep on hard surfaces
Sensory deprivation
Conditions of detention
Headshaving
Shunning
Forced labor, coercion into doing excessive physical activity
Threats to family members
Shaming and public humiliation
Constant shouting, verbal abuse and taunting
Alterations to room temperature
Being forced to listen to music that heightens anxiety
Dunking
Sleep deprivation
Sound (Extremely high volumes, dynamic range, low frequency, noise intended to interfere with rest, cognition and concentration).
Starvation (forced)
Tickling
Water boarding

Pick one, pick all, and/or please add to the list. Which one's should or should not be allowed and why?

[Generic Brad]

1. You forgot one

Six years of George W. Bush.

[rzemanfl]

3. Great minds and all that...n/t

[COSPRINGS]

4. I would agree with that one..

Mass torture at that..

[rzemanfl]

2. Living 8 years under a "President" who never won an election.

Welcome to DU.

[El Supremo]

5. The Geneva Convention should override any US law,

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

[0rganism]

15. As the USA is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, it *is* US law

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI)

[Hosnon]

72. One note about Article VI:

Treaties only become law to the extent that they do not violate the Constitution. The President and 2/3 of the Senate do not have amendment authority.

Any treaty that takes away the authority granted the President under the Constitution is void to that extent.

I'm not saying that the Geneva Conventions do...just pointing that out. Many people assume that Article VI is stronger than it is.

[joemurphy]

6. They all work for me. n/t

[COSPRINGS]

7. Tickling?

Tickling is torture?

[niyad]

10. see my post below in reference to tickling.

[niyad]

8. welcome to DU--are you in colorado springs? if so, there are plenty of

dems and progressives around, even in this most conservative, fundy-laden community.

torture? being forced to listen to the chimperor trying to give a speech.

seriously, I think most of the things on your list qualify. some might quibble with the tickling, but I have known people to go into respiratory arrest from tickling.

[COSPRINGS]

11. I was from there, but I live in the really, really red land of GA now..

What should US forces be allowed to do when they actually do catch a terrorist?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Is not the idea that torturing a human being is EVIL, regardless what you

may think that person may be guilty of, or what information you might get, reason enough never to do it? :shrug:

[COSPRINGS]

17. As I said, I agree..

However, the fact remains that the CIA an SF guys will capture actual terrorist from time to time. How do you get information from those people, by not using what you would define as torture, in order to prevent attack and save lives.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. You use every moral means possible. Interrogation, survelliance etc.

If you can't get the information you seek that way, too bad. No torture. Why, what's your idea?

[COSPRINGS]

26. Is the training we put our own guys through immoral?

I refer to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

29. My old classmate went through the Army's SERE program with all of the

above.

It's something you essentially know about going into it. If not all the exact things, the basic gist of what is going to happen.

It is your choice to take that course or not. No one is forcing you to be a pilot or whatever.

The Iraqi prisoner undergoing waterboarding has no choice.

[COSPRINGS]

34. If you want a certain job, you are "forced" to go through it..

Otherwise you can't be in SF or you can't be certain types of pilots. Is torture defined only by rather or not you sign up for it? I didn't know that was in the definition.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

37. If you can "tap out" and the torture ends (but you fail the course), then

YES, that's a VERY DIFFERENT THING than the Iraqi prisoner, caught up in the sweep, who doesn't have an option to "tap out", and will simply endure hours or days or torment even if he doesn't know jack shit.

Can you not see a difference?

If you are being hazed by a fraternity, and can quit the hazing and not get into the fraternity, is it not different than someone kidnapped off the street undergoing the same hazing but with no chance to end it? Can you really not see the difference?

[COSPRINGS]

40. "tapping out"..

involves giving in. In other words, to make it end, you have to write what the trainers want you to write. (Usually, some sort of anti-American propaganda about how the US is evil). That is the same "tapping out", that would produce an end to whatever techniques we may employ on a terrorist.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

42. What if the person being tortured doesn't KNOW the information that

is sought, and doesn't have an option to give the information and "tap out", eh? Too bad for them, I guess, if you are the torturer.

