Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on September 18, 2006, 11:49:20 PM
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1874823,00.html
The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called the attention grab where a suspects shirt is forcefully seized; the attention slap or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the belly slap; and sound and light manipulation.
Several of those techniques chime with information gleaned about interrogation methods used against some serious terror suspects. The New York Times recently reported that Abu Zubaydah, the first al-Qaida member captured after the September 11 attacks, was kept in a freezing cell until he went blue, and later assailed with loud Red Hot Chili Peppers music.
LOL :rofl
-
CIA must of got them actions off the Three Stooges. Looks like the CIA is now ran by Moe, with Curly, Shemp, and Larry following behind
-
Shouldnt be worried about any moraldamn highground to begin with when dealing with these animals.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Shouldnt be worried about any moraldamn highground to begin with when dealing with these animals.
Well dred supposedly that is just one of the things that sets America apart from many Nations. You go ahead and blather on though.
-
Honestly, it sounds like torture to me. Yea taken one incident all by itself, it's no big deal, but over time there is no term that describes it other than torture.
Everything on that list was given to me as a examples of what the "other guys" (ie. enemy) did to Vietnam POWs, and that I could expect at least that level of treatment if captured.
Hearing that we do it makes me f**king sick, and I just know that it'll come back to us in the form of increased torture used against US servicemen/women when they're captured. We were taught in basic training that the ends do not justify those means, yet now our government is going directly against training given to all US military members, doing things that we've been told all along are illegal and horrible.
So who's fault is it when military members figure that all the other crap they heard was "illegal" doesn't matter either? Maybe rape and murder is ok, since torture is ok now, right?
Makes me want to puke.
-
Originally posted by aztec
Well dred supposedly that is just one of the things that sets America apart from many Nations. You go ahead and blather on though.
Only recently. The last 20-30 years or so.
We've become soft and sqeemish.
Its becomming a glaring weakness, not a strength.
And they know that.
so yea. I'll blather on.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Honestly, it sounds like torture to me. Yea taken one incident all by itself, it's no big deal, but over time there is no term that describes it other than torture.
Everything on that list was given to me as a examples of what the "other guys" (ie. enemy) did to Vietnam POWs, and that I could expect at least that level of treatment if captured.
Hearing that we do it makes me f**king sick, and I just know that it'll come back to us in the form of increased torture used against US servicemen/women when they're captured. We were taught in basic training that the ends do not justify those means, yet now our government is going directly against training given to all US military members, doing things that we've been told all along are illegal and horrible.
So who's fault is it when military members figure that all the other crap they heard was "illegal" doesn't matter either? Maybe rape and murder is ok, since torture is ok now, right?
Makes me want to puke.
Respect
-
when we start slicing their heads off during prime time tele, I'll start worrying about it.
until then, if we have a known AQ operative, anything goes to protect those they are plotting to destroy ... they brought it down on themselves.
cold temps, loud music ..omg the "toture" - what a joke. Toture to me would be cutting their fingers/toes off one at a time while not allowing them to pass out from the pain ...
-
Eagler,
I will have to completely disagree.
Throughout my training, I was taught that these techniques were immoral and illegal. It's so well known that even these techiques will break down a person's dignity and mental health that the US military felt the need to train us specific techniques to resist them. I've seen adults who KNOW they won't be seriously harmed break down, cry, spill their guts, etc. after only 3 days of this kind of thing. And that's not even special forces style training, just the stuff almost everyone gets.
Hell, I accidentally made a guy cry after only 12 hours of shared physical and mental stress without even touching him (oops).
The techniques described in the article when done once, are merely harassment. Done repeatedly however, they can do great harm and that makes it torture and abuse. The US "doesn't do that".
Failing to torture captives is not a sign of weakness, however giving in to feelings of revenge and torturing them IS. And it's a symptom of everything that is wrong with the US that this stuff is allowed to occur and that any American asked to perform such acts does not refuse outright or do everything in their power to halt the abuse of captives.
I am 100% in favor of detaining enemy combatants, however placing them under duress of this nature to elicit intelligence fits the EXACT definition of "torture" and unlawful conduct according to every single law of armed conflict briefing or training I've ever received in my USAF career.
Hell, according to the UCMJ I'm probably required to use up to lethal force if necessary to halt such abuse if I witness it. The law of armed conflict briefings given by our judge advocates make it very clear that tolerating prisoner abuse is a crime.
-
eagl
-
Originally posted by eagl
Eagler,
I will have to completely disagree.
Throughout my training, I was taught that these techniques were immoral and illegal. It's so well known that even these techiques will break down a person's dignity and mental health that the US military felt the need to train us specific techniques to resist them. I've seen adults who KNOW they won't be seriously harmed break down, cry, spill their guts, etc. after only 3 days of this kind of thing. And that's not even special forces style training, just the stuff almost everyone gets.
Hell, I accidentally made a guy cry after only 12 hours of shared physical and mental stress without even touching him (oops).
The techniques described in the article when done once, are merely harassment. Done repeatedly however, they can do great harm and that makes it torture and abuse. The US "doesn't do that".
Failing to torture captives is not a sign of weakness, however giving in to feelings of revenge and torturing them IS. And it's a symptom of everything that is wrong with the US that this stuff is allowed to occur and that any American asked to perform such acts does not refuse outright or do everything in their power to halt the abuse of captives.
I am 100% in favor of detaining enemy combatants, however placing them under duress of this nature to elicit intelligence fits the EXACT definition of "torture" and unlawful conduct according to every single law of armed conflict briefing or training I've ever received in my USAF career.
Hell, according to the UCMJ I'm probably required to use up to lethal force if necessary to halt such abuse if I witness it. The law of armed conflict briefings given by our judge advocates make it very clear that tolerating prisoner abuse is a crime.
Good post.
-
I am against torture. I think that we have too many nameless faceless alphabet soup federal cops too. There should only be federal marshals.
lazs
-
Making the Muslim extremists uncomfortable during a cycle of interrogation does reduce inhibitions in my humble opinion, and I have absolutely no problem with its use when questioning about critical matters, considering that the extremists intentionally target innocent non-combatants, women and children, and use barbaric mutilations and beheadings as a tactic. Its justified because fanatical Islam is the result of a kind of brainwashing. It stands to reason that it would require more stressors to break down resistance to questioning.
I make a distinction between enemies like the Islamists and enemies like those we have fought in all our other wars, where individuals may commit attrocities but it is not culturally embraced as a desireable or moral thing to do, as it is with Islamists.
-
I too am against torture but I do not feel uncomfortable temperatures and playing crappy music loudly is torture.
what about the chair, is it padded or hard wood, is that considered toture? bright lights? where do you draw the line ..
and don't forget we are not doing it for fun but to extract info. All they have to do is tell us what they know and we'd probably set them up in an oceanside villa for life...
looks like the extremists win another one as they are playing by a different rule book and laugh at our softness ..
-
The problem with giving your guy more power is that when he is gone and the guy you don't agree with is in power....
The power will be his and he sure as hell will use it against you. and they cycle of giving up more and more of our liberties to the government continues.....
lazs
-
Instead of being evil and resorting to torture, we should just fire a couple dozen ALCM into this thing when construction is completed.
(http://www.ak-realestate.com/images/burj_dubai.jpg)
See, that way, the stuff they did comes back to them, and we're only responding, instead of setting the precedent.
There is no such thing as moral high ground in warfare. It's an illusion that will cost us dearly. The one who wins is the one who demonstrates will where his enemy does not. The one who loses is the one who starts weeping over the poor broken body of his enemy. Unless we're ready to accept that there are no nice guys in war, we should avoid engaging in it.
The Muslims' lack of scruples, their willingness to go the extra mile and do what we find reprehensible, is what gives them an edge. Our nuclear arsenal, which has been castrated by our moral code (no, I am not advocating its use, I am only pointing out that the whole world knows that we won't), is useless in the face of their IEDs and beheading videos.
-
The one thing that struck me ironic was Congressmen talking on the subject of torture saying they were concerned if we treated prisoners outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention, the same might be done to our servicemembers if they are captured by an enemy.
Show me one enemy we have had in the last 80 years who has stuck to the Geneva Convention in their treatment of our soldiers held as POW! Hasn't really happened, they all ignore it completely.
-
The japanese used to crucify captured american soldiers and cut there genitals off and stick them in there mouths while screaming.... We ended that with a couple of well placed nukes...
The Jihado facists laugh at the screams of a prisoner who is having his head removed with a dull steak knife... Suicide bombers pray to allah that when they detonate thier bomb payload that many children are killed.
We may end this as well with several well placed nukes....
-
No more torture? Damn, What will Jack do?
-
Originally posted by T0J0
We may end this as well with several well placed nukes....
Too bad the enemy is all but sure that we won't. I'm all for proving them wrong, but I think I'm in the minority.
-
and I just know that it'll come back to us in the form of increased torture used against US servicemen/women when they're captured.
====
Sounds like your training needs some revision in light of the Jihad. If your ever unfortunate enough to be captured in uniform by these folks you can expect to be beaten, raped, mutilated and finally to have your head removed in the most animalistic way imaginable. Honestly, you do know this? Right?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Sounds like your training needs some revision in light of the Jihad. If your ever unfortunate enough to be captured in uniform by these folks you can expect to be beaten, raped, mutilated and finally to have your head removed in the most animalistic way imaginable. Honestly, you do know this? Right?
Jihad doesn't hold a candle to the ruthlessness of the japanese during ww2
-
Originally posted by Yeager
.
====
Sounds like your training needs some revision in light of the Jihad. If your ever unfortunate enough to be captured in uniform by these folks you can expect to be beaten, raped, mutilated and finally to have your head removed in the most animalistic way imaginable. Honestly, you do know this? Right?
So what? Are we better than they are or aren't we? Do we deserve to claim rightiousness or not? Honestly, you know this is important right?
-
Your going to compare butchering another human being in cold blood to making one stand out wet in the cold, aren't you. This is what I expect.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Your going to compare butchering another human being in cold blood to making one stand out wet in the cold, aren't you. This is what I expect.
Or marching in the cold....for miles......with no food.....no rest, yeah, ask who went through it, they would call it torture
-
I see, Americans are now the equivalent of the Japanese at Bataan?
