Torture
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Still a problem?</div>Actually, forget about that question mark. Apparently, it still is a problem:
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2019580,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2019580,00.html</a>
<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1795" target="_blank">http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1795</a>
<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/17/1522228" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/17/1522228</a>
I don't really know how to get the debate started. I'm not even sure a debate is necessary, I just want you to see this, because I hadn't seen this (at least not in this kind of detail) and therefore, possibly, neither have you. I realize I'm supposed to provide some sort of introduction instead of just throwing the links out there, but I don't really know what. The contents speak for themselves. Maybe a quote is in order?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport, Padilla, a Brooklyn-born former gang member, was classified as an "enemy combatant" and taken to a navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was kept in a cell 9ft by 7ft, with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum", a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that people are being tortured. It's gruesome, it's inhumane, and it's being applied without a court sentence - and sentencing people to torture wouldn't be justifiable anyway. It's not interrogation, it's mental mutilation. And it's not just a few bad apples, it's organised and deliberate.
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2019580,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2019580,00.html</a>
<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1795" target="_blank">http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1795</a>
<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/17/1522228" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/17/1522228</a>
I don't really know how to get the debate started. I'm not even sure a debate is necessary, I just want you to see this, because I hadn't seen this (at least not in this kind of detail) and therefore, possibly, neither have you. I realize I'm supposed to provide some sort of introduction instead of just throwing the links out there, but I don't really know what. The contents speak for themselves. Maybe a quote is in order?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport, Padilla, a Brooklyn-born former gang member, was classified as an "enemy combatant" and taken to a navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was kept in a cell 9ft by 7ft, with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum", a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that people are being tortured. It's gruesome, it's inhumane, and it's being applied without a court sentence - and sentencing people to torture wouldn't be justifiable anyway. It's not interrogation, it's mental mutilation. And it's not just a few bad apples, it's organised and deliberate.
Comments
Sadly there is a large demographic which is pro-torture.
Kind of reminds me of this recent poll:
<b>Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria. </b>
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html</a>
_
Remember kids, it's either US or THEM.
With US, or against US.
If you don't like it, then shut up, or else you're emboldening THEM.
When politics has degenerated to the mentality of a school football coach, you know something has gone wrong.
ROEs are incredibly tight in Iraq because of fear of civilian casualties. If an insurgent kills a civilian, it's business as usual. If a US soldier kills a civilian, it's Congressional hearing and court martial.
Torture is not an absolute moral wrong. It is useful when applied correctly, and just about every person who is tortured by our government probably deserved it at one point or another. It's not like the Feds are snatching off random citizens on the street and torturing them. These are people with suspect backgrounds and past offenses and known criminal activity.
I'm a lot more anxious about torture being applied to American citizens, though. We have rights (just about) guaranteed by the Constitution that's only suspended during times of great upheaval (WWII and the Civil War, for instance). Any torture by an agent of the US government to a citizen of the US would immediately generate headline news.
I have to quote this from A Few Good Men, simply because I truly believe what the film's antagonist has to say:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. <b>You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall</b>. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This entire quote is why the military and government establishment protects its own. Serious court martials are usually settled in plea bargains with nothing more than a few weeks or months of time and a dishonorable discharge. Working and believing that you are working for the greater good every day is something that almost no civilian can ever experience.
Which is why even the civilians get it, kind of. The media stirs the pot, the public gets angry, and it gets quickly blown over, because these sort of things happen, and deep down, people know that it's necessary.
Yet when it comes to deliberately targeting civilians, it's the poor Muslim countries who do it and not us.
ROEs are incredibly tight in Iraq because of fear of civilian casualties. If an insurgent kills a civilian, it's business as usual. If a US soldier kills a civilian, it's Congressional hearing and court martial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok so since they do things that are wrong it's ok for us to do the same. Right...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Torture is not an absolute moral wrong. It is useful when applied correctly, and just about every person who is tortured by our government probably deserved it at one point or another. It's not like the Feds are snatching off random citizens on the street and torturing them. These are people with suspect backgrounds and past offenses and known criminal activity. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree torture is not an absolute moral wrong, but I don't think we can trust any person enough to give them the power to torture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm a lot more anxious about torture being applied to American citizens, though. We have rights (just about) guaranteed by the Constitution that's only suspended during times of great upheaval (WWII and the Civil War, for instance). Any torture by an agent of the US government to a citizen of the US would immediately generate headline news.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about a Canadian citizen?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is why even the civilians get it, kind of. The media stirs the pot, the public gets angry, and it gets quickly blown over, because these sort of things happen, and deep down, people know that it's necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a pretty big assertion...