[COSPRINGS]

44. As I said, I am not suggesting torture..

Just asking what you do if you KNOW that the person has some information. And there are ways we would know that. For example, we have intercepted cell phone conversations and have Signal Intel.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. I'm saying all standard interrogation methods before 2000 should suffice.

Why did they suddenly become insufficient?

[COSPRINGS]

49. Do you not think that some of the methods mentioned..

were not in use by the CIA before 2000?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

50. Can you prove, one way or another?

[COSPRINGS]

55. I could..

But I am not going to do research for you

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

57. If you are going to make an assertion, the burden is on YOU to prove,

not on me to disprove it.

[COSPRINGS]

62. Well.. lets see what I can find on a quick google..

Here is the first tidbit..

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/rendition.htm

Although the rendition program could be run more efficiently, “the only downside of the program has been self-inflicted by the politicians in the last two administrations. Under Clinton, we captured fighters and took them to countries with poor human rights records. Under Bush, we continue to treat these people as criminals and are holding them incommunicado,” he said. Scheuer claimed that the CIA’s answer to the problem “has been all along” to treat detainees the same as POWs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times#United_States

The United States government has, at least since the Clinton Administration, used the tactic of extraordinary rendition in which suspected terrorists were extradicted to countries where they were to be prosecuted.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00039.htm
One form of torture begins with “extreme rendition.” Alleged terror suspects have been abducted by the CIA and flown to be tortured (and/or murdered) in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, Jordan and Uzbekistan, etc. The practice was begun around 1996 under President Clinton and vastly expanded by President Bush after 9/11. Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Council director, and counterterrorism boss Richard Clarke, have been identified as having approved extreme rendition. Clinton, of course, is also culpable. Right now, Italy would like to lay its hands on 22 C.I.A. agents who three years ago abducted Milan resident cleric Hassan Osama Nasr for torture in Egypt.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132979/?nav=ais

Clinton's GuantanamoHow the Democratic president set the stage for a land without law.
By Brandt Goldstein
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005, at 3:20 PM ET

We sometimes forget that during the Clinton presidency, the United States ran an extralegal detention camp on Guantanamo—and went to federal court to defend its right to do so. The camp during the Clinton years was by no means the nightmarish operation it is now; certainly, there weren't allegations of torture. But Guantanamo under Clinton produced its own share of suffering and abuses—and perhaps most important for today, the court decision that shut it down was eventually wiped off the books, thanks to legal maneuvers by the Clinton Justice Department.

A smidgen of history: Our first Guantanamo detention camp was established in the late stages of the George H.W. Bush presidency. The detainees there weren't terror suspects, but 300 innocent Haitian refugees seeking safe haven from the military regime that ousted Haiti's democratically elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in September 1991. These refugees—brought to Guantanamo after the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted their vessels on the high seas between Haiti and Cuba—faced a terrible predicament. In interviews with U.S. immigration officials, they'd all proved a legitimate fear of political persecution were they to be returned to Haiti. Under U.S. policy, they should have been promptly flown to the American mainland (as were a number of other Haitians). But then this small group of men, women, and children also tested positive for HIV. Fear of AIDS was still extreme at that time, and the Bush administration refused to let these hapless refugees into the country. So, instead they were detained in a remote corner of Guantanamo with no prospect of release.
All this would only seem to give Democrats more ammunition to criticize the president today: like father, like son. But of course, the Bush dynasty was interrupted by Bill Clinton in 1992—and his record on Guantanamo was an ugly one. Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp, Clinton changed his mind. As a result, the refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals. (Here's a videotape of a crackdown against the Haitians while Bush I was still running the camp.) Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them.
The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased. (There was some plagiarism here. The Clinton folks took this argument from the Bush administration lawyers who'd first defended the camp.)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

64. If the renditions were for the purpose of the prisoner being subjected

to torture, then it would be wrong under any administration. However no details are given of how many people under Clinton or Bush and what happened to those people. That's another problem with this, total secrecy, where people can be abducted and held without any charge, and have no recourse but to go to the media with their story if their ordeal ends and they are in fact alive afterwards. There was a 60 Minutes on this and one guy was held for years and finally let go, they'd had the wrong guy. Too bad so sad for him I guess.