Is that your implication?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I make a distinction between enemies like the Islamists and enemies like those we have fought in all our other wars, where individuals may commit attrocities but it is not culturally embraced as a desireable or moral thing to do, as it is with Islamists.
Ever heard about the nazis?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Too bad the enemy is all but sure that we won't. I'm all for proving them wrong, but I think I'm in the minority.
Hopefully you are in the minority of a minority...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I see, Americans are now the equivalent of the Japanese at Bataan?
Is that your implication?
You are missing the point. We held fast to what we believed and what America stood for no matter what the japanese did. That's what Americans do, that's what Americans have died for.
But i'll play your game anyway. You know how the japanese spin it, right?
"Hey, all we did was make them march, what were we supposed to do with them, shoot them? We gave them rice and let them sleep on the ground, we had no other place to put them. We made them march, big deal. You call that torture?"
-
Good post(s) Eagl. Refreshing too.
-
Ever heard about the nazis? - DeSelys
Of course, but you need to go a bit further if you want me to understand your point.
-
I'm in favor of playing by the rules, as long as our opponents do too. Peel them like grapes I say.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Hopefully you are in the minority of a minority...
Well, if I am, then in time, they will reach their desired end. Their willingness to stay the course they have chosen will erode whatever manpower we have left. Our continued half measures will embolden them further, and when they do achieve nuclear capability, we will bear the brunt of their resolve in short order. When they act, they do not ask questions of morality, civilian casualties, or public image. We do. Our quest to be the good guy, even while executing a full-on invasion, has left us declawed and downright laughable when compared to a man who sees nothing wrong with using his full capabilities in a time and place where they will do the most harm.
We CANNOT inject civility into war. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. War is not civilized, was never designed to be, and even with space-age technology, never will be. Our choice should be simple, either engage in war or do not. We have been, and apparently, will continue to try to execute politically-correct 'intervention'. The enemy knows this. The enemy knows that those nation-killing missiles of ours are nothing but fossils. So what's to stop this enemy from continuing to wittle away? Not talks and negotiation--those do nothing but create momentary peace while that same enemy stocks up and prepares. He has a goal, he has a method, and he uses them with minimum forethought. As of now, all we have is forethought, tempered with a good dose of regret.
This situation has progressed well past the point of live and let live. If we must choose who will survive, and on some days it seems that we must, we should choose in favor of ourselves. As of now, I think the average westerner is so saturated with sympathy for the poor downtrodden muslim that he'd rather be overrun than bare a sword in anger to preserve himself.
-
We held fast to what we believed and what America stood for no matter what the japanese did.
====
We interned more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese decent. We denied them their freedoms under order of a Great President who did what he thought was necessary in time or war. We dropped two atomic bombs against cities full of japanese civilians forcing the Japanese to finally surrender before more cities were destroyed. That is what we did. That is what we stood for.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
We held fast to what we believed and what America stood for no matter what the japanese did.
====
We interned more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese decent. We denied them their freedoms under order of a Great President who did what he thought was necessary in time or war. We dropped two atomic bombs against cities full of japanese civilians forcing the Japanese to finally surrender before more cities were destroyed. That is what we did. That is what we stood for.
Are you referring to the US citizens that were interrred due to their race? If so I would not support interring every US citizen of the Muslim religion. I'd be okay with requiring loyalty oaths with their hand on the Koran though.
If you are talking about treating Jap POWs according to the Geneva convention than I don't have a problem with that. Those captured were serving in uniform, and were rightly accorded the protection as such. Partisans and spies (combatants in civilian clothing) were not afforded such protections in most cases by most countries.
Back in those days we held nothing back in our attempts to destroy the enemy. If we approached this current war with the same will-to-win then it would already be winding down by now, although much of the landscape over there would be charred and smoking.
-
if they want to truly "torture" them, make them watch network television on weeknights btwn 7 to 11 pm
maybe they'd have pity on us after that and leave us alone LOL
ppv jerry springer would probably throw them over the edge as well. an eposide or two of jackarse may convince them that we are crazier than them and send them running :)
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Back in those days we held nothing back in our attempts to destroy the enemy. If we approached this current war with the same will-to-win then it would already be winding down by now, although much of the landscape over there would be charred and smoking.
Perfectly stated. We should be as concerned about their landscape as they are about ours.
-
For the nazis, the extermination of the Jews (and the weak) was 'culturally embraced as a desireable or moral thing to do'.
IMO, fundamentalist moslems are as bad as nazis but not worse (is it be possible to be worse than nazis, that is another debate...). Finally, the national-socialist ideology can honestly be viewed as a religion.
AFAIK, your country wasn't feeling the need to use torture during WWII. Why now?
-
Originally posted by eagl
Honestly, it sounds like torture to me. Yea taken one incident all by itself, it's no big deal, but over time there is no term that describes it other than torture.
Everything on that list was given to me as a examples of what the "other guys" (ie. enemy) did to Vietnam POWs, and that I could expect at least that level of treatment if captured.
Hearing that we do it makes me f**king sick, and I just know that it'll come back to us in the form of increased torture used against US servicemen/women when they're captured. We were taught in basic training that the ends do not justify those means, yet now our government is going directly against training given to all US military members, doing things that we've been told all along are illegal and horrible.
So who's fault is it when military members figure that all the other crap they heard was "illegal" doesn't matter either? Maybe rape and murder is ok, since torture is ok now, right?
Makes me want to puke.
Great post eagl. This kinda stuff is what happens when you put people with little or no military experience in charge of the military.
-
i'm against taking prisoners, no prisoners-no one to torture, see everybody happy. :lol
-
In a war, there is no moral high ground. Kill or be killed it's that simple.
I'm in agreement with Neubob on this one. If you are going to go to war, then by golly go to war and no beating around the bush.
I have always considered things like: ripping out fingernails, inserting large splinters beneath the fingernails, physical beatings, breaking of bones, the rack, thumbscrews etc etc to be torture.
From Wikipedia:
1. 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.
That definition definately paints a fairly wide swath in regards to what could be construed as torture.
I forget the actual name of it, the drug commonly known as Truth Serum, why dont we use that instead? Is it not reliable?
We definately need a way to get these people to talk. Just asking nicely isnt very likely to get a response.
*edit* Also from Wikipedia:
Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture. Discussions on this area of international law are influenced by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR). See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.
Interesting.....
-
For the nazis, the extermination of the Jews (and the weak) was 'culturally embraced as a desireable or moral thing to do'.
IMO, fundamentalist moslems are as bad as nazis but not worse (is it be possible to be worse than nazis, that is another debate...). Finally, the national-socialist ideology can honestly be viewed as a religion.
AFAIK, your country wasn't feeling the need to use torture during WWII. Why now? - deSelys
I was under the impression that the plan to exterminate Jews was a secret withheld from the German people. I doubt the German culture would have embraced genocide. It can be argued that the Nazi's were not part of the larger German culture, and only a relatively few individuals knew of what was really going on. The average guy in the Heer, the Kriegsmarine or the Luftwaffe did not know about the nazi genocide, as far as I know.
I'm not so sure that the USA embraces torture. I was giving my own personal views on the topic of denying comfort during cycles of interrogation for Muslim extremists.
As far as I know, Americans generally didn't use torture in WWII because our enemies generally did not either, certainly not the Geneva Convention signatories ( I emphasize "generally" - because of course it did occur, but I don't think it was broadly embraced or endorsed by the dominant culture of any country I am aware of)
I agree Muslim extremists and Nazis are roughly equivelent on a moral scale.
-
Personally I don't think any of the above mentioned items (what I posted) is considered "torture" I don't think any of that is going to get our GIs any worse treatment at the hands of the enemy. There's no such thing as a POW to the hajis.
There is great benefit to being able to break down our prisoners and extract information from them. If this is all the CIA is asking for it's no longer a moral or ethical issue with me. We view the Geneva conventions as some holey document written in stone when the fact is we havn't faced too many enemys in the past 50 or so years that have actually followed it. So why do we tie our hands behind our backs when dealing with prisoners.
A pink belly is torture? Sleep deprevation is torture? If that's as extreme as it gets and it's effective at extracting intel then by all means let leash the dogs of war. It won't change the minds of our enemys except for the fact that they will balk at this....scream deth to emerika on Al Jazera....and threaten to behead every american servicmen they capture (wich they've allways done) as if this is something new. The religion of perpetual outrage will be predictable and be....well.....outraged by all of this when in actuality it is nothing new.
EDIT: this is all done in vein however, by the time the debate is over our enemy will know exactly what we can and cannot do because they read and watch our news and will prepare for it. Its the fear of the unkown that a public debate over this eliminates.
-
I guess the orriginal article missed a few "methods"
But check it out, the Bush regime doesn't want to tell you about the other torture techniques he's devised...
The Faux Shirt Stain: Interrogator points at suspect's chest: "Look, you've got something on your shirt." When suspect looks down, interrogator brings up index finger, tweaking suspect's nose. Interrogator laughs. This grievous affront, a loss of honor in the eyes of Allah, administers massive psychic trauma to suspect. Repeat as needed.
The Urkel: Suspect is locked in room lined with 72-inch plasma screens showing non-stop Family Matters episodes featuring '90s "urban nerd" Steve Urkel. Longest recorded breaking time: 2.3 hours.
The Echo: Interrogator repeats all of suspect's statements in snotty voice...
-Suspect: All unbelievers will fall before the sword of Allah!
-Interrogator: [Flouncing about room in effeminate fashion] All unbelievers will fall! Before the sword! Of Allah! Who is my boyfriend! Pppbbbbbbhhht!!
Interrogator's failure to be struck down instantly places suspect under extreme psychological stress. In case of emergency, interrogator may deploy Nyah-Nyah-Nyah Protocol.
The Complete and Utter Mindf**k: Suspect is addressed directly by unchaperoned female exposing more than 3% of her epidermis.
The Chomsky: Suspect is strapped to chair in room with award-craving theoretical linguist Noam Chomsky. Earplugs are placed on table just out of suspect's reach. (This protocol is considered a Last Resort.)