Ok so since they do things that are wrong it's ok for us to do the same. Right...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But we're not. That's the whole point of ROEs: to minimize civilian casualties. But in any case, even if we were doing it, as long as they're doing it, there is no moral high ground. Treaties and contracts are effective only if all parties involved honor the stipulations. If a party breaks a contract or treaty, the other party has no obligation to follow as well. Eye for an eye, you see...
Frankly, I don't care about a Canadian if he/she isn't also an American. The Constitution stipulates rights for American citizens, and grants certain rights and freedoms to all else. In any case, it appears that the US government was acting on information from the Canadian government. Plausible deniability and lessening of blame, etc.
And no, my assertion is not big. It's very reasonable precisely because our government gets away with it. It's been getting away with it since the inception of the Federal government. Americans, in general, have a traditional conservative leaning. The democratic party is only less conservative than the Republicans, and for the majority of American history, moreso. Both parties, essentially, are the same.
Isolated events aren't worth anything in the big picture. Frequent, overt, systematic abuse is.
But frequent, overt, systematic abuse is what's going on. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo... we're not just talking about one or two guys here who accidentally got tortured a little. We're talking about thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people having the very core of their being warped and mutilated through psychological torture.
And even if torture were excusable (which I'm not asserting, as it isn't), it is invariably happening to innocent people, simply due to the sample size. Saying that all those it's happening to had it coming (as in they're guilty of some crime, not as in "they deserve to be tortured") cannot be proven and is in fact with almost absolute certainty wrong. If you want to argue that torture is justifiable in the case of guilty people, you first need to prove guilt. But torture is being applied before this is even attempted. In fact, legal procedure states "innocent until proven guilty," which means that just about <u>every single torture victim is innocent in the eyes of the law.</u>
The feds are not snatching completely random people off the street, no. But torturing people merely because they're suspicious is equaling suspect with guilty. Being suspicious is not illegal, merely suspicious.
I guess one could draw a semantic border being intentionally targeting civillians
And high rates of "collateral damage" civilian deaths.
Doesn't change the fact that their still dead.
In any case, it doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not in the eyes of <b>Western</b> law. In many court systems, you're guilty until proven innocent. And in a lot of court systems, it's guilty whether you are or not. This is military law applied in military zones. The same rules do not apply.
Cases like Abu Ghraib involved stripping the prisoners naked and having women in uniform taunt them and maybe occasionally burn them with cigarettes. If that's the kind of torture they're going through, boo ###### hoo. We're not attaching electrodes to their balls or preparing the rack. This stuff is simply degrading their pride.
Oh noes! We hurt an enemy combatant's pride! What ever shall we do?
Guantanamo may be a bit more serious, but unless we're getting to the point where they need blood transfusions to survive, it's still not that bad. Most people who are arrested by the US were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, but the more suspect are held, and the most suspect get transported to Guantanamo. If you cooperate, chances are you'll be given leniency. If you're going to be a ###### about it, you get "tortured".
Fair enough.
It matters a great deal whether they're guilty or not in the eyes of <b>western</b> law because these acts are being committed by agencies of a western nation. We're speaking about the United States of America here, once the LEADER of the western world, not some "rogue state" or "banana republic."
Well, that depends on what western law we're talking about, actually, since in the vast majority of western countries, torture is banned without exception - guilty or not.
Cigarette burns are not part of the torture techniques in debate here. They belong to the school of physical torture. The CIA school of psychological torture, as repeated <i>ad nauseam</i> in the articles I linked, consists of stress positions and sensory deprivation, coupled with culture-specific techniques (the nudity you mentioned serves as an example of this, quote: "They added to it an attack on cultural sensitivity, particularly Arab male sensitivity to issues of gender and sexual identity"). It's not merely about hurting their pride (although that is an element), but about disintegrating their identity and being.
Many of the inmates are only alleged enemy combatants (which are, by the way, afforded protection against acts such as these under the <a href="http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions" target="_blank">Geneva conventions</a>) - often, they simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, looking suspect enough to be rounded up. But as they have not been granted court hearings, there has been no opportunity to prove or disprove this.
So it was fine when Saddam gassed a hundred thousand of his civilians, but when we smart bomb a terrorist compound where they deliberately station innocent children and women around to prevent us from doing so, we lose the moral high ground?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, generally thats not the case where they are taking hostages as shields.
Usually it's just that they are living in a town, that actually has people in it.
They aren't forcing them there at gunpoint.
But if they were forcing them there at gunpoint.
I'd hard say a proper way to disolve a hostage situation is to bomb it.
If we did that with US citizens involved, the public would have the head of whoever made the order.
Plus Geneva conventions only apply to soldiers with a given name, rank, and serial number. If they don't have one, they're classified as terrorists, who get no rights.