[COSPRINGS]

66. The point being..

That some of the methods used are nothing new and we have been using them since before 2000.

[spanone]

82. Then we were wrong before 2000.

[lostnfound]

78. Follow conscience, not leaders

Count me among the vast majority against torture whether tolerated, perpetrated, or advocated by Clinton or Bush or any other world leader.

Unlike many RWers, a liberal's appreciation for liberal leaders doesn't typically translate into blind hero worship.

Conscience matters more.

[stepnw1f]

97. That's Fact (nt)

[newspeak]

35. torture does not work

torture is used to terrorize an individual, as well as, a populace. If you look at the Inquisition, extreme torture was administered to the point that people were telling fantasy land stories, people were turning in their innocent neighbors. Torture is a tool to keep people in line more than obtaining bogus information. You can coerce or bribe someone to get the information-you can eventually maybe gain their trust-but torture will get you bogus info more times than not. We do not have the high ground-how can our government denounce Saddam as a "monster", then do what he has allegedly done? Do you then become the monster? If you use an excuse for torture, how easy is it to then determine parts of your citizenry also deserve it? After all, the Patriot Act allows our government to determine who shall be branded a terrorist-let's say, this deeply disturbed administration decides that Libertarians are terrorists because of their belief in the Constitution and protest the abuse of said document, are you willing for fellow Americans to be tortured or do you think they will only torture those evil terrorists--the other, those people? Will they determine that all Americans not loyal to * are now terrorists, because "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Breaking the rule of law right and left, makes this country into another despotic Banana Republic. We are going down a very slippery slope, and the acquiesce on allowing torture, opens the door to other atrocities.

[COSPRINGS]

43. Again, I am not talking about torture..

I am trying to determine if there is anything we can do to get a terrorist to talk that isn't torture. That being said, torture does work, if you combine it with other intel collection techniques. For example, we normally know something about the high value targets we hold. We have already collected some information and what one would do is use that information. If the suspect were to lie to you, you would ask them question you already know. If those are lies, you would make him understand that you already know part of the truth, but you wouldn't let them know how much you know. In that way, lies would not help him, because it would not provide a means to stop the pain. The only thing that would stop it would be the truth.

[newspeak]

52. torture does work?

I'd say coercion, bribery and gaining ones trust works better than torturing. Using psychological methods on some would work better than torture--you cannot trust the information gleaned from torture-even though you may know a general location of some target doesn't mean that the individual is going to give you adequate or correct information about the area. You seem to be twisting in the wind on this. These make believe scenarios--I can make some horrendous make believe nightmare scenarios also that could happen if we are willing to condone torture!!!

[tkmorris]

46. Exactly the same things..........

In my opinion a "captured terrorist" should be treated precisely the same as we treat people who are accused of crimes of all sorts here in the United States. In short, give them legal representation then put the case before a court in a relatively speedy fashion. No one has ever satisfactorily (or at all) explained why there needs to be a seperate standard for anyone else, including these guys.

If they are guilty of a crime, prove it. In court. Otherwise we have no business whatever holding them at all.

And yes, I know there are complications involved here, but the basic point remains the same. Treat them as humanely as we treat all other criminals, and prove the crime or let them go.