All you want to do is blow up some infidels for Allah, but these pigs won't let you sit down or take a nap or put on a sweater. If the blasphemers are feeling particularly American, they might even wrinkle your outfit. Or give you a pinkbelly! AAAAIIIEEEEEEEE!!!
-
Among the methods listed on TV just now...labeled as torture:
1.) leaving the lights on
2.) standing for prolonged periods
3.) sharing a toilet with other prisoners
4.) grabbing their shirt suddenly in a way that startles them
sigh...
-
:huh
This is sad.
Torture is notoriously inaccurate and fallible.... you torment someone long enough they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, or they build a resistence to the treatment. Whether right or wrong by whatever justification you care to name....... and I'm a big believer in the DIS-proportional response, but I'm against torture for the most part....... the real fact is that torture is largely inefficient and ineffective in addition to being a public relations and political nightmare.
In a word: It's stupid.
Mechanical interrogation and the pharmacopeia have come such a LONG way since sodium pentathol (sodium thiopental), thiopental, thiopentone sodium, or trapanal........ that combined with a controlled environment, the power of suggestion, a polygraph machine and a capable operator, some time (which they have) and a well thought out interrogation plan, you should be able to find out whatever a subject knows.
There is still a risk to the subject's health, depending on the drugs used and their health to begin with...most notedly would probably be heart problems....maybe respiratory as well..... but it's not anywhere on the level like "water boarding". Probably a bit more expensive as well.... but chump change as compared to information that can be gathered. And far more effective and reliable. You work on the subject's mind instead of their body.
Only thing I can think of is either the people in charge, or the ones conducting the torture, LIKE to do it. They are getting in touch with their inner-nazi. Nero is running the store once more.
(The same people that decided accusing a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, of being a terrorists with no supporting evidence (just kneejerk inuendo), seizing him as he passed through the U.S., questioning him for 12 days, deporting him to Syria (this is a Canadian citizen here) to be tortured for 10 months, and leaving it up to Canada to spring him after their mistake becomes clear, and still claiming that "the U.S. did the right thing". Fear your government lads! )
Are there situations that may require it? Sure, there are usually exceptions to any rule, but I don't see a need to codify it into law. I need to know where the bomb with the 10 minute timer is from the guy who just planted it, I'll shoot him in the knee just to get his undivided attention for starters..... I don't need a law to give me permission.... I'll take my chances later if I survive the bomb.
-
You people are assuming that this is a conventional symmetrical war with a conventional enemy. No Geneva convention protection is afforded any of our personnel when captured by these jihadis.
I am not advocating actual torture by any stretch, however, I am saying that loud music, semi extreme temperatures, and sleep deprivation does not constitute torture.
-
Find out what they like to drink and get them drunk. Be all friendly like and they'll talk. Nothing torturous about that and everyone has a good time. Of course the New York Times would report that in a negative way if such a thing existed and they found out about it.
I think what the left wants is for these detainees to be given a day in court or released. Is this not the crux of the matter, and the torture business a diversion to create impasse? Limit the CIA. The situation will be hold detainees indefinitely (can't do that), kill them (can't do that), or release them (can't do that.) What to do?
I'm all for letting the CIA do its job responsibly as professionals and leave them alone to do their job.
Les
-
Just give them peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches or chocolatechip cookies and I guess they'll tell us everything they know since we are being so nice to them.
I may comeoff wrong saying this, but to me anybody that tresspasses against US like those did or wish to do cease being human. I see them as nothing more than animals and rabid animals at that, and in the case of any rabid animal, you put them down.
It makes me want to puke that the interrogaters cant do what they need to do to get the information they need today when the attack is going to happen tomorrow, but the prisoner who we know has the information, knows that all he has to do is wait because all we can do to him is give him milk and cookies and a private pot to pop a squat on.
My god when is all the liberal lovey duvey, we are civilized and above that type of behavior, crap going to stop? Some government officials need their sign.
***quick edit***
Full blown torture to me leads in death and in some ways I dont want that becasue I want those sorry pukes to witness their failures. I say let them (Muslim terrorist) sleep with pigs for a few days, play loud music, freeze them, slap them, do anything that needs to be done that doesnt kill or physicaly maime them and see what they say. Mentaly they may be a tad screwed up, but they aint dead. They may wish they were, but they are not.
-
I think the term *torture* is being applied a bit to liberally.
I do not consider semi-xtreme temperatures, sleep deprivation (Navy SEALs are introduced to sleep deprivation during their SEAL training early and often), an open handed slap to the face, mocking a prisoner, making them share toilets (how many of you share a toilet with a family member?).....I don't consider those things torture.
-
Number of US service men killed in the custody of Iraqis.....
Number of Iraqis killed in the custody of americans......
And the Japanese dont deny that they tortured, starved cut up and ate and then killed US service men. They just dont like to talk about it. Its impolite.
-
It is not torture in the classical sense...Nor is this war in the classical sense. New war, new strategies, new ways of thinking. We cannot think ourselves so high on a mountain of morality that nothing can touch us, and we MUST not be like the romans or the nazis and see these people as animals to be slaughtered.
We cannot treat these prisoners like we treated prisoners in WW1 and 2, and korea, expecting to have our men and women treated the same. It doesnt work like that with these people. They are from a drastically different culture, and have a drastically different set of morals and ethics. Inversely it would be counter productive to treat them as they treat us due to world opinion. As much as some dislike it, that still counts. We will have to find new ways in the vast middle ground, but for now what we have must be sufficiant.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think the term *torture* is being applied a bit to liberally.
I do not consider semi-xtreme temperatures, sleep deprivation (Navy SEALs are introduced to sleep deprivation during their SEAL training early and often), an open handed slap to the face, mocking a prisoner, making them share toilets (how many of you share a toilet with a family member?).....I don't consider those things torture.
And if Prisoners in the United States were ever forced into the living conditions the Army and Marine personnel do on a regular basis.... they would have a pretty good court case to sue someone!
Military personnel are held to a much lower standard in many ways, and a much higher standard in others, and for such stellar wages...... but if we couldnt take a joke, we should not have joined......
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I'm all for letting the CIA do its job responsibly as professionals and leave them alone to do their job.
CIA .....responsibly...... professionals...... :confused: :confused:
:confused:
Nope....I still dont understand.....
And for those of us that have been around long enough to know better......
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
And if Prisoners in the United States were ever forced into the living conditions the Army and Marine personnel do on a regular basis.... they would have a pretty good court case to sue someone!
Military personnel are held to a much lower standard in many ways, and a much higher standard in others, and for such stellar wages...... but if we couldnt take a joke, we should not have joined......
Not sure what you are getting at here. If you are trying to say the things listed in this thread are torture......re-read the stuff I copied from Wikipedia, none of this stuff is *severe*.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/?GT1=8506
"Coffin-sized dungeon
Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released"
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Number of US service men killed in the custody of Iraqis.....
Number of Iraqis killed in the custody of americans......
Perhaps it wouldn't be insignificant to compare percentages, not just raw numbers.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Not sure what you are getting at here. If you are trying to say the things listed in this thread are torture......re-read the stuff I copied from Wikipedia, none of this stuff is *severe*.
It was a reply to your comment about what SEALs, (or anyone who goes through SERE -- survival, evasion, resistance and escape -- training for that matter) go through compared to the "lighter" treatments given to those prisoners..... military personnel and those being detained are not held to similar standards.
Two different standards... press, politics, and the public will not let you compare them like that.
-
I hope it won't surprise anyone that I agree with Eagl that torture should have no place in the American military or in intelligence gathering, and that there is never a justification for employing evil means to try to accomplish a "good end" - obviously I can use biblical analogies to make this point, but let me use an example from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Using torture in the end, would have been like trying to use Sauron's Ring "for good." The wiser members of the Fellowship knew that there was no using something inherently evil for good without becoming corrupted yourself.
The same is true of torture, the more inured we become to it and the more we justify it, the more we slide into the evil pragmatism that seems to define our age. Also the more we become comfortable with it, the less dramatic is the difference between the worldview of the West and the worldview of the Jihadis. God willing this isn't simply a war to maintain our self-determination, but rather it really is a conflict where good and evil, justice and injustice, freedom and totalitarianism are once again locked in battle. I pray we never come to the point where all we fight over is the freedom to do the evil of our own choosing rather than having to do only that evil that others want us to.
Anywho, I think Rick Phillips (ex US Army Major and West Point Instructor) did a good job of tackling why torture is always wrong at our recent conference. The MP3 of his lecture is available here (http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=83106171727&sourceID=providencepca) but if you are only interested in the section specifically dealing with the ethics of torture, start listening at roughly minute 20.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/?GT1=8506
"Coffin-sized dungeon
Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released"
You guys keep bringing this guy up as if it's the norm. Mistake yes, NORMAL, NO!
It only takes one mistake in the opposite (IE letting a bad guy go) to wreak thousands of possible deaths.
If you think a belly slap or shirt grab is torture you need to check out some jihadi websites.
-
House panel backs Bush on detainees (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_vote_dc_1)
wonder if the senate will fall in line next
-
What is the purpose of torture, again? To gain information? Why, then, are the military chiefs against torture? They need the information. If they know that our sevicemen and women will suffer worse at the hands of the "insurgency" no matter what we do, why not torture? Because it doesn't work. Any intelligence gained as a result of torture is, at best, suspect, and, at worst, wrong. You get what the tortured prisoner thinks you want to hear - no matter whether it is correct or not. I think I'll trust our military on this one rather than the chickenhawks in charge of the government. Of course, given that the military officers are correct and the chickenhawks are wrong, the military folks standing against torture will be fired and the chickenhawks will get their freedom medals (again). Its fascinating that John Warner (who served and is a friend to the Pentagon) and McCain are standing up to Bush on this one.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
There is no such thing as moral high ground in warfare. It's an illusion that will cost us dearly. The one who wins is the one who demonstrates will where his enemy does not. The one who loses is the one who starts weeping over the poor broken body of his enemy. Unless we're ready to accept that there are no nice guys in war, we should avoid engaging in it.
The Muslims' lack of scruples, their willingness to go the extra mile and do what we find reprehensible, is what gives them an edge.
