Torture - Does anyone support it??

[tackleberry]

With all the reports/stories of how the White House tried to ease sanctions on Torture techniques, I wanted to ask if anyone on this forum actually supports torture as a means of getting information to help prevent a terrorist attack or to capture a well-known terrorist.

And if the White House did ease sanctions (someone in there does support torture, whether it be Gonzalez or Rumsfeld), did they actually think they could get away with this without anyone knowing? I mean come on...

So, whether your right or left, do you support this? And my god, why?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Certainly not, it has no place in a decent government.

 

[drhark]

an argument like this cannot proceed without a commonly accepted definition of torture. There are psychological interrogation techniques, sexual and religious humiliation, physical abuse, sleep deprivation.

Another question up to debate is what works and what doesn't. The goal is to extract valuable information about what the detainee knows.

Of course nobody agrees we should engage in gratuitous torture or punishment. But there is a damn good reason for utilizing techniques for obtaining information. So a discussion is in order as to where the line is drawn

 

[all_i_want]

id define torture as anything that brings harm to an individual's psychological or physical integrity. that definition obviously includes sexual, religious humiliation and physical abuse.

 

[Do Miss America]

an argument like this cannot proceed without a commonly accepted definition of torture. There are psychological interrogation techniques, sexual and religious humiliation, physical abuse, sleep deprivation.

Another question up to debate is what works and what doesn't. The goal is to extract valuable information about what the detainee knows.

Of course nobody agrees we should engage in gratuitous torture or punishment. But there is a damn good reason for utilizing techniques for obtaining information. So a discussion is in order as to where the line is drawn

I agree a definition of where the line is, is needed for this debate to go further.

 

[strannix]

an argument like this cannot proceed without a commonly accepted definition of torture. There are psychological interrogation techniques, sexual and religious humiliation, physical abuse, sleep deprivation.

Lucky for us, we have a pretty good definition. From the Geneva Conventions:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

[Irvine511]

do we not need to rethink some aspects of the Geneva Conventions?

should Al-Qaeda soldiers/terrorists -- who are young men from a variety of Muslim nations from Chechnya to Yemen to Morocco and have no national loyalty, are not conscripts, and do not wear the uniform of any particular nation, and are not working to advance the military goals of a nation but the advancement of a rather apocalyptic worldview -- be treated to the same standards laid out to protect members of the German army during Wolrd War 2?

this is not to say that because someone is an Al-Qaeda member, you can do whatever you want -- no one should exist in a legal netherworld with no rules regarding their treatment (which, come to think of it, sounds like GITMO). but do we need to rethink these old rules to apply to 21st century threats?

just some food for thougth ....

 

[drhark]

I see the word torture within in the definition, so it can't be the definition itself. If it were a definition, it's pretty vague and open to a broad interpretation. like the Bible, Koran or Constitution

 

[Do Miss America]

do we not need to rethink some aspects of the Geneva Conventions?

should Al-Qaeda soldiers/terrorists -- who are young men from a variety of Muslim nations from Chechnya to Yemen to Morocco and have no national loyalty, are not conscripts, and do not wear the uniform of any particular nation, and are not working to advance the military goals of a nation but the advancement of a rather apocalyptic worldview -- be treated to the same standards laid out to protect members of the German army during Wolrd War 2?

this is not to say that because someone is an Al-Qaeda member, you can do whatever you want -- no one should exist in a legal netherworld with no rules regarding their treatment (which, come to think of it, sounds like GITMO). but do we need to rethink these old rules to apply to 21st century threats?

just some food for thougth ....

So are you saying the definition of torture depends on the enemy?

 

[Irvine511]

So are you saying the definition of torture depends on the enemy?

i'm not saying much of anything, other than that we need to ask ourselves if the Geneva Convention is applicable to the 21st century.

it might be, i just think it's something to be discussed.

and perhaps it does depend on the enemy -- is there a difference between a German farmer who was drafted, and Yemeni who voluntarily joined a roving group of international terrorists?

are these important distinctions to be made?

discuss. that's all i'm saying. i have no idea what to think -- i wouldn't venture an actual opinion just yet.

 

[Do Miss America]

The enemy may be different but our moral code and humanity shouldn't change.

 

[strannix]

do we not need to rethink some aspects of the Geneva Conventions?

should Al-Qaeda soldiers/terrorists -- who are young men from a variety of Muslim nations from Chechnya to Yemen to Morocco and have no national loyalty, are not conscripts, and do not wear the uniform of any particular nation, and are not working to advance the military goals of a nation but the advancement of a rather apocalyptic worldview -- be treated to the same standards laid out to protect members of the German army during Wolrd War 2?

this is not to say that because someone is an Al-Qaeda member, you can do whatever you want -- no one should exist in a legal netherworld with no rules regarding their treatment (which, come to think of it, sounds like GITMO). but do we need to rethink these old rules to apply to 21st century threats?

just some food for thougth ....