[COSPRINGS]

51. That would compromise our intel assets throughout the world..

If the evidence against terrorist were made public.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[COSPRINGS]

68. My judgement is this..

Not Torture
* Extended solitary confinement
* Tickling
* Being held incommunicado
* Being forced to sleep on hard surfaces
* Headshaving
* Shunning
* Forced labor, coercion into doing excessive physical activity
* Constant shouting, verbal abuse and taunting
* Alterations to room temperature
* Being forced to listen to music that heightens anxiety
* Sleep deprivation
* Sound (Extremely high volumes, dynamic range, low frequency, noise intended to interfere with rest, cognition and concentration)
* Sensory deprivation

Maybe
* Water boarding
* Being kept in confined spaces (Depends on how small)
* Threats to family members (What are the threats)
* Dunking
* Shaming and public humiliation

Torture
* Exploitation of phobias, e.g. leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders
* Starvation (forced)

[spanone]

83. Your definitions are yours alone. I disagree wholeheartedly with your

argument. You argue there are degrees of torture. I say you are wrong.
Phobias and starvation are the only tortures you know? Sick. Just as sick as this argument that we need to torture. Sick.

[tkmorris]

61. As I said

There are complications. But they are NOT insurmountable, as I am certain you are aware. There are times when the methodology or identity of certain individuals must be kept secret even in more "normal" criminal cases, we find ways to deal with that.

The main point however, is how prisoners are treated. Any methods that would be considered excessive here in the states for common criminals would rise to the level of torture for me, or at least be considered unacceptable. I know that there are those who believe that even our treatment of the garden variety lawbreakers here is too lenient, but I disagree.

It is simply the price we pay in order to consider ourselves a moral society.

[COSPRINGS]

54. That would destroy the efforts of our intel guys around the world..

and put in danger many of our human intel assets throughout the world.

[spanone]

81. What international law allows. Period.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. None

No torture. Ever.

[COSPRINGS]

13. I agree..

But would you agree that the CIA should be allowed to do something to get information out of a terrorist member, if they catch him? I am not suggesting torture, but if you have intel that someone wants to do a 9/11 like attack and you have a member of that group captured, how do you encourage that person to help you stop that attack?

[me b zola]

58. Please stop with the "ticking time bomb" blather

Such a set of events are highly unlikely. Since torture is counter productive under normal circumstances, why would it work even if there was a rip in time & space and the "ticking time bomb" scenerio was to occur?

Here's a few things to consider:

>That everything that it means to be an American is contained within the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. No matter what awful thing an outside enemy of the State were able to accomplish here, they could never destroy America. Are you following my line of thought? America can only be destroyed from within, by our own hands. As long as we uphold the rule of law and our sacred documents, we will survive.

>40,000 people die every year in auto accidents. Should we outlaw automobiles in the name of public safety? 40,000--wow, think about that.

>Imagine a nuke gets set off here in the US. Do you know what I think it would look like? I think that it would look like the Gulf Coast after Katrina hit. Of course there would be many survivors with radiation burns and poisening, but in terms of displaced people I believe it would be about the same. The point here is that we survived, of course if bush* hadn't completely ruined FEMA there would be many families that would be doing better than just surviving--and don't even get me started on those who didn't survive only because of bush*s criminal negligence.




So let me summerize my rambling post: The "ticking time bomb" excuse for torturing people, it is a red herring. Torture doesn't work. No amount of terrorism has the ability to destroy us, only we have that power. The odds of dying due terrorism don't even compare to the odds of dying doing the things that we do everyday. Even if the worst case scenerio occurs, we have survived a similar circumstance---but we despirately need Dems to be back in office so that we can deal with emergencies.



And lastly, welcome to DU :hi:








edited to correct typos

[newspeak]