Our nuclear arsenal, which has been castrated by our moral code (no, I am not advocating its use, I am only pointing out that the whole world knows that we won't), is useless in the face of their IEDs and beheading videos.
Bingo! Right on the money.
It was worded perfectly in Apocolypse Now.
"the Horror, the horror"
-
Originally posted by dhaus
What is the purpose of torture, again? To gain information? Why, then, are the military chiefs against torture? They need the information. If they know that our sevicemen and women will suffer worse at the hands of the "insurgency" no matter what we do, why not torture? Because it doesn't work. Any intelligence gained as a result of torture is, at best, suspect, and, at worst, wrong. You get what the tortured prisoner thinks you want to hear - no matter whether it is correct or not. I think I'll trust our military on this one rather than the chickenhawks in charge of the government. Of course, given that the military officers are correct and the chickenhawks are wrong, the military folks standing against torture will be fired and the chickenhawks will get their freedom medals (again). Its fascinating that John Warner (who served and is a friend to the Pentagon) and McCain are standing up to Bush on this one.
show me again where the military chiefs are against interrogation.....again unless you think sleep deprevation is "torture".
BUT, you missed the begining where it said CIA....not military.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Honestly, it sounds like torture to me. Yea taken one incident all by itself, it's no big deal, but over time there is no term that describes it other than torture.
Everything on that list was given to me as a examples of what the "other guys" (ie. enemy) did to Vietnam POWs, and that I could expect at least that level of treatment if captured.
Hearing that we do it makes me f**king sick, and I just know that it'll come back to us in the form of increased torture used against US servicemen/women when they're captured. We were taught in basic training that the ends do not justify those means, yet now our government is going directly against training given to all US military members, doing things that we've been told all along are illegal and horrible.
So who's fault is it when military members figure that all the other crap they heard was "illegal" doesn't matter either? Maybe rape and murder is ok, since torture is ok now, right?
Makes me want to puke.
I disagree with much that you say but on this issue we are in full agreement and I cant see how anyone can see otherwise.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
It was a reply to your comment about what SEALs, (or anyone who goes through SERE -- survival, evasion, resistance and escape -- training for that matter) go through compared to the "lighter" treatments given to those prisoners..... military personnel and those being detained are not held to similar standards.
Two different standards... press, politics, and the public will not let you compare them like that.
My point was, how can you call it torture when we put our own military personell through the same thing? Wouldn't you then have to say we are torturing our own people?
-
Hi Elfie,
Originally posted by Elfie
My point was, how can you call it torture when we put our own military personell through the same thing? Wouldn't you then have to say we are torturing our own people?
I have obviously never gone through SERE training myself, but I have many friends who have. The purpose of the "Resist" portion of the training is to prepare our troops to survive in the kind of inhuman conditions that nations that ingnored the Geneva convention kept captured troops under. It was developed by a Green Beret by the name of Nick Rowe who escaped from North Vietnam after five years without ever being broken under torture. The idea was that we had to realize that countries like North Vietnam were going to ignore all the protocols of war and do whatever they felt necessary to extract information and that our troops needed to be prepared to resist that and if possible, escape. Therefore, the idea behind SERE is to try to come as close as possible via simulation to the kind of torture our troops could have expected from a country like North Vietnam. The point is that we knew it was wrong, but had to be prepared for it. The idea that we would use even simulations of the same wrong methods on enemy combatants ourselves, moves us one step closer to the camp of the very enemies whose methods we decried.
Personally, I believe we should have followed the Laws of Land Warfare (http://www.combatindex.com/law_of_land_warfare.html) to the letter from the very beginning. They identify the following (amongst others) as war crimes -
504. Other Types of War Crimes
In addition to the "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (" war crimes"):
a. Making use of poisoned or otherwise forbidden arms or ammunition.
b. Treacherous request for quarter.
c. Maltreatment of dead bodies.
d. Firing on localities which are undefended and without military significance.
e. Abuse of or firing on the flag of truce.
f. Misuse of the Red Cross emblem.
g. Use of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle.
h. Improper use of privileged buildings for military purposes.
i. Poisoning of wells or streams.
j. Pillage or purposeless destruction.
k. Compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited labor.
l. Killing without trial spies or other persons who have committed hostile acts.
m. Compelling civilians to perform prohibited labor.
n. Violation of surrender terms.
The Jihadis all routinely violate b, c, d, f, G - CONSTANTLY, h, j, & l. The violations above are all punishable by death if they are proven in a military tribunal. Therefore, once we caught Jihadis who have violated the above, we should have fairly tried them by military tribunal, and if found guilty of the above violations, shot them or applied penal sanctions of fixed term for lesser infractions (lets see how Jihad ready you are after serving a sentence as long as say Hess or Albert Speer). All of which is absolutely legal according to the Geneva Conventions. This is exactly the manner in which the US Army dealt with the German "werewolf" guerillas in occupied territory, and which proved very effective in terminating that particular "insurgency".
Instead we are going to continue to fail to apply the above, because presumably we are afraid of the negative international fall-out of actually applying certain necessary provisions of the internationally agreed rules of land warfare, while moving to breach other provisions of the same agreements out of "necessity."
-
SERE training wasnt what I was talking about. We put our Navy SEALs through all kinds of stuff. Things like, keeping them wet and shivering, sleep deprivation etc, all in an effort to weed out those who cant hack it.
*edit* I do consider the coffin deal to be torture, and I do not condone that behavior. It should not have happened, period.
*edit* One more time, it's late and I'm tired lol. I agree with the rest of your post Seagoon. Just clarifing what I was talking about ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
My point was, how can you call it torture when we put our own military personell through the same thing? Wouldn't you then have to say we are torturing our own people?
Simple - exercises aren't the real thing.
-
"When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility." - Churchill commenting on World War I.
Hi Guys,
Well, if there is one thing that the OC does on a regular basis, it is to spur me to do further research I don't have time for. As I went to bed last night, I was racking my brain to see if I could remember any evangelical Christian authors who had attempted to make a defence of torture, and couldn't. So, I woke up early this morning and spent some time doing what research I could into find out what has been written by theologians on the subject of torture.
Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the only strong advocates of the "necessity" of torture that I found in the Christian community were liberal and neo-orthodox (to clarify neo-orthodoxy is not conservative nor orthodox) protestant theologians like Niebuhr who argued against strict moral boundaries founded on scripture and in favor of situational, pragmatic, or utilitarian ethics. In fact, for most theologians it simply wasn't addressed because it was a "no-brainer"; Christians were the people who historically are tortured for their faith, not the people conducting the torture - and that it is worthwhile to note that while the Inquisition may have been conducted in the name of "the church", many of those tortured were tortured in order to break their adherence to the biblical gospel.
Unlike just war theory, no coherent biblical argument can or has even attempted to be made in favor of torture. There is no biblical precedent for it. Even in the Herem (the conquest of Canaan) where the Lord commanded the capital punishment of those nations that had grossly transgressed His laws for centuries (including the common practice of infant sacrifice by fire) he never commanded or condoned torturing the inhabitants of those nations. Certainly we do not see any of the Lord's people in the Old or New Testaments torturing , and that is not because it wouldn't have been useful in ancient warfare. Arguably, in the time before reconaissance, radio intercepts, satellites, etc. torture would have been more useful.
Anyway, here is an excellent summary statement and then finally a link to recent evangelical/conservative Catholic symposium on torture which used Charles Krauthammer's piece in favor of the use of torture as a jumping off point. As you will see, this is definitely a place where evangelical Christians and secular conservatives part ways because Christians are absolutely constrained never to do something inherently evil that good might come of it.
Conclusion
While admittedly, the anti-torture stance argued for here may not satisfy the pragmatist, the Christian must remember that life on a fallen planet does not guarantee the kind of safety, security, and consequences Krauthammer is trying to use as motivation to justify torture. Nor does it become justifiable to break a command based on circumstances or an uncertain prediction of future events—even when the event appears likely. One does not always have to like the boundaries that commands give us to know they are best to be obeyed. Thus, the just warrior engages the enemy within principled boundaries if for no other reason than it is wrong to do so and breaking the boundaries makes him no different than the one he is combating. We worship God, not safety.
In making his case Krauthammer makes reference to George Bernard Shaw’s joke about the man who asks a woman if she’d sleep with him for a million dollars. When she says yes, he asks if she’d sleep with him for five dollars. Indignantly the woman then responds, “What do you think I am?” The answer given is: “We’re already established what you are, ma’am, now we’re just haggling over the price.” What strikes me as amazing about Krauthammer’s argument is that he so readily admits his is an ethic of prostituted principle. In his citation of Shaw, not only does he cavalierly toss aside the foundations of just-war principles at the price of speculative safety, like a profligate schoolboy he has the audacity to claim this is the only path to the moral manliness of his “rational moral calculus.”
One can’t help in the final analysis recall the words of Caiaphas as he argued that crucifying Jesus was the only way to save the way of life the Pharisees had come to love and cherish: “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” Caiaphas was right in the sense that his prediction did prove to be of great value for the many, but this does not justify the ethic under which he functioned. One would need to be perfectly omniscient in order to have proportionalism or utilitarianism be the guiding moral principle. For those of us who are not omniscient, commands and principles must lead the way and shape how a utilitarian calculus is employed. Certainly one could foresee that if employed Krauthammer’s Caiaphas ethic may indeed provide the results he argues for—but at what price? The argument may sound good, but we must be careful lest we forget that this “Caiaphas ethic” is far more dangerous than it appears. Indeed, it can even be used to justify the murder of God. - MArk Leiderbach - Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
The Truth About Torture? A Christian Ethics Symposium (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/torture/)
-
There's really a simple solution to the torture question. Take no prisoners.
-
PS: Darrell Cole's essay at the above cited symposium starts off slightly flawed in one or two of its premises, but I think his concluding paragraphs on the fatal errors made by the "moral realist's" approach to to torture sum up the ethical absolutists argument against torture perfectly . The argument below will probably only have an appeal to the serious Christian or at least someone who believes in natural law, but I think he is right in his reasoning against the use of torture -
Moral realists wish to placate the troubled conscience; thus Krauthammer claims that if we allow torture, we will be able to place limits on who we torture. But once the threshold is crossed, how do we keep from pushing forward? History tells us that it is very difficult to cross a moral threshold and simply stop, even when the reason used to justify the crossing of the threshold in the first place no longer exists. The Allied war leaders during World War II, for example, were conscience of crossing a moral threshold when they began bombing innocent civilians during the early years of the war, and by the end of the war, such bombing tactics became more and more savage despite the fact that Allied victory was no longer in doubt. Once you began to accept an evil action as morally permissible because it is effective for some good purpose it becomes very difficult to quit relying upon it.
