Torture is acceptable under certain circumstances

[Dreadsox]

Have the geneva Conventions been successful in stopping torture?

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:
short answer obviousely no:
you can look at Iraq with Mr. Hussein and Iraq after Mr. Hussein

Long answer:
I think the geneva conventions have had a important influence.
Now everyone knew that the international comunity dosn't tolerate torture it's sad that the most powerful country violates them and i think that it will have a influense on future wars (hey they were doing it, why should we behave different).
It would have bin better for the war on terror to support the ICC and the geneva conventions.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Sorry 'bout the pun Sometimes these things just come out.

I see your point, Dread, and appreciate the clarification. No, I don't think the Geneva Conventions have been successful in preventing torture. This is because we dispense with them when inconvenient! They're only as effective as we make them. If we had a mechanism in place to hold higher ups *genuinely* accountable (ie, you lose your job if someone under your command breaks the GCs, right on up to the Joint Chiefs and DOD), we'd see it lessen. It would also help if we weren't so willing to look the other way when said HR violators are good trading partners or geostrageticially necessary for whatever reason (Saudi Arabia comes to mind). It would also help if we'd quit trying to block the ICC.

BTW, here are a couple of links for those of us who want to see this stop!

http://amnesty.org
http://amnestyusa.org
http://e4gr.org (Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation--a group I did some organizing for)--no need to be Episcoplaian or even Christian to sign their petition, as they state).



SD

 

[A_Wanderer]

Perhaps the problem with the Geneva convention is that it does not properly define torture, it becomes difficult to put any action that is borderline in one category or another. How do we properly distinguish between Intimidation, Abuse, Torture etc. Can there ever be a real way of defining such things. Can HR abusers be held to account if they refuse to comply by international law. It is very stupid to have a world where the real abusers can decide not to go to court isnt it.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:
right, that's why we need that the US gives the international court (ICC) FULL support.
That would be the perfect place to define Intimidation, Abuse and Torture, the perfect place to force people like Mr. Hussein or Mr. Bin Laden to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Salome]

Have the geneva Conventions been successful in stopping torture?

I still don't really understand it though

are we going to axe every law that keeps getting broken instead of trying to follow upon these laws
because if we do then soon there won't be any law left
or is torture just some kind of exception?
and if so - why?

 

[nbcrusader]

In a way it's the same principle used to justify legalization of drugs - people are going to break the law, let's legalize and impose controls.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader: well at least the people i talked to who were pro "legalize it" had more interesting points.
-It's a disease and therefore the people who are addicted to drugs should be treated like patients not like criminals
-lots of deaths of the drug-dependend people are because of the hygenic problems of the needles
-because of the crime environment they are in and because of the high costs it's likely that they are becoming criminals to pay their depts to the drug-dealer.

Well not one of these principles are good to justify torture.

And i think ai said allready everything about torture on their website ( www.amnesty.org ) which has to be said.

 

[Salome]

I agree with Klaus that the comparison with legalization of drugs is one with many flaws

it doesn't help me to understand why torture should be treated as an exception to the rule at all

 

[Popmartijn]

I think that rather than making the analogy of legalising drugs, the analogy would be more accurate of tolerating drugs.

- Both torture and drugs are illegal at the moment (law + Geneva Convention)
- Apparently, both are tolerated at the moment by governments
- Both cannot be controlled/restricted by the government at the moment
- Should they be legalised, there would be strict rules attached to them so it can be controlled

C ya!

Marty

 

[Klaus]

Popmartijn:
- Both cannot be controlled/restricted by the government at the moment

wrong - Many countries have no problem with restricting torture and also control and enforce these restrictions.

- Should they be legalised, there would be strict rules attached to them so it can be controlled

I'm not sure if i have a lack of phantasy here.. but.. isn't it much easier to control torture when it's 100% forbiden?
if you legalize some torture it seems much more difficult to me to control it.

Rummy & Co decided to tolerate some torture and from my point of view they are just opening pandoras box with that decision

 

[Popmartijn]

Popmartijn:
- Both cannot be controlled/restricted by the government at the moment

wrong - Many countries have no problem with restricting torture and also control and enforce these restrictions.

Then why is it so difficult to get to the bottom of the situation in Iraq. As you said later Rummy & Co decided to tolerate some torture and from my point of view they are just opening pandoras box with that decision, which is exactly my point.

- Should they be legalised, there would be strict rules attached to them so it can be controlled

I'm not sure if i have a lack of phantasy here.. but.. isn't it much easier to control torture when it's 100% forbiden?
if you legalize some torture it seems much more difficult to me to control it.

Here, I'm alluding to comments made earlier in the thread. Make someone (the president/head of state) responsible for the actions. When he knows his position is at stake, I believe control will be much tighter.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm against torture. I was merely responding to comments by NBCrusader about the analogy between torture and drugs. If you want to use an analogy, use a correct one.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Klaus]

Popmartijn: ok, i got you wrong

I thought you ment it can't be controlled by 0-tolerance that's why we should try it to control it with tolerating some torture..

i think i got your point now and i agree with you

 

[Salome]

- Both cannot be controlled/restricted by the government at the moment

Make someone (the president/head of state) responsible for the actions. When he knows his position is at stake, I believe control will be much tighter.

you can only make someone responsible if he can indeed control/restrict it

or you can control it and therefore there's no reason to tollerate it

or you can't control it and then it doesn't make sense to make anyone responsible


I guess that what they have in common is that in both cases you accept some bad stuff because of the good it generates
which brings us back to the question whether a fair amount of the torture that occurs actually leads to wanted results
when you look at what happened/happens in Iraq I tend to say: hmm

 

[iacrobat]

Interesting editorial from the Toronto Star.