94. I already explained that you may use coercion, bribery

after all, we have billions of our hard earned money missing in this Iraqi war. You could tell the suspect we will protect your family, take them out of the country (witness protection) and give them a new life. You could gain their trust (which does take time), you could use any form of coercion that does not include torture. Don't you think some of these suspects are thinking about their families? Don't you think some can be bribed, as long as they also are protected? Atta took money, a payoff, supposedly to do a terrorist act. What did he do with the money? Give it to his family? Why not bribe to do no terrorist act, or for information about terrorist acts? If an individual is offered safety, protection for their family, and financial security, how many would take it? The zealotry of some is directly related to their own well being and that of their family. It is much easier to embrace fundamentalism when you have no other outlet for systems of poverty or safety. Those who are leaders of such zealotry simply manipulate those for their own agenda--and that agenda is more of power and financial, I believe, than a true religious dogma. Reading some of OBL's statements, one of my thoughts was that this man is a capitalist with a religious message. His use of belief gains him those who can be manipulated by their own economic plight. However, with our actions, we have given him more recruits, just look at the innocent deaths that have been caused? If you murder my children, my mother, my father, will I not retaliate? If I no longer have a livelihood, support for my family, food--I have nothing left to lose; a perfect recruit. Our money would have been better spent going towards jobs, infrastructure of Iraq and economic recovery, than for * friendly corporations who have hired cheap immigrant labor instead of Iraqis and squandered our money away. "You catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar" and we gave them vinegar!!!!!!!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. The Geneva Convention definitions were made vague on PURPOSE. To

prevent the situation where people simply invent new ways to torture that don't fit the old definition.

Ban thumbscrews? Fine, now we have hooking up an Army field telephone battery to the testicles. It's not against the rules, nya nya!

Ban the rack? Fine, now we have waterboarding, which no one had "thought of" yet when you made your set of rules.

So, if you use the "reasonable man" definition of what people would agree would be attempts to inflict degradation, pain, etc. newer nefarious methods of torture would still be covered.

Get the idea?

Isn't it funny how this wasn't a problem in the generations since WWII before now, because no U.S. presidential administration was intent on testing the limits of torturing people to the degree that they could get away with it.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/what_weve_lost.html

[COSPRINGS]

16. or maybe..

They just didn't tell you about it as much and out-sourced it to other nations... Read up on it, it has happened.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. Because it has happened, does that make it right? What's your point?

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Welcome to DU. This is the definition of torture in international law

From the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984):

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. Being left on a bridge in New Orleans for 5 days. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Good answer!

[COSPRINGS]

22. I think it is important to take a look at what our guys actually do..

for training.
SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) School includes the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE

The actual techniques used in the school have been classified by the US government, but several official sites exist to give a general overview of the curricula. The training has been widely reported to provide a realistic simulation of harsh and abusive interrogation techniques. The SERE program has been reported to involve the following elements:
extreme temperatures
waterboarding - being tied to a board with the feet higher than the head and having water poured into the nose
noise stress - playing very loud and dissonant music and sound effects. Recordings have been reported to include babies wailing inconsolably, cats meowing, and irritating music (including a record by Yoko Ono)<1>
sexual embarrassment
religious dilemma - being given the choice of seeing a religious book desecrated or revealing secrets to interrogators.
flag desecration
prolonged cramped or restrictive confinement
sleep deprivation/starvation
excrement familiarization/humiliation
mock execution
overcoming food aversion (eating bugs, roadkill, dumpster diving, urine drinking)
height/water/enclosed spaces
physical beating
"stress inoculation"

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. SERE is designed for pilots to help them survive things that might be

inflicted upon them by hostile FOREIGN governments that might capture them.

So these types of torture etc. if carried out by enemies would not be something under our control, whether they did them or not. Obviously for training they are not going to employ methods that will physically damage the student in a lasting way.

What does that have to do with what WE do to captives, which is entirely under our control?

[COSPRINGS]

30. Actually for SF guys also...

The point is, do we torture our own guys?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. Read my response to your question above. This training is voluntary.

No one has to go through it. You can wash out of the course or not take it in the first place.

[COSPRINGS]

36. You have to take it if you want certain types of jobs.. so in that sense..

you are forced. Moreover, where does voluntary for something fall into the definition of torture.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

38. No, because you can end the torture and fail the course and not get the

job.

Still voluntary.

[COSPRINGS]

63. "tapping out"..

involves giving in. In other words, to make it end, you have to write what the trainers want you to write. (Usually, some sort of anti-American propaganda about how the US is evil). That is the same "tapping out", that would produce an end to whatever techniques we may employ on a terrorist.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

65. No because you have no guarantee the person even knows the

information you seek. In that event, they would have no option to tap out, would they?