Moreover, if effectiveness is what allows us to cross the first threshold, why would it not allow us to push onward if we must in order to save lives? Any law that allows procedures out of necessity is a law made with necessity in mind. If necessity dictates what is legally permissible, then necessity will dictate the limits on who and how we torture.
Krauthammer would surely claim, for example, that we would not torture moral innocents such as children, but the "we" he would be talking about are people who have never lived in a society where torture is legally and morally acceptable. Who is to say what we will next allow once we get used to the idea of torturing people? If the evil of torture is allowed on principle in order to save lives, then why stop with torturing the terrorists themselves, if that is not working, and start torturing their children or other loved ones instead?
Torture can work; that is the monstrous thing about it, as Krauthammer agrees. We are tempted to torture precisely because we can get accurate information from the tortured. How much more good information could we get if we tortured before the very eyes of the terrorists their sons, daughters, wives, mothers, fathers? I for one feel sure that most people could better face the actual physical torments of the blowtorch and pair of pliers on their own person than watch their loved ones even approached with these instruments.
Krauthammer admits that torture corrupts the society that practices it. However, such problems do not worry the moral realist, since the logic of moral realism can accept demeaning our society a little bit with evil acts when those evil acts are necessary to prevent us losing our society altogether. Put differently, it makes no sense, from the moral realist’s point of view, to say that an action demeans society when that demeaning action may be the only way to save society. So the choice the moral realist presents us is a stained society (one that is preserved with evil acts) or no society at all. When the good to be protected at all costs is our society or even our own persons, then its survival dictates what is morally permissible.
For Christians, the kind of reasoning demonstrated here evidences a love for something greater than our ultimate good, which is God. Moral realism and dirty hands moral philosophy are moral tools for those who have turned our society or our own personal safety into an idol. When we love anything more than God, and demonstrate this greater love for a lesser good with immoral acts, we think and act like idolaters. Those who are willing to do evil in order to save themselves have placed themselves above God. Let us repeat: this is a form of idolatry--neither pure nor simple, but idolatry all the same.
Civilized people may have some scruples about the use of torture, although a cursory glance through any number of history books—or even a cursory glance at any evening's viewing of the History Channel—will show that many civilized peoples have used torture frequently and effectively. People torture because they fear the consequences of not torturing—in short, they fear death. Augustine taught that there are far worse things to fear than death—such as doing moral evil. Luther taught that if you feared anything more than God, then God is not God to you. If you are willing to do evil in order to save your life, then you love yourself more than you love God. Moral realists want Americans to accept the necessary evil of torture in order to win the war on terror. Thousands of innocent lives are at stake. But even if thousands of lives are at stake, even if, to go even further, to lose the war on terror is to lose all that we in the West hold dear, Christians cannot do evil to preserve what they hold dear.
More to the point, if we are tempted to do evil in order to preserve what we hold dear, then we are holding the wrong things dear. No real good demands evil to preserve it. Instead, those who want to see a good preserved demand that we do evil to preserve it. But if the ultimate human good is a good that is incompatible with doing evil, then we may not do evil to preserve it. When moral realists tell Christians that they must do evil in order to save themselves, and Christians are tempted to heed this advice, they should realize that they have become their own false gods.
Moral realists like to formulate dilemmas that require we choose evil if we wish to preserve a cherished good. This hinders our ability to formulate other solutions. Those who know that they can use evil do not need to think about how to win without doing evil. If Christians are to support the war on terror, and they ought to support a just war, they need to be reasonably sure that their government does not as a matter of policy torture people in order to get information. Christians—and all those opposed to torture—should be urging their governments to think about other ways to win the war on terror.
Of course, many people are not troubled by the thought of torturing people who would like to see the West go up in flames and who possess information about plans that will light as many of those fires as possible. But we cannot harm people simply because they would like to harm us and possess knowledge about plans to harm us. Certainly we may detain them, question them, and keep them very uncomfortable and miserable, but not torture them.
To torture someone, or to countenance your government torturing someone, is to admit that you fear death more than you fear displeasing God and it is to admit that you love something more than you love God. To torture someone is to betray a disordered love for something that can never be a proper ultimate good. Not even our society or our own lives, as much as we love them, are that good. - Darrell Cole, Assistant Professor of Religion at Drew University
Again, please keep in mind, that most of these men are advocates of just war theory, so this is not an argument in any way rooted in pacificism.
-
Isnt al-jezerra uplinked to a satellite? Given the US technology, couldnt we just overpower the uplink signal and start showing some porn on it
-
Seagoon, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. However, there are two points i think he made based on emotion rather than reason. First, he cited civilians as "innocent". When countries wage war, innocence, is perhaps an irrelevant word. Second, he made the statement that torture "corrupts" a society yet did not substantiate that claim.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Isnt al-jezerra uplinked to a satellite? Given the US technology, couldnt we just overpower the uplink signal and start showing some porn on it
I have a former coworker, IT dweeb, who I am still in contact with, who works for a major pr0n syndicate. He has assured me that an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of hits on the various sites come from IP addresses in the Middle East, and that they are also disporportionately associated with the most...ummm..."radical" subject matter imaginable.
...just saying...
-
Originally posted by AKH
Simple - exercises aren't the real thing.
I'm not talking about exercises....I'm talking about training that happens on a daily basis.
-
Do you think that detainees can "washout" when they can't take anymore?
-
Originally posted by AKH
Do you think that detainees can "washout" when they can't take anymore?
of course, all they have to is tell what they know. easy huh?
-
You think so?
-
Hi Lukster,
Originally posted by lukster
Seagoon, I agree with the gist of what he is saying. However, there are two points i think he made based on emotion rather than reason. First, he cited civilians as "innocent". When countries wage war, innocence, is perhaps an irrelevant word. Second, he made the statement that torture "corrupts" a society yet did not substantiate that claim.
As to your first point, I agree with you, the choice of the phrase "innocent civilians" to describe the targets of allied area bombing during the second world war was unfortunate. Saying that a choice was made to target the civilian population or non-military targets would have been a more appropriate phrasing. Although the area bombing of civillians is also a violation of the rules of land warfare - "a. Attacks Against the Civilian Population as Such Prohibited. Customary international law prohibits the launching of attacks (including bombardment) against either the civilian population as such or individual civilians as such." Before we shrug that off, this corpus of agreed upon international law formed the basis of our prosecution of both German and Japanese war criminals following the Second World War.
As for torture corrupting a society, Cole is responding to Krauthammer's point in his pro-some-torture article in the Weekly Standard. In a portion I didn't quote he writes - "Krauthammer does not wish to persuade the reader that torture is not evil; he admits that “torture is a monstrous form of evil,” which corrupts the individual and society that practices it. Nevertheless, when we are faced with an even greater evil—the deaths of many civilians—we must choose the lesser evil in order to save lives. Krauthammer thinks that doing evil should leave moral traces even when it is the right thing to do; that is to say, our elected leaders should be troubled in conscience when they allow torture for the greater good."
As for the corrupting influence of the practice of a moral evil on society, I see it all the time as a Pastor. The more we do something, and the more we see it done, and view it as necessary part of life, the more used to it we become. For instance, for most people doing drugs in front of their children would be totally unthinkable, but I've seen that once a person develops an addiction, and it becomes part of their life, it becomes more and more normed to the point where what used to be unthinkable behavior is simply a way of life. The debate over torture is really only an issue in societies where it isn't practiced. We here in the states are still shocked by it, but in much of the middle east, Government torture is a depressing fact of life, the people expect it. The more we practice and justify it, the more our own cultural mores will decline towards that level.
-
Gunslinger, first, if we were talking about mere interrogation, we would not be having this discussion, nor would Bush need to change the law. Second, the military does not see torture of real use. Colon Powell is a form Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he is against it. Further, here is what Lt. Gen. Kimmons (Army Deputy Ch. of Staff for Intelligence) had to say about intelligence obtained through torture:
KIMMONS: Let me answer the first question. That is a good question. I think -- I am absolutely convinced -- the answer to your first question is no. No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.
Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.
Now, if the military believes torture provides no good intelligence, why would the CIA need it? I did not miss that the discussion involves the CIA. You have apparently missed that we are discussing torture.
-
Originally posted by dhaus
Gunslinger, first, if we were talking about mere interrogation, we would not be having this discussion, nor would Bush need to change the law. Second, the military does not see torture of real use. Colon Powell is a form Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he is against it. Further, here is what Lt. Gen. Kimmons (Army Deputy Ch. of Staff for Intelligence) had to say about intelligence obtained through torture:
KIMMONS: Let me answer the first question. That is a good question. I think -- I am absolutely convinced -- the answer to your first question is no. No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.
Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there.
Now, if the military believes torture provides no good intelligence, why would the CIA need it? I did not miss that the discussion involves the CIA. You have apparently missed that we are discussing torture.
So why are we having this discussion then. None of the items listed in the first post are real torture and the chiefs listed arent talking about them either.
No one, not even the evil doer BUSH wants real forcefull removal fo finger/toe nails type TORTURE. Those in opposition are attatching this word to these interrogation techniqes to fight a political battle.
This issue has been clouded and dilluded. Interrogation.....you bet your bellybutton the military wants that. The current Army manual defines it allready, yet what is being saught is clerification.
Your response is elloquent as ever yet it's in black and white and fact that no one is asking for torture yet here we are having this discussion.
-
Umm, Common Article 3 has been interpreted by the military since the late 40s. It needs no "clarification." Bush needs the law changed so he can try and torture his detainees, and to absolve the poor intelligence types who were ordered to engage in the practice by this administration. Even though his own military says there is no credible intelligence obtained through its use. Check again on the practices of waterboarding, hypothermia, and extreme sleep deprivation - Bush needs "clarification" because these practices are and have been considered torture.