I don't normally like this columnist, but I do see her point. But I don't agree that anything in Iraq was justifiable.

Extraordinary measures ? undertaken not by army grunts but by professional interrogators ? can be morally supportable in limited and extraordinary circumstances because, frankly, the innocent deserve more protection than the guilty.

Such circumstances probably did not exist at Abu Ghraib ? although an argument can be made that striving to thwart bombings and mortar attacks against soldiers meets the threshold ? but they arguably do with some detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere in the world where suspected terrorists are being held.

Even more justifiable, and less morally ambiguous to me, is eliciting information by coercive means ? Terrorism Lite, if you will ? from captured Al Qaeda leaders who possess gobs of information about the terrorist network and murderous plots already in the works. It must be acceptable to terrorize the terrorists when the tactics employed leave no permanent physical marks and cause no lasting harm ? whether by sensory deprivation or forcing them into uncomfortable positions for a lengthy period of time or interrupting their sleep patterns.

The rest:

http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/Con...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907621263

 

[Dreadsox]

Sorry 'bout the pun Sometimes these things just come out.

The Pun was histerical.

Salome....I almost believe that torture does have to have a separate set of rules. I believe this because the torture of a terrorist (Dershowitz's example) is quite different from legalizing drugs, although NBC makes a good point. It is different in my mind because the Terrorist is out to kill innocent people and cause terror. The drug situation is very different in that someone illegally taking drugs is extremely unlikely to cause my death.

 

[verte76]

I do not think torture is justified, either. The situation is that you have suspicion that a big shot, namely Rummy, was able to OK "under the table" torture activities. Make it *compulsory* for someone to be responsible, in plain view, so we'll know who's responsible. Who is the who betrayed my country and committed these morally depraved activities?

 

[Salome]

It is different in my mind because the Terrorist is out to kill innocent people and cause terror.

yes, but I have a hard time believing that torture will manage to prevent innocent people to be killed

torture would accomplish something if
- a definite plan and preparations for a terrorist act have already been made
- you manage to capture one of the terrorists who has enough info so that you can prevent it from happening
- this terrorist does not have enough info for the others to give up on the plan out of fear that they won't be able to succeed should he crack
- this terrorist will due to torture tell you the truth instead of sending you on a wild goose chase for limmited amount of time you have to prevent the terrorist act to happen (I can't say I'm aware of how a terrorist's mind work, but I highly doubt this will work)

I would say chances are minimum at best that you will achieve anything except for being able to let go of some of your own frustrations for not being able to stop a tragedy from happening


the reason you mention why there is a difference between a terrorists and other people who break the law is the reason why we are so intent on stopping these terrorists
why we are willing to even 'stoop' to torture to prevent them from succeeding in what they plan to do
but when it's doubtful (and at least in my mind it is highly doubtful) that you will succeed in what you set out to achieve due to torture then what is there left?

the other point would be that when the law becomes abstract - and when you are going to treat terrorists different than every other criminal the chance of that happening does exist - then where do you draw the line?
just terrorists?
or perhaps we should also start torturing people involved in pedophile networks if they don't want to co-operate and name everyone involved in the network?
or perhaps it depends on the minimum amount of innocent people who will suffer due to your plans?



even though I can't have the slightest bit of sympathy for any terrorist and they can just rot in hell as far as I am concerned
it just seems to me that we are crossing a moral line here for some very dubious reasons

 

[Basstrap]

wow....are we debating whether or not to use TORTURE??

sweet jesus help us all

once you legsilate something like this people in lower levels will feel more justified in using it as well. Torture would be epidemic...and not just sleep deprivation.

I feel dirty after reading this thread

thankyou salome and klaus

 

[Klaus]

We had the same discussion in Germany about Torture and wether it is acceptable.

In Frankfurt a Policeofficer told a kidnapper that he would be tortured if he wouldn't tell the police where 11-year-old boy is.

You can imagine that the debate about torture was verry emotional and it's still going on, but i'm glad that the high court seems to share my postition about torture:
Absolutely NO, not even as a "last resort" to save human life. Torture and even threatening someone with torture is and will be completely outlawed in in germany.

 

[Sherry Darling]

It occurs to how how brilliantly Bono nailed this whole thing..

They say that what you mock
will slowly overtake you
and you become a monster
so the monster will not break you...




sd

 

[verte76]

Maybe I'm just being my maddeningly vague self here. I agree with Klaus and Salome. I do not consider torture "acceptable". I just want to know who else besides seven soldiers is *guilty* of these horrific crimes that have already occurred and they are getting away with it because it was "under the table". Who did this ? Whoever did this, their heads should roll. The issue is responsibility. Who screwed up *big time*?

 

[Klaus]

Here is another open letter (dating 7 May 2004) from Irene Khan (ai) to The President George W. Bush, cc Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of State Colin Powell

Open Letter - html version

open letter - pdf version

Dear Mr President,

The world is watching as your administration responds to the most recent evidence of torture and degrading treatment of Iraqis at the hands of US personnel. While Amnesty International welcomes official statements that the allegations are being taken seriously, the ultimate proof of this will be in actions not words. In this regard, your government's record in the context of "war on terror" detentions gives cause for concern, as fundamental principles of law and human rights continue to be violated despite the administration's stated commitment to these principles.

And my favourite part of the letter:

The US administration has denied access to independent human rights monitors, including Amnesty International, to places of detention. We again recall your statement of 26 June 2003, promising the USA's commitment to eradicating torture, in which you said: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors." We urge you to ensure such access is granted now, to all US detention facilities.

 

[verte76]

It's pretty obvious that *someone* is hiding something. Can you say "cover-up"? That's my concern. I'm pissed.