They say "fine fine I'll talk" and say a bunch of B.S. that is known to be bad info (because they don't know any GOOD info) and the torture continues. Some system eh?

And even if they did, torturing is immoral.

[COSPRINGS]

69. You assume that we don't have some sort of other intel..

such as Signal Intel, to verify part of what he is saying.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

70. Well I've already said I don't think torturing them is a valid action,

even in your hypothetical.

[COSPRINGS]

71. I really don't think that it is a "hypothetical"..

I am pretty sure that we have guys detained based on Signal Intel that we gathered, such as cell phone conversations, etc. The CIA probably does something for a living, even if you disagree with alot of it.

[woo me with science]

104. but by this logic

sexual harassment of female employees would also be "voluntary," because they can always choose not to comply and therefore lose the job.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Welcome To DU COSPRINGS!!!!

[Cleita]

24. All of the above. However, the biggest torture is not being

able to prevent it. When someone is controlling you and forcing you to be subjected to all the above, then it's without a doubt torture. So when we imprison people as POWs we have already removed their freedom to move about as they choose or to be where they want to be. We really can't add all of the above to this and still consider ourselves civilized people.

[COSPRINGS]

28. Then what do you do?

When you have someone with information in his head that can save American civilian lives?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

31. How do you know for sure that the person you are contemplating torturing

has information that will for sure save lives? That is for SURE a bullshit hypothetical. It's always "we know this guy will give us info that will keep an atomic bomb from blowing up Los Angeles so we're going to crush his testicles." Do you think the people from Abu Ghraib had knowledge like that?

What if you torture them and they don't know anything?

[COSPRINGS]

33. I didn't say torture..

I am asking is there anything that isn't torture that we could use. And there are ways one could know. For example, You have Signal Intel of him talking on a phone about certain aspects of an attack that is in planning.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

41. You use whatever means that don't involve illegal, immoral acts.

[COSPRINGS]

45. What would those means be?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

48. All the means used to interrogate before 2000. What's the matter with

them?

[COSPRINGS]

59. Nothing..

But at least some of those that I listed above were used before 2000.

[magellan]

74. Why not keep listening and have the suspect followed?

The British terrorist bust was handled precisely that way. After being arrested, those who were found not to have anything to do with the case were released, the rest are awaiting trial.

And all without torture. Astounding.

Article 3 is clear. Anyone who goes beyond it is guilty of war crimes. If Clinton did it I'm just as happy to see him tried for it as Bush**.

You, my friend, need to figure out that it's never okay to break the law. Then rethink your question in terms of your own family members being dragged away in the middle of the night, not to be heard from for years, until suddenly they're released and telling you how they were raped, cut, burned, electrocuted, kept chained up naked by their wrists or ankles in a dark freezing cell for hours at a time, fed a meager meal once every other day, beaten till the vomit, and all kinds of delightful things like that, while being interrogated relentlessly for information they didn't have.

It's happening. These are the claims of detainees who've been released from US custody without charge. And if it was your mother, son or brother it was done to I think you'd have a different attitude. You'd realize there are worse things than the pathetic fear that drives these stupid questions about "what's torture".

Enjoy your time here.

[Cleita]

60. It has been proven that torture won't get reliable information.

Trained interrogators know how to get the information they want without torture. It takes patience not sadism.

[AllieB]

79. Exactly, Cleita

This thread is so full of right-wing rationalizations for torture that I feel nauseous. :puke:

[ret5hd]

27. Feel free to use whatever acts you would use on Jeebus Krist hisself.

[Blue-Jay]

39. This thread is torture.

[Jcrowley]

53. All of those

Even tickling. Some depend on cultural context but most Americans have little real experience outside this, if it can be called such, culture.

During WW 2 Italians were notorious for torturing their African POW's. A particular African general refused his men the vengeance of torturing Italian POW's though it was known what happened to their POW's. He said, "They may be our enemies but they are not our teachers." Hopefully the misnamed insurgents will feel the same.