-
Originally posted by dhaus
Umm, Common Article 3 has been interpreted by the military since the late 40s. It needs no "clarification." Bush needs the law changed so he can try and torture his detainees, and to absolve the poor intelligence types who were ordered to engage in the practice by this administration. Even though his own military says there is no credible intelligence obtained through its use. Check again on the practices of waterboarding, hypothermia, and extreme sleep deprivation - Bush needs "clarification" because these practices are and have been considered torture.
So far all I see here is opinion.....I have yet to see any fact. Care to source what you are talking about?
In one hand I see you saying that "Bush wants to torture detainees" but in the other I see nothing where he or any organization have asked the congress to change the laws to support such a claim.
The whole clarification issue is pretty transparent. You need not look past this thread to see those that cloud interrogation with torture.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
House panel backs Bush on detainees (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_vote_dc_1)
wonder if the senate will fall in line next
What the hell?
"Bush gets deal on treatment of detainees
Last Updated Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:36:07 EDT
CBC News
The White House reached agreement with dissenting Republicans on guidelines for the treatment and interrogation of terror suspects on Thursday.
The consensus was key to the party, just weeks ahead of November's congressional elections.
The compromise agreement ensures that detainees are handled according to Geneva Convention standards for treatment of prisoners and not a more narrow interpretation that President George W. Bush had sought.
The accord, however, explicitly states that Bush has the authority to enforce the Geneva standards and enumerates acts that constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments and cruel and inhuman treatment.
The Bush administration had argued that the Geneva Convention standards did not apply to terrorism suspects and were vague, leaving CIA agents to operate in legal uncertainty when dealing with suspects."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/22/bush-republicans.html
Bush is the one that "fell in line".
-
Doesnt sound so bad. The standing gets boring, and very tiring, and the whole shirt thing would get annoying. Id call the guy a homo for the stomach thing, and the slaps would just be irksome. It would be a useful tactic just because it sounds so damned annoying. Other than that though, its not very 'inhumaine'.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush is the one that "fell in line".
ok, if you say so :)
"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another negotiator, said the deal allows for prosecution of terrorists without revealing the methods and techniques. It makes sure those methods for interrogation don't come back to haunt the United States."
White House, GOP Leaders Reach Deal on Detainee Legislation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215040,00.html)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What the hell?
Bush is the one that "fell in line".
Looks like he got exactly what he wanted with a few exceptions.
-
I always thought that only those countries which LOSE wars have "war criminals" in their midst.
Civilized warfare is a farce. War is the antithesis of civilization.
War crimes is redundant. War is a crime.
Morality? Thou shalt not kill, but it is moral to defend oneself and one's loved ones.
================
I hope we use any and all means at our disposal to win this war, a war that was not started by us. A fact that gives us "the moral high ground" in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am against torture. I think that we have too many nameless faceless alphabet soup federal cops too. There should only be federal marshals.
lazs
Federal Marshals......
Of late, Have again shown me they are nothing more than
political puppets ........
Bob/CHECKERS
-
I seriouly hope that anyone who truly believes that we should use nuclear weapons would take the time to learn that in the current and forseeable future any use of nuclear weapons would lead to about 99.9999% destruction of the world.
Staying on the topic of torture. I don't condone it in any form. I'm at work and don't really have time to do other than state my stance. Maybe tonight.
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
I seriouly hope that anyone who truly believes that we should use nuclear weapons would take the time to learn that in the current and forseeable future any use of nuclear weapons would lead to about 99.9999% destruction of the world.
Staying on the topic of torture. I don't condone it in any form. I'm at work and don't really have time to do other than state my stance. Maybe tonight.
If they are ever used against the US and we have a reasonably good idea who was responsible, in full or in part, then yes, we should nuke the hell outta them and let the consquences fall where they may.
-
Well hypothetically anyone who uses a nuclear device on US soil isn't going to be a world power. The "peace" of the Cold War was the fact that we both knew a nuclear attack would end the world.
Now, more than likely a nuclear attack on America would now would be a "dirty bomb", a conventional explosive spreading radioactive material. This would be performed by either 1) a madman or 2) a religious fanatic. Really no difference. They aim to win by making you try to fight their type of war.
So you suggest we destroy entire parts of the world and in turn more than likely doom ourselves? I'm really scratching my head here trying to understand. The whole point of "nukes" is that you don't use them. Who would we bomb? The country this madman came from? Your willing to punish untold millions for the wrongdoings of the few?
People who argue for "take no prisoners" and "nuke 'em" are ignorant.
-
You interjected a lot of hypotheticals bongaroo. If the US is nuked by Hezbollah then Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are no more. Hope that clears it up.
-
If someone got out their 'Good Book' and read it to me 24/7, while awake, it would be torture.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I forget the actual name of it, the drug commonly known as Truth Serum, why dont we use that instead? Is it not reliable?
Sodium Pentothal
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
BUT, you missed the begining where it said CIA....not military.
This is the most worthwhile post in the thread because it "doesn't skirt the initial topic".
-
With all due respect to Seagoon, whose opinions I respect and more often than not agree with, I found the following quotation from Prof. Cole amusing:
"Certainly we may detain them, question them, and keep them very uncomfortable and miserable, but not torture them.:
Apparently from a moral absolutist perspective, it's permissible to keep detainees very uncomfortable and miserable out of revenge or spite, but if you make them somewhat more miserable or uncomfortable (but not permanently harm them) for the purpose of extracting vital information that could save lives, it's torture and impermissible.
The logic of that escapes me.
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
With all due respect to Seagoon, whose opinions I respect and more often than not agree with, I found the following quotation from Prof. Cole amusing:
"Certainly we may detain them, question them, and keep them very uncomfortable and miserable, but not torture them.:
Apparently from a moral absolutist perspective, it's permissible to keep detainees very uncomfortable and miserable out of revenge or spite, but if you make them somewhat more miserable or uncomfortable (but not permanently harm them) for the purpose of extracting vital information that could save lives, it's torture and impermissible.
The logic of that escapes me.
The logic that escapes me is the relation between "uncomfortable and miserable" and torture.
-
it the difference between flying coach to Cairo or flying there on G-IV N227SV:O :O :O :rofl
-
Hello Bluefish,
Originally posted by Bluefish
With all due respect to Seagoon, whose opinions I respect and more often than not agree with, I found the following quotation from Prof. Cole amusing:
"Certainly we may detain them, question them, and keep them very uncomfortable and miserable, but not torture them.:
Apparently from a moral absolutist perspective, it's permissible to keep detainees very uncomfortable and miserable out of revenge or spite, but if you make them somewhat more miserable or uncomfortable (but not permanently harm them) for the purpose of extracting vital information that could save lives, it's torture and impermissible.
The logic of that escapes me.
The only document that argue for every "jot and tittle" on is the Bible, I've said before that I didn't like all of Cole's comments, but I think on the whole his overall argument is sound. We may not torture them or anyone else, as we are forbidden to do so, both by our own moral code and the Laws of Land Warfare. However, I think Cole may realize that we are not constrained to keep them in the rather comfortable circumstances mandated by the Geneva Conventions. In fact, aside from not torturing them, inflicting corporal punishment, or executing them without trial, how we imprison them is very much up to our own benevolence.
This is because, strictly speaking, our current prisoners are not prisoners of war, neither should they be considered such. They actually fall under the definition for illegal partisans or guerillas and as such are only really entitled to trial and either execution or, if we are nice, imprisonment as criminals. The don't even fit the definition for members of an official resistance movement in that they fail to fulfill the following requirements -
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Therefore in terms of their prisoner status, almost all the Jihadis fit under sections 80-82 of the International Laws of Land Warfare
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
We always opt for the "lesser penalty" of imprisonment and then usually release them, whereas they routinely saw the head off of anyone they capture and then horribly mutilate the body. Personally, I believe it would have been wiser to have simply followed the international rules to the letter and then pointed out to all those complaining that these are the rules all the civilized nations agreed to and which were codified not in Washington, but Geneva and the Hague. This at least would have eliminated anyone not actually willing to engage in martyrdom operations from our likely enemies. The fact that we are big softies who practice catch and release when we don't have to, does not go unnoticed by our enemies.
If the Jihadis want to fight their holy war, they can either do it according to the internationally accepted laws of land warfare as our soldiers have to, or pay the penalty for systematically operating as perpetrators of grievous war crimes. As it is, we have the ridiculous situation of forcing only our side to follow the rules and then letting them do whatever the feel like - but according them rights as if they had been following the rules. That situation simply will not work and will simply make our own soldiers bitter and breed a desire to break the rules in order to even the playing field.
We are attempting to wage war by a system that couldn't even produce a successful soccer game - one side plays by the rules, the other entirely ignoring them, and penalties only being called against the side playing by the rules :huh
Personally, I'd love to see Americans engage in a letter writing campaign to their legislators "MR. PRESIDENT, APPLY THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF LAND WARFARE TO THE WAR ON TERROR!" I think initially even liberals would get behind it, unless someone spoils the party by pointing out that this would grant the military the right to try those prisoners by military tribunal and if found guilty, execute them.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
We held fast to what we believed and what America stood for no matter what the japanese did.
====
We interned more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese decent. We denied them their freedoms under order of a Great President who did what he thought was necessary in time or war. We dropped two atomic bombs against cities full of japanese civilians forcing the Japanese to finally surrender before more cities were destroyed. That is what we did. That is what we stood for.
All this talk of torture, past things done, and what we should do, and you know what pisses me off the most?
The mere insinuation that FDR was a good president.
-
Seagoon, while I certainly applaud your desire to quickly usher these folks into the afterlife (following applicable due process, of course), it is puzzling why inflicting a significantly lesser harm on them in order to obtain information that could save innocent lives is unacceptable from either a legal, practical or moral perspective.
Legally, I really question whether existing "laws of warfare" should apply to conflicts with stateless terrorist organizations, since they all either apparently presuppose a conventional "war" to which the actions of unlawful combatants (guerillas, partisans, etc) are ancillary, or a civil war or rebellion which has ultimately legitimate goals (the seizure of political power in a polity). The conflict with Islamic terrorism (whose goal is forced religious conversion brought about by maximum civilian death) is more like the 18th-19th century campaigns against piracy and the slave trade than a war between nations. I would therefore submit that the purely "legal" bases for refraining from torture (the laws of war) should have no applicablility to this conflict.