No, I don't think they need to be rethought. Any questions we have now about their viability were just as relevant when they were adopted. These rules were set to protect human dignity; questions about the official status of prisoners are merely academic and beside the point.

But that's not the point I was trying to make. I was merely providing a commonly accepted definition of torture.

 

[strannix]

I see the word torture within in the definition, so it can't be the definition itself. If it were a definition, it's pretty vague and open to a broad interpretation. like the Bible, Koran or Constitution

It's not really open to broad interpretation unless you're very eager to find loopholes. It says no violence, no humilation, no hostages and no executions. Seems clear enough to me.

 

[drhark]

I agree that the application of the Geneva convention is not the same for all combatants.
Our moral code and humanity is not one and the same as the Geneva Convention. So I believe we can abide by our moral code and humanity outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention

 

[strannix]

I agree that the application of the Geneva convention is not the same for all combatants.
Our moral code and humanity is not one and the same as the Geneva Convention. So I believe we can abide by our moral code and humanity outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention

Well, the problem is that since it was ratified by Congress, the Geneva Conventions carry the full weight of US law. It's not like we can just decide not to abide by them, or throw out the parts we don't like.

If we want to change it, that's a case we have to make to the world.

 

[drhark]

It's not really open to broad interpretation unless you're very eager to find loopholes. It says no violence, no humilation, no hostages and no executions. Seems clear enough to me.

I was referring to parts a and c specifically : (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

Again, part a references torture, which can be broadly interptreted. Thus the debate. Also terms like outrages, humiliating, and cruel treatment can be broadly interpreted

 

[verte76]

I feel safe in saying that no, I don't support torture under any circumstances whatever.

 

[drhark]

Well, the problem is that since it was ratified by Congress, the Geneva Conventions carry the full weight of US law. It's not like we can just decide not to abide by them, or throw out the parts we don't like.

If we want to change it, that's a case we have to make to the world.

In the case of Al Queda, The Geneva Convention is not applicable at all. So in this case we throw it out the window. Again, this doesn't mean we throw our moral code and humanity out the window. If we need to get together and create a Geneva Convention II for the 21st century, that's fine. I think it would be very difficult getting everyone to agree to the terms though

 

[cardosino]

I feel safe in saying that no, I don't support torture under any circumstances whatever.

Even If one guy is known to have info that could save millions, including you and your family if he gives it up ?

 

[Irvine511]

one issue i have with torture is that it simply doesn't work. people will say anything to get you to stop, they'll tell you what you want to hear.

one other thing to consider is that, with AQ members, they really dont' care if they die or not. that's part of the ethos.

 

[drhark]

Even If one guy is known to have info that could save millions, including you and your family if he gives it up ?

Aside from opinions on and definitions of torture, I'll bet there are situations, such as the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the details of which we will never know.

I think i heard that he talked. How they got him to is anyone's guess.

 

[nbcrusader]

id define torture as anything that brings harm to an individual's psychological or physical integrity. that definition obviously includes sexual, religious humiliation and physical abuse.

Under this definition, FYM is torture.

 

[Irvine511]

Under this definition, FYM is torture.

 

[drhark]

Under this definition, FYM is torture.

It's also addictive, so I'm going to just say no and get back to work

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Under this definition, FYM is torture.

At times, it might be challenging or heated up, but let's face it, we have a choice to participate in FYM. Even if these prisoners are guilty of war crimes, the abuses I have heard of are sick, they have been the images that represent our country (especially to the Mid-East), and they will take years to live down. Nobody in here is stripping off our clothing just because they don't like where we come from - among horrifyingly worse atrocities, and I would hope that we can all distinguish torture apart from an FYM discussion.

I for one find it hard to believe that forcing prisoners to denounce their belief system will save millions of people.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Whoops, double post.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If its a right here and now situation and absolutely no time to get the information then I would break a finger to get information.

If it was a longer term thing then I would pump them full of barbituates, use temprature changes, bright lights, loud music and sleep modification (they get to sleep but the times are altered - its not the same as deprivation which drives people insane) - I do not think that this is violating a moral code, saving lives is the name of the game.

 

[BVS]

If its a right here and now situation and absolutely no time to get the information then I would break a finger to get information.

If it was a longer term thing then I would pump them full of barbituates, use temprature changes, bright lights, loud music and sleep modification (they get to sleep but the times are altered - its not the same as deprivation which drives people insane) - I do not think that this is violating a moral code, saving lives is the name of the game.

Been watching 24 lately?

 

[Irvine511]

wow, twice in one thread, and a thread about *torture* to boot, but i am still...

 

[verte76]

Even If one guy is known to have info that could save millions, including you and your family if he gives it up ?

Torture doesn't work because they'll say anything to make it stop, including stuff that's not true. So no, not even then because it might be completely false.