The CIA and the US Military shouldn't be in "these" countries in the first place.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

67. This question is part of a larger philosophical one.

Can evil means ever serve a good goal? Or, as commonly stated, "Do the ends justify the means?" Is there a point where the good is so great that a little bit of evil is allowed? Is moral purity a suicide pact? In that sense, it is a solid question because that is what the Republicans are claiming that the Democrats are doing. They are saying that we are so interested in moral purity that we are willing to sacrifice American lives for that purity. Our answer is that engaging in evil costs lives, not saves them.

As an abstract - purely abstract - hypothetical, almost everyone in a classroom can be brought to agree to any torture if the good is extreme enough. Classroom example: Back in the 50's and 60's there was talk of a Doomsday Bomb. It was even made the theme of the hilarious comedy, "The Mouse That Roared". (Book was funnier than the movie.) Anyway, a Doomsday Bomb was a bomb so powerful that it would end all life on the earth, and it would be set so that if a country was attacked, it would automatically go off. So a terrorist organization is trying to build such a bomb. They are about three years away from completion. What methods are you willing to use to stop a Doomsday Bomb from being built? Is your personal moral purity worth the extermination of the entire planet?

Remember, like all classroom/bull session exercises, it has lots of limits that would not be real world. It was the way some of us talked about the topic back then. With a few beers you could get some wild answers. (Ex: Any planet that produces a species that builds such a device deserves to die before it learns to travel the stars and infect other planets with it's evil. Of course there were counter arguments to that too.)

[newspeak]

93. in my philosophy class, we had a scenario

where some aliens came to earth and said murder one child and we will spare your planet, what would you do? We had to defend our position between the ends justify the means and a universality of main human tenants. If slavery, for instance, benefits the majority of a populace in comfortability of lifestyle and economics, should we enslave the minority? After all, the ends justify the means? Plato was the first to state that something is either true or false. Slavery is either good or bad. Torture is either good or bad. I argued against the ends justify the means because once you go down that road, it becomes easier to condone it-not just those that some may deem terrorists, but for those who are innocent who decry such treatment. Who is designating the enemy, and for what purpose? One may put too much trust in said leaders who have a nefarious agenda. As to the aliens asking for one human child sacrifice, will they ask for more? Will they see that those who would easily give up one innocent will give up many? Do you murder, when a universal law against killing is overceded for one's own interest. Would the aliens see that we can be so easily manipulated to go against our own moral tenants; thus sliding us into a manipulated monstrous creation?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. I'm more interested in YOUR opinion. What do YOU think is acceptable?

And why?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

86. He answers in #68 above. Waterboarding, "dunking" are "maybe"

activities. I guess it all depends on how long the dunking is done for, eh? Maybe 3 minutes is a bit too long.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

95. I wonder if "tombstoning" is on his list

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

99. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sheesh.

[rman]

76. Whatever specific techniques are listed, W&co can find some that is not

listed and claim it is legal because it is not on the list prohibited techniques.

That's why the law is not specific about issues such as this. Same with "cruel and unusual punishment", "plausible cause" etc.
The idea is that the law is effective as long as sane majority is in control over application of the law - in other words: as long as we have healthy democracy.
When the majority becomes insane, or when in an insane minority gets control over the law (which seems to be the situation with Bush and the Gang), then the practice of justice and injustice changes.

Hard-line RW-ers just love overly specific laws. That's how we got laws such as one that prohibits shooting at cows from the 3rd floor of a hotel. There's may well be a separate law that prohibits shooting from the 2nd floor of a hotel.
Those kinds of laws create a myriad of loopholes and are completely impractical - except for those who want the law to have loopholes.

[WinkyDink]

77. Are you helping Bush compose his list?

Why must interrogation mean anything OTHER THAN asking questions, in this case, in the presence of a lawyer?

Go beyond that, and you can figure the interrogator has over-stepped his bounds and is applying torture IN SOME MEASURE.