On a practical basis, a strong argument can be made that the nature of this conflict and the nature of the adversary may require the use of a level of coercion (torture, if you will) which would not be necessary in any type of conventional war or struggle for political power.
In a conventional conflict, information obtained from torturing individual prisoners is unlikely to be strategically decisive (unless you captured the head of state or similar high ranking person, which almost never happens in modern conflict until hostilities have almost ceased). While such information might be tactically or operationally valuable, there are always alternative sources for tactical and operational intelligence. When dealing with an anonymous, multinational organization with no geographical location and no physical existence outside the persons who comprise its members, there literally may be absolutely NO alternative source for strategically decisive information that is needed to conduct this conflict effectively. I do not know this to be a fact, but I can imagine that it may well be true.
The most powerful practical argument against the use of torture in warfare between nation states is reciprocity (i.e., if we do it to our prisoners they will do it to theirs). However, this argument carries no weight in this situation. Anyone, military or civilian, captured by Islamic terrorists can expect a gruesome, painful and public death, frequently followed by the desecration of their corpse, all under the guise of religious sanction. Nothing we do, or refrain from doing, is likely to impact this conduct or protect anyone from it.
Purely moral concerns remain to be addressed. Interestingly, if there is no specific biblical indorsement of torture, no one seems to cite any specific biblical prohibition of it. In the absence of such clear guidance, if it is permissible to kill someone outright in a "just war", by what calculus is it morally less justifiable to apply physical harm short of death (indeed, in the current case, short even of permanent physical injury) if it is absolutely necessary to obtain information required to conduct that war?
The only moral argument that I've been able to discern is that torture is perceived as somehow more morally corrosive or corrupting than outright killing. This is difficult to accept, particularly since modern warfare relies on technologically advanced, remote control killing, where the enemy are seen as just bright blobs in a thermal sight and films of "good kills" circulate on the internet. It seems far more likely, and more frightening, that an individual, or a society, can become inured to, and ultimately addicted, to videogame warfare than to the messiness of coercive interrogation.
All this is not to say that I believe in torture for its own sake, for revenge for punishment, or if there is any reasonable alternative. If, however, there is absolutely no alternative to obtain strategically decisive information, then it seems to me justified on any reasonable legal, practical and moral grounds.
My apologies to all for the length of this post, but how the Western world conducts this current conflict, and whether we ultimately prevail, is vital to the future of all of us and of our children. It bears discussion, here and elsewhere.
-
New war, new rules.
I like the chineese way form 1000's of years ago; they string people out on powerful opiates and let them suffer the withdrawls over and over again. The best thing about this is that the brain creates pain & suffering way beyond any physical harm.
Getting information from these pukes is exactly like eating at Burger King; you want the burger without watching them slaughter the cow. Let the butchers ready the meat, while the politicians do what they're best at; jerk their pork.
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
Interestingly, if there is no specific biblical indorsement of torture, no one seems to cite any specific biblical prohibition of it.
That depends on which part you are reading (Jewish/Christian/Muslim, they all have much of the same scriptures); the Old Testament is replete with wars and extermination/enslavement of entire cultures, the New Testament is about loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek. I rationalize it (at least I'm honest) that the Christian Bible teaches individual responsibility and actions, not that of conducting and preserving nations. Were I running the GWOT (tm), I would be in a very sticky moral dilemma. But since I am not, I'm sort of in agreement with xMarine, let the butchers ready the meat.
-
Hi Bluefish,
First, I want to sincerely thank you for your posts. While I may still disagree with you on several points, I do want to thank you for taking the time and care to present well thought out arguments for your position and entering into debate in the right spirit. We live in an age where that kind of discourse is becoming rare to say the least and one gets depressingly used to dealing only with people's "Internet Alter-Ego."
I hope you don't mind if I simply respond to the points you made rather than quoting you. I believe that it is critical that we understand the huge difference between torture and punishment as they are two separate and largely unrelated categories. Punishment per se, is not a moral evil. Properly understood its end is retribution and it often has the desirable side-effects of deterrence and restoration. We punish someone whom we know to have broken a law. So in the case of war crimes, when we capture someone who has committed what the international community has agreed is a war crime, we try them and if found guilty, punish them either with imprisonment for a fixed period or death. An example of this kind of proceeding occured at Nuremburg following WW2. The sentence is viewed as the "just reward" for their actions, by their proven actions they brought this upon themselves. Hopefully, others will be deterred from similar actions when they see what can happen. Since inflicting pain is not the objective in Capital as opposed to corporal punishment, generally prisoners are executed swiftly.
Torture on the other hand is not a punishment, nor does it follow a trial. In torture we use pain, discomfort, and terror upon someone totally within our power in an attempt to extract information which we consider to be useful but which they have not willingly offered up. Usually torture precedes or occurs in the absence of any sort of trial. The end of torture is information, not retribution. It presumes that any potential information we extract is more important than any other consideration.
If I can use an example. If a parent spanks their child because they took something that was forbidden to them and broke it, that is punishment. If, on the other hand, a parent begins the process of using spanking on their children in order to get them to cough up the details of whatever future mischief they might be planning, that is torture. In torture, we care very little for the person, what we care about is the potential information and its usefulness to us.
The reason I mention that is that because torture is not a "lesser harm" than execution. When we put a war criminal to death after trial, it is because he has merited his death sentence - that is the just punishment for his crimes. We do not, nor should we execute or torture untried prisoners randomly, as was done by the Japanese, on a whim and without any trial. Sure you might get useful information, but we could also get useful information about future crimes and ongoing conspiracies by systematically torturing our current prison population.
My second point, regarding our current war, the very fact that the enemy refuses to play by the rules argues for the most aggressive application of those rules in order to force them to do so. At no point should we "accept" evil behavior. Currently, you are right to point out that Jihad is a mostly stateless endeavor (This is as opposed to say the 8th century when Jihad was waged by the armies of the Caliph, or the following centuries when it was waged predominantly by the armies of the Turks). However, we should do all that we can to discourage the current behavior rather than viewing it as normal. For instance, in Iraq, the West fought the armies of Saddam, when they were defeated however, we should have made it clear that anyone conducting an insurgency via systematic war crimes would be tried and executed because of the danger insurgents create for the civilian population. In the same way, the USA in Vietnam should have indicated from the beginning that they had no problem fighting uniformed NVA regulars, but that Vietcong who refused to wear any distinguishing marks and who broke the rules of Land Warfare would be tried and shot. Had we done this from the beginning, we might have avoided things like the My Lai massacre that results from the inevitable stress of having regular troops constantly under fire from an enemy that comits attrocities from the midst of the civilian population and strives to be as indistinguishable from them as possible. The insurgents, not the regulars, are the ones culpable for civilian deaths in that case and the only way we can stop it is by treating those insurgents not as POWs but as War Criminals.
Finally, yes you are right, there hasn't been enough theologically conservative biblical exegetical work done on the subject of torture, that is largely because for hundreds of years no one in the nations where post-Reformation biblical exegesis has flourished was advancing its necessity. It's rather like abortion in that respect. We came to that debate largely exegetically unequipped simply because abortion hadn't had any serious public advocates until the advent of the eugenicists of the 20th century.
A few individuals are now working towards it, but by and large the attitude amongst conservative biblical scholars is one of "is this really necessary?" As a result the theological liberals are running away with the show. Anyway Bluefish, give me your thoughts about this initial attempt done by one of the men of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals -
EXEGESIS ON TORTURE (http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/userId__13/vobId__4189/)
-
"There is no such thing as moral high ground in warfare. "
Darnit...you stole my thunder.
-
RVN useda take two up in a chopper . . ask a question, no answer, throw one out ... ask again.
More of an execution than an interrogation.
I'm with eagl on the whole idea of torture .. it's completely against the UCMJ and the CIA is out of line. We are Americans dammit .. and we do not need to do that to anyone.
Get the facts, lock em up, convict them if we can, then execute them or turn em loose.
I dont give a damn if any goofball thinks America is 'weak' .. however I also don't beleive in half measures in a war.
Someone twists the Dragon's tail, they deserve entirely what they get.
I have no qualms about what we did to Hiroshima or Nagasaki .. it was war, and you can bet they would have done us just fine if they could have.
I realize target indentity is the goal in a war against terrorism . . however, torturing prisoners is not the way to succeed.. treating them fairly, humanely, and letting the world know it .. ya think that will generate intel from people in their neighborhood who can see for themselves who is worth havin as a friend and who is not?
The French Underground/Russian Partisans resulted from just that approach. The SS were responsible for creating the resolve to resist at all costs because they used torture openly and everyone knew it.
On a side note:
I get a *huge* laugh outta Sad Sack Hussein .. yassir .. we (the Allies) came Downtown and dragged his sorry butt out.
And that video of his propaganda minister sayin there were no Allied forces in Bagdad, with the Abrams rollin behind him across the river .. in Bagdad .. *priceless*.
Now all we need is a video of AQ, with a few allied soldiers walkin up behind him durin one of his idiot tirades, .. or mayhap a Maverick Video that zooms in on his face.
-GE
-
You should look up General "Black Jack" Kershaw. Now that's an effective interrogation process.
-
Seagoon, thank you kindly for the compliment, and my regards to you also. You have a real life ministry in a difficult location and at a very difficult time. As an ROTC cadet many moons ago I spend a summer in what was then referred to as Fayette-nam, and the temptations were enough to turn a young mans head (and quickly empty his wallet). My experience was also in peacetime, when the shadow of death on active service did not lie nearly as heavily as it does now. Despite your RL burdens, you also manfully attempt to conduct a civil and intelligent discourse (and witness) here in this BBS. My sincere compliments.
Regarding Rev. Philips Exigesis, I found it a bit short of scriptural reference (possibly because of the lack of scholarly work to which you refer) and I must also question the conclusions he reaches from the references which he does cite. For example, he cites Rom. 13:3 for the proposition that the magistrate is given power to thwart evil. Fair enough. However, although I would not presume to parse scripture with a minister, please note (a) the implication that what the magistrate is in fact intended to invoke in evildoers is fright, fear or terror, depending on what translation you favor; and (b) that Miriam Webster defines thwart as to .effectively oppose or baffle and as synonymous with frustrate, all of which imply a preventative, as opposed to a purely punitive, function. Interpreted as Mr. Philips suggests, the citation would seem to actually support , rather than refute, my claim that coercive interrogation is morally justified if, and to the extent, it represents the only avenue to obtain the information required to thwart evil.
Mr. Philips also states, with respect to enemy prisoners of war, Furthermore, as a general rule there is no reason to believe that he has sinned. It is his duty to serve under his secular magistrate, and it is widely accepted that simply to be an enemy is neither a sin nor a crime.
Members of Al Qaeda do not , however, serve any legitimate secular magistrate. They are members of a stateless international conspiracy whose immediate goal is violent death for innocent people and are considered (publicly, at least) renegades in every nation in which they exist. if I understood your previous post on the laws of war, if they were captured in arms fighting for Al Qaeda or one of its surrogates, they are by definition criminals (and, one would assume, sinners) and are worthy of death based on that conduct alone. The fact that the Bush administration has, for whatever reason, chosen to give them the status of prisoners of war does mean that they are entitled to that status legally, practically or morally, or that considerations which apply to true POWs who serve do serve a legitimate magistrate should apply to them.
Mr. Phillips also makes the argument that coercive interrogation would generate a deeper or more lasting hatred than otherwise would occur in conventional warfare. This requires a leap of logic unsupported by any cited evidence. On what basis can we logically conclude the civilians whose homes were destroyed and parents or children killed by collateral damage from aerial bombing either do, or should, bear less hatred than the relatives of terrorists who are subjected to torture, particularly since all terrorists (other than conscript suicide bombers who are, obviously, seldom captured) are volunteers.
Based Mr. Philips speech which you cited earlier in this thread, I believe his views on post-war relations between former enemies are too focused on post- World War II relations between the United States, Germany and Japan (both of whom, it should be noted, faced an immediate danger from the Soviet Union which likely served to temper their resentment of the US). Perhaps he should consider how the Mexicans or the Sioux regarded the United States after losing a conventional war to us before he concludes that amity with former foes is the norm even for the United State.
Overall, I would need to see much more by way of authority to conclude that there is an outright moral prohibition on torture which precludes a "rule of reason" based on circumstances regarding the nature of the conflict and the enemy.
-
Seagoon and Blue, here's an offering from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I see some common ground. I am comforted by both the prohibition and authority.
Also, there's a paper I think you may want to read. "That They Might Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together" I read it last week in my copy of "First Things" magazine.
Dominus Vobiscum,
hap
III. Safeguarding Peace
Peace
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"93 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."94 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. the Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."95
2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."96
2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."97 Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.98
2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."99 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"100 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."101 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."102
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.106
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.107
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. the arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. the short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."111
-
Originally posted by Eagler
House panel backs Bush on detainees (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_vote_dc_1)
wonder if the senate will fall in line next
looks like they did :)
Senate approves detainee bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060929/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_dc_18)
-
Frankly, you guys arguing that these techniques are not "torture" are arguing from pure ignorance. Try putting up with this stuff for 3 days, let alone years, and you'll have a totally different opinion on this topic. Some of you guys sound like a blind man trying to explain why color vision is irrelevant to science. If you honestly want proof, PM me to arrange a visit to my house and in 3 days, I'll give you a thorough education on the subject.
This is why every military member touched by this topic has either opposed the techiques or gone loony and taken it too far.
Some jackhole tries these techniques in my presence and I step in to prevent it, no questions, no discussion. I will not back down on this position under any circumstance, regardless of what some new law permits. I am bound by existing law to prevent mistreatment of prisoners, and every one of these techniques discussed here fits the definition of mistreatment that I've been taught since the first day of my service, over 16 years ago.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Frankly, you guys arguing that these techniques are not "torture" are arguing from pure ignorance. Try putting up with this stuff for 3 days, let alone years, and you'll have a totally different opinion on this topic.
This all depends on which part you are talking about there, some of the things on the list are indeed torture some are not.
Sharing a bathroom does NOT equate to torture by any sane definition, nno matter what the pinheads in The Hague say, and I'd hate to see a serviceman or operator tried under some international kangaroo court as a war-criminal for allowing a detainee to share a toilet or failing to use latex gloves while touching the koran.
-
eagl
are you for someone else "asking the hard questions" then?
another country which would make our techniques look like childs play?
sorry loud crappy music and uncomfortable temps are not torture in my book.
if it takes alittle pressure to get info which prevents a suitcase bomb or any terror attack in the states, sry, but I'm all for it..
-
You're right, we're not REALLY talking about sharing a bathroom or even insulting someone's faith by flushing their religious book down the toilet. I'm talking about mental and physical stress that we know FOR A FACT that will break down any individual over time. This mental and physical stress, even if non-fatal, is torture, plain and simple.
I would be happy to demonstrate this to ANYONE after I return to the states next year. It'll take me 3 days or less...
-
Eagler,
I consider it a moral imperative that we do not participate in or support torture or other immoral actions. As with many other members of the US military, this forms a part of the foundation of my military service. The idea that "we don't do that" is very important to me and many of my fellow servicemembers. After the years of training on this very topic I've received, I feel personally betrayed that this is even a point of discussion within my chain of command.
-
<<>> Eagl
Torturing or abusing prisoners for ANY reason, even to save thousands of lives, is morally reprehensible. It is actually LESS morally wrong to just kill them.
-
I doubt that many would find torture a "moral" exercise. If the life of one of my family members was hanging in the balance and could be saved by my bamboo chuting of someone's fingernails I'd do it in a heartbeat and damn the consequences.
Should we have laws opposed to torture? Yes.
-
That's completely different. You're a desperate man trying to protect/save his family. Not a government employee performing his "profession".
The mere thought of professional "interrogators" brings up images of the black uniforms from the sinister past of 20th century Europe.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Torturing or abusing prisoners for ANY reason, even to save thousands of lives, is morally reprehensible
right, sure ... you sir are in the minority with that thought for that I am sure.
if/when a major US city goes poof and it is discovered that a captive had the info but politics prevented us from getting that info and preventing the attack, this argument will long be forgotten.
-
Not "politics". Decency.
-
I agree that "civilized" nations should not sanction torture. However, I'm glad there are those willing to break our laws, perhaps sacrificing their own freedom or even life, when the lives of others may depend on it.
-
Actually I'm more inclined to say that I'd rather sacrifice my freedom or even my life to preserve our way of life, and safeguard our children's future. A future in a free society where the rights and privacy of its citizens take precedence over their safety.
Let the terrorists kill a few of us if necessary. Let them kill many of us. As long as we don't change our way of life, we win.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Actually I'm more inclined to say that I'd rather sacrifice my freedom or even my life to preserve our way of life, and safeguard our children's future. A future in a free society where the rights and privacy of its citizens take precedence over their safety.
Let the terrorists kill a few of us if necessary. Let them kill many of us. As long as we don't change our way of life, we win.
I think that's exactly why we have troops in Iraq now.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Actually I'm more inclined to say that I'd rather sacrifice my freedom or even my life to preserve our way of life, and safeguard our children's future. A future in a free society where the rights and privacy of its citizens take precedence over their safety.
Let the terrorists kill a few of us if necessary. Let them kill many of us. As long as we don't change our way of life, we win.
huh?
love to hear your definition of losing if you think that is winning ..
-
Originally posted by Eagler
huh?
love to hear your definition of losing if you think that is winning ..
Losing would be living in fear and slowly, but surely turning your country into a police state. The terrorists are winning.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think that's exactly why we have troops in Iraq now.
But you are changing your way of life. Life now is not like pre 9/11. Now people are afraid of terror (a negligible risk to their safety) and allowing their governments (plural - i.e. not only the US) to subvert their freedoms.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Losing would be living in fear and slowly, but surely turning your country into a police state. The terrorists are winning.
in your mind maybe they are, not in mine nor many others
their last victory was the morning of 9/11, they have been getting their arses kicked since
-
How do you figure?
-
Originally posted by Viking
How do you figure?
bodies - theirs vs ours
-
Really? Have you killed 3000 Al-Quada members already?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Really? Have you killed 3000 Al-Quada members already?
I haven't killed any but I am sure way more than that have bit the dust between Afghanistan and Iraq.. the lead aq nutbag in iraq stated just yesterday over 4k have been killed in iraq alone
-
EDIT: This discussion is going where the moderators probably don't want it to go. So I'll just leave it at that.
-
this is what I was referring to:
Al-Qaida in Iraq Leader Urges 'Holy War' (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/28/D8KDTIN80.html)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Shouldnt be worried about any moraldamn highground to begin with when dealing with these animals.
talk like that scares me.
-
Sleep deprivation is not like torture - it is a form of torture, a tactic favoured by the KGB and the Japanese in PoW camps in World War Two.
The British Army was also accused of using sleep deprivation to extract information from suspected IRA members in 1971. Going without sleep is intensely stressful, with unpredictable short and long-term effects. People lose the ability to act and think coherently. And as it leaves no physical mark on the victim, the interrogator can claim that they never laid a finger on those in their charge.
After two nights without sleep, the hallucinations start, and after three nights, people are having dreams while fairly awake, which is a form of psychosis.
By the week's end, people lose their orientation in place and time - the people you're speaking to become people from your past; a window might become a view of the sea seen in your younger days. To deprive someone of sleep is to tamper with their equilibrium and their sanity.
Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister from 1977-83, was tortured by the KGB as a young man. In his book, White Nights: The Story of a Prisoner in Russia, he wrote of losing the will to resist when deprived of sleep.
"In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.
"I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them.
"He did not promise them their liberty; he did not promise them food to sate themselves. He promised them - if they signed - uninterrupted sleep! And, having signed, there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days."
So I ask, if you were forced to stay awake for 5 days, and your sole promise was to get some sleep, wouldn't you tell the interrogator anything he wanted to hear-true or otherwise-just to get some sleep? Wold you sign anythig, say anything, confess to anything?
Just wondering