I think the US government believes we don't win the war in Iraq until we've killed more civilians than Hussein did. Beat him at his own game, that's the ticket.
anyway, on topic - I'm not sure psychological torture is really worse than physical. Well, they're both so bad it's hard to compare them. I can't believe such things still go on, yada yada. the spanish inquisition never really ended I guess.
I still fail to see how making somebody stand naked while females taunt them get classified as torture.
Plus Geneva conventions only apply to soldiers with a given name, rank, and serial number. If they don't have one, they're classified as terrorists, who get no rights.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In America.
The Geneva conventions do not apply only to soldiers, they apply to civilians as well. Specifically, <a href="http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5" target="_blank">this subset.</a>
For instance, homeland security, CIA, whatever catches wind of a larger scale attack in the immediate (or even near) future. Somebody involved with the potential attack is apprehended. Are you suggesting that we sit him in a jail cell until his scheduled court date and do nothing to try to gather information that would aid in foiling the suspected attack?
Admittedly, I am a big fan of 24, and through the show have agreed with the sentiment that drastic times call for drastic measures.
The health / good of the many is far greater than the health / good of a few.
The articles I linked cover that too: Torture causes defiance in the strong ones, while the weaker ones break down and will say whatever they believe their interrogators want to hear. So you either get no information, or useless information.
That's the big difference between torture and interrogation: An interrogation, while usually unpleasant, doesn't leave lasting scars, and potentially uncovers useful information. If torture uncovers useful information, it will be embedded in so many layers of "satisfying the interrogator" that it becomes impossible to seperate truth from fiction.
I didn't really want to post because I don't want to appear to be all "pro torture", BUT - I can concede that it has it's time and place. Sometimes there just isn't time for due process.
For instance, homeland security, CIA, whatever catches wind of a larger scale attack in the immediate (or even near) future. Somebody involved with the potential attack is apprehended. Are you suggesting that we sit him in a jail cell until his scheduled court date and do nothing to try to gather information that would aid in foiling the suspected attack?
Admittedly, I am a big fan of 24, and through the show have agreed with the sentiment that drastic times call for drastic measures.
The health / good of the many is far greater than the health / good of a few.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that case, if things truely are that drastic, then they would probably break any placed law anyways.
If it's worth someone putting their pension on the line, I'd say that counts as drastic measures.
The only reason US interrogators do things like this is as an aid to extracting useful information. Methods that don't aid in extracting useful information <i>aren't used</i>, because they are pointless.
Inquisition-style torture was flawed because it didn't aim to gain information at all, it only sought to force the victim to say a certain thing ("I did it"). So of course whether that thing was true or not would have little bearing on whether the torture forced him to SAY it was true.
However, military interrogation is a completely different story. Military interrogations have no interest in proving the guilt of the prisoner. They are interested in using the prisoner's information to advance operations in the field. Any information that doesn't advance field operations is quite frankly not very useful. So the classical flaw of forcing a confession doesn't really apply.
Now obviously there are still other pitfalls, such as determining which prisoners actually hold this type of information, and determining what level of inhumane treatment is worth it to save human lives, but those are completely separate issues.
The problem, of course, becomes that torture is useless in the face of a victim who <i>really and truly</i> doesn't know anything. Increased and/or frequent abuse isn't going to magically impart knowledge unto them. Unfortunately, the military has a notoriously bad history when it comes to this kind of thing, to the point where they will keep someone imprisoned for a very, <i>very</i> long time if they think they know something, despite the prisoner's protests to the contrary. Pro tip: if they have anything useful, they usually give it up relatively quickly under the threat of excruciating physical pain. The ones who can hold out for extended periods of time tend to be well trained, but due to the cell structure of most terrorist organizations, don't really know much outside of their own operational activities.
Plus Geneva conventions only apply to soldiers with a given name, rank, and serial number. If they don't have one, they're classified as terrorists, who get no rights.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i thought they were classified as civilians then. but then again, i guess unamerican civilians count as terrorists?
<!--quoteo(post=1609875:date=Feb 27 2007, 11:59 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 27 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]1609875[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm a lot more anxious about torture being applied to American citizens, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
us and them, eh?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Working and believing that you are working for the greater good every day is something that almost no civilian can ever experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.bohemiandrive.com/comics/npwil/35.html" target="_blank">http://www.bohemiandrive.com/comics/npwil/35.html</a>
that strip pretty much sums up how meaningful america's foreign adventures are/have been. greater good indeed. if your military wanted to work for the greater good it'd pick up a gun and blast its own ###### head off.
Atleast they're (we're - UK too) trying. More than can be said for too many other nations, frankly it's embarassing.
Atleast they're (we're - UK too) trying.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm having a lot of trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase with a few less pronouns?
They're terrorists, they hurt you/you're country. Like you really will care for human rights laws when you believe that person doesn't have any rights.