Here's a REAL GOOD STANDARD: "Which of these techniques would you not like being applied to you or your loved ones?"

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

80. Read through the thread and I think all questions will be answered.

[WinkyDink]

89. Why, thank you kindly. But I happen to agree with Post #84.

I think it's revolting to give any credibility to the fine-tuning of the definition, as per GEORGE BUSH'S WISHES.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

90. No you were asking the OP to reveal his/her thoughts on this, and they

did, in post #68, after a lot of disingenuous dancing around and some badgering.

I really can't believe dude was trying to say that what soldiers voluntarily endure in training that they can end is equivalent to inflicting the same treatment on a captive who doesn't have a choice. It's like saying fraternity pledges getting a beating during hazing (that they can stop, and end the hazing and their pledge campaign) is the same as grabbing someone off the street and subjecting them to the same beating.

I just saw this same argument on another thread. I'm wondering if it's the latest on Rush and Hannity. "But we're doing it to OUR OWN SOLDIERS"

[spanone]

84. Torture is Wrong. I will not argue 'which' tortures are wrong. All are. s

NOw I will gladly hide this thread.

[Nikia]

85. I don't understand why they don't just try drugs

When I had an upper and lower scope, I was given drugs that allegedly kept me conscious and cooperative but rather sedcate. I have no recalection of the scopes. When I awoke, I was talking to the nurse but had no idea what I was saying and had allegedly talked to the doctor as well.
I would think that many prisioners would talk under the influence and not even remember it. While it might be unethical from some aspects, it would not cause the prisioner the sort of pain of the other torture techniques mentioned.

[kentuck]

87. I think an important point to make..

is that we do not wish to "institutionalize" torture. Torture is wrong. It is immoral and should never be stated as an acceptable practice. However, there may come a time, a hypothetical time, when we need to get information to stop a nuclear blast from going off or perhaps something less catastrophic, when we might want some information. So the question I would ask would be: would a true leader stand by and wring his hands and worry about whether what he needs to do is "legal" or not or would he use whatever means necessary, as an individual, to get the information that he needs and suffer the consequences later? And what court of law, military or otherwise, would convict him of any wrongdoing?

[subterranean]

88. I have a simple rule of thumb for this

If it is not something that American police can do to US citizens, we should not do it to foreigners.

Once we start accepting that it is OK to use torture, or certain types of torture, to extract information or confessions from foreign terrorist suspects, it is only a small conceptual step to accepting the torture of Americans suspected of crimes.

[WinkyDink]

91. Is there something about the words "torture" and "SUSPECT"

that isn't self-evident? Are "suspects" automatically to be considered "guilty", even if it is only of knowledge?

This national "debate" has yet to mention that we are discussing the torture of STILL-INNOCENT people.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

92. If you read the OP's posts on this thread, you'll see the detained person

referred to as a "terrorist". Common tactic. We've skipped over the suspect part entirely, even if there is not evidence to charge or hold such a person.

And this is how the RWers from Bush on down do it in their public discourse. "These terrorists don't deserve humane treatment" etc. What terrorists? What evidence and charges are there?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. Don't go giving them ideas... -nt

[SmokingJacket]

98. Those are all torture, imho.

I don't think we should use techniques on military prisoners that we wouldn't allow on civilian prisoners.

A simple test: would we accept it if done on our own soldiers?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

100. Here, it's really simple...

not at all "vague" like Bush is claiming.

Torture is anything we would not want an enemy doing to America POWs.

It's that simple.

Would you want an American soldier subjected to waterboarding?

What about sleep deprevation?

How about being held incognito?

If you would object to an American being treated that way, you MUST object to an enemy being treated that way. Period.

Not hard at all.

[AllieB]

101. It appears that the original poster is no longer here to respond

How anyone could argue for torture is beyond me.

[Jed Dilligan]

102. Ah, after reading all that, the slab.

I smelled troll in his little "lifelong democrat" intro.

[trotsky]

103. There are always those giveaway phrases, aren't there?

:rofl: