Torture doesn't work. Film at 11.

Remove all ads!

And you'll miss the point again in saying it again. Torture is a hell of a lot more abuseable than police interrogations, because a police officer who extracts an illegal confession not only gets in trouble for it, but the confession can't be used against the defendant. Further, any information gained from an illegally obtained confession is also inadmissible against the defendant. The public also has a right to know how the police operate, and public outcry is inevitable when a police officer tramples on the rights of an accused. What happens behind closed doors in a military interrogation is classified, so the public only gets to see what they are allowed to see.

Had you served, you would understand differently. Soldiers follow orders. They are expected to follow orders, and it's also unrealistic to expect a soldier who takes a prisoner in the field to conduct an investigation of his prisoner since he has other priorities -- like survival. If torture is made lawful, an order to torture is a lawful one -- and a soldier who refuses such an order can (and almost certainly would) be put on charges for insubordination.

No, NOG, it is always true. Even if the NSA hired every American to work 8 hours a day monitoring phone, radio, internet, foreign news, and other traffic, it would still not be able to monitor everything or follow every lead...and this is completely ignoring the HUMINT side of the equation, which is far more time and labor intensive. Intelligence collection isn't a matter of finding information, but sifting through it. It has been that way since the dawn of the information age, and only becomes more true with the passage of time.

 

Here's something to consider. Last month, two American journalists were arrested in North Korea. They still haven't been released, after more than two weeks now. As is customary, US officials have requested information concerning the treatment of the journalists. The North Korean contact laughed, and replied "This is not Guantanamo Bay."

This is the secondary price that Ragusa was referring to. It becomes difficult to criticise how other nations treat their prisoners, when your own record is far from spotless. If you're willing to torture, you can fully expect that Americans captured by foreign governments are going to be subjected to similar treatment from their captors. And their criteria for what are justifiable grounds for torture may be a lot differnt than yours...

 

This is true with the current American laws that govern our police force, but do you think it was true in the USSR under Stalin? Or N. Korea? Or China under Mao? What you fail to see is that the laws that govern and restrict police interrogations in the US today are specifically designed to limit the potential for abuse. They are there specifically because that abuse is possible.

And someone, somewhere, was ordered to determine who should go to 'interrogation' in GITMO, and who should not. It may have been a 5* general, or it may have been the lowest ranking officer, but someone was given that job. That individual (or group of them if there were more than one) was following orders, but was probably doing it in the least time-consuming and most effortless way possible: everyone goes in one bag. The simple fact that soldiers follow orders does not change the fact that someone, somewhere had to make a decision. There is no getting out of this. The decision was made, therefor someone had to make it. Furthermore, if the decision was made by a person (which it had to have been), then laws can be made to govern that decision.

Who said anything about taking the prisoner there? I'm talking about preliminary investigations into the prisoner's past and associations. There's no need for the prisoner to be there him/herself, and in fact it would probably be grossly counter-productive.

Yes, but the fact remains that someone has to originally give the order. That person makes the decision.

Ok, I'll give you this one, but what are the odds that monitoring a completely random phone call will produce actionable intelligence compared to torturing a specific individual known to be involved?


Aldeth, let's be serious here. Do you really think China, or worse, N. Korea, is going to avoid torturing prisoners simply because they're afraid of what the US may think or say? Your point is a valid one to consider, but it is far more complicated than a simple black/white situation.

 

The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me (For those quick to anger, I am not talking about Aldeth). As far as I'm concerned if it would save one American life I wouldn't care if we tortured hundreds. I really don't care if other countries torture people because of some type of quid pro quo. My reasons are very simple. I have no intention of going to any of those types of hellholes.

The U.S. is accused of "being unpleasant" with people they have captured on the battlefield. Sorry, I am a little short of sympathy for people who are attempting to kill soldiers. Last time I checked we haven't been trying to flush the Koran down the toilet for people accussed of littering.

What these two journalists were doing was stupid. First of all, any American with an iota of brainpower knows there is a short list of countries not to go to. If some reason you do decide to go there, you had better be damn sure that you are following their rules. You are on shaky ground being there in the first place. If they tell you to stop taking pictures, you had better get a box and ship the damn camera home. I don't wish them any harm, but can anyone honestly say what they were doing was "smart"?

Now you will have to excuse me, I have to go to the store and pick up our "Israeli flag" T-shirts for our upcoming family vacation to Palestine.

 

I was being serious. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of looking up a link to the article if I wasn't seriously attempting to bring this issue into the debate. You're right that North Korea is not going to stop toturing prisoners simply because of what the US says. That wasn't the point. The point was that you have no grounds to be critical of how other governments mistreat their prisoners, when you are guilty of similar treatment.

Perhaps this is just an area where you and I have different opinions on what the US should stand for. In a debate on torture, I would prefer the US to be in the position of the moral high ground. When you are willing to torture, even under strict criteria, you concede that moral high ground.

 

The argument here has gotten a little fuzzy to me. First of all, I believe everyone would concede that torture can work. That is, you can actually get valid information from torture.

The part that I think is fuzzy is how often good information is obtained. One example is simply not adequate to prove torture is an efficient or even viable method of obtaining specific information. How often is information accurate and relevant when obtained by torture is the real crux of the issue. A secondary issue is what percent of "good results from torture" versus "total number of people tortured" is adequate to justify such drastic measures.

If torture worked even half the time, I'd probably be on the band wagon for extreme cases (like those commonly cited in fiction -- child in danger, enemy closing in on unsuspecting military members, nuclear bomb about to blow in a major city, etc.). But the fact of the matter is torture provides accurate and relevant information very rarely. We can simply use the examples of GITMO and Abu Ghraib, combined with the failure to stop al Qaeda and the slow progress in Iraq, as "proof" that torture is not very efficient.

So really, what are we arguing here? That an inefficient form of information gathering -- that is abhorant to most of the world -- should continue to be used? Is it really so important one or two lives be saved that we are willing to destroy the lives of a hundred? Why would we continue to torture (as we have in GITMO) long after the obtaining of time sensitive information is even remotely possible?

 

TGS - There's a greater problem with the lack of due process of law. You are fooling yourself if you think all these guys were just picked up on the battlefield. Some of them were turned in by local "informants." If we are both Iraqis, and for whatever reason I don't like you, I may decide to give information to the local informant that you are aiding the terrorists, or that you are a known "associate of terrorist suspects," (Or maybe the informant just needs to make his next car payment). Now you are taken in for questioning. You may have "valuable info that can save American lives." Then again, you may not, and you just pissed off the wrong person. Too bad for you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091202040_pf.html

 

That entirely depends on your definition of 'moral high ground'. As for conceeding the right to criticize, that is based on purpose and motive, not action. Do we criticize China for jailing people for simply reading the Bible? Does the fact that we jail people ourselves put us on a shaky soapbox on the topic? No, we criticize because they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

Aldeth, our difference is that you have decided that there are no right reasons for torture, and I respect that position, but I am still making my decision on the issue.

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, on the first point, statistics covering all US use of torture since we founded ourselves as a nation, or use from other nations like the UK or France, are not likely to be forthcoming. Case studies simply won't cut it. On the second point, the one about how many is enough, I'll bet most everyone here would be uncomfortable citing a specific point to draw the line. Further more, even if we all did, I seriously doubt many of them would agree. Just something to consider.

Unfortunately, it can't. In terms of methodology, which I believe is the crucial point, this is all one grand case-study, as it was all done the same way: badly. If you want to make a real determination, you'd have to do a real investigation. Get evidence from multiple (and we're talking more than 2) countries, under multiple regimes, with multiple methodologies and levels of oversight and accountability. The only over-riding constant I would insist on is that the purpose be only to procure practical information, not to elicit confessions or to punish or to terrify.

This is your conclusion, but it is not the conclusion of the arguement. As I've said above, you are ready to condemn the whole practice on one case study that even the most hardcore proponents of torture I've heard (not that that's very many) admit was terrible.

To put it in another view, let's compare this to embryonic stem-cell research. It's early tests repeatedly showed a tendency to turn cancerous, and not one of them successfully treated the condition it was intended to. Further more, it was causing unrest, occasionally violent unrest, throughout the country because a large portion of the population (I won't say a majority, because I don't know the statistics) objected to it on a moral ground. Further more, there were other methods under research that completely avoided this moral issue. These other methods were already showing promise, but no one argued they could reasonably be expected to achieve everything embryonic stem cells could. They had more practical proof, but less potential. What have we done? We've restricted it, we've monitored it, we've governed it and made it accountable. We have laws governing where, when, who, and how it can be done. We have oversight, and records become public. Essentially, we made laws to govern and control it.

Chandos, another example of how things have gone wrong under the current system (or more accurately lack thereof). Unfortunately, that's all there is to it. It is an emotional appeal, when I am trying to make a logical and factual determination. I dismiss it not because I don't think it's valid, but because what little logical and factual material is contributed by it has already been considered.



To make it clear to you all, what I am asking is, is it possible for torture to be used effectively to obtain otherwise unavailable intelligence when:
1.) Subjects are tortured not on whims or generalizations, but because in-depth research has shown the individual is highly likely to know the information being sought.
2.) Information obtained from the subjects is verified before being acted on, just like it would be in an interrogation.
3.) The torture is conducted by trained professionals knowledgable in anatomy, physiology, and psychology, with the focus on information extraction.
4.) Both those conducting and ordering the torture are overseen by a reasonably responsible agency to ensure the above and any other guiding laws are followed.

Basically, my objection is that the original article advocates a rush to judgement, condemning the entire practice because one group of people did a bad job of it.

To date, the objections I see as valid are:
1.) There are other methods that may be used. (Thus my insistance that other methods are exhausted before torture is employed.)
2.) Use of torture can create more enemies than it destroys, including in the local population. (Is this always the case, or is it situationally dependant?)
3.) There are other information resources that are more reliable. (Here I would like to see statistics, as well as an analysis of the usefulness of the information obtained. Not all intelligence is equal. The location of one safe house doesn't compare to a complete breakdown of the entire organizational structure of the organization, to use extremes.)
4.) I think I may be forgetting something, so if you think I have forgotten something, feel free to point it out.

 

There is nothing "emotional" about the rule of law. Unless you believe the entire Bill of Rights in an "emotional appeal." The founders believed that they arrived at the Rule of Law and the Consititution through a series of logical steps. I suppose you can argue with their logic, since you operate under an internal logic of your own choosing. For most of us the Bill of Rights is a decided fact regarding law and the rights of the individual.

You are trying to make a logical determination in the sense that it is your logic, but there is little that is "factual" about it. Other members have provided facts over-and-over again to you. But you keep insisting that your opinion is "logical" despite the "facts." Ignoring the facts is fine for your own method of logic, since you have provided no facts of your own upon which to base anything. Thusly some of us remain unconvinced and would rather stick with the Constituton, experts in the field, historical accounts and the failure in previous policy. You are entitled to make your own choices in this regard.

 

The emotional appeal was in providing a single terrifying account of a single incident of abuse, when the point had already been proven and accepted. It's like showing the jury 100 different pictures of the victim's injuries, and giving a graphic description of exactly what it felt like to recieve them. It itself doesn't do anything to point guilt at anyone. As to the Bill of Rights, those are the rights of individuals abiding by the laws of the nation. It does not apply to the military at all. Just try excercizing your freedom of speech in Boot Camp if you don't believe me. I am not advocating the use of torture in civilian settings. As I said, I'm even quite leery of letting the CIA or FBI use it in their practices, partially for exactly this reason. Military action, on the other hand, operates under a different set of laws.

What have I presented that was not factual? What facts have I rejected outright? I defy you to list a single one. As to my 'internal logic', it is based on a simple cost-benefit analysis. I would expect everyone here to at least understand it, even if they weigh the costs and benefits differently from how I do. As to the 'facts' others have provided, over and over again is right as it tends to be the same single fact that torture was abused in GITMO, Iraq, and Afghanastan by American troops. I got that the first time it was mentioned, and I didn't object to it. I accepted it as part of my conciderations, but not the sum totality of it. You are again attempting to reject the whole practice because it was abused in one setting.

I have seen no 'experts in the field', only experts in related fields talking about their limited experience in torture. I ave seen no historical accounts other than those from the past 8 years. I have even asked specifically for others. As to previous policy, again, we've only talked about one. That's hardly a thorough analysis.

Again, Chandos, you try to push a rush to judgement to support your position. You try to say that, because torture was misused this once, it must never be used again, ever. To what other area do you apply this same principle? I suppose you use it in gun control, since you and others often seem ready to revoke everyone's right to firearms simply because criminals can abuse them. Do you follow the same course in medical research? How about driving cars, or use of drugs (illegal and legal)? How about sex, or food, or the internet? Should we ban all these things for no other reason than that some people have figured out how to abuse them? Hell, for at least half of those, abuse is practically a natural consequence of it's existence.

 

Did you actually read my post? Or have you read any of my posts on the second amendment to the Constitution? Obviously not. There is one thread, which Martaug and I reached the same conclusion on the link he posted. I suggest you go and read my thoughts on a subject before you comment on it.

The Due Process of Law is applied to everyone. Yes, even those in the military. You consent to give up your right to freedom of speech once you join the military, btw.

EDIT: I have the time to respond to your post more fully, NOG. Last night I was too pressed by the kiddies.

I guess I don't really understand what this rant has to do with my comment. If you read my post, which you cut-and-pasted, you would notice that the comment was specifically directed at TGS, and not at you. He made a particular remark:

My point was that a portion of the detainees were not captured on the battlefield, but instead accused by informants. Hence, the reason I posted the link, which clearly shows the process, which sometimes is of dubious value. I have no idea what your rant has to do with my comment to Snook's. And whether or not you chose to "dismiss" it or not is of little concern, especially since the only portion of it that mattered to me was your disregard for the Rule of Law. That is the point I have with you.

The Founders believed that they were crafting a "nation of laws and not of men." They believed in basic individual rights, which for them were "unalienable." If know what the word means, then you know that whether or not you choose to accept those rights is wholly immaterial. As the Founders explained to the King of England in the DoI, those rights simply "are," and he (nor you) really doesn't have much say about it.

I wanted to respond a bit to the "military" portion of your remarks as well. You do lose a portion of your rights once you consent to be in the US military. In fact, you lose a portion of your own identity as well and you are forced to "conform." Losing all of the above is to force a greater appreciation of what it is to be an individual and to have those rights, which are sometimes taken for granted. It helps to more sharply define why you are in the military and those things which you are defending.

No, I am rejecting the former regime's policy of torture. It was not in one setting as you suggest, but in fact a matter of blanket policy.

I don't think you understood my "postion," which is only the same as the Founders, including General George Washington's stated policy of no torture or abuse of British prisoners during the Revoluton. And this despite the fact that our soldiers were horribly tortured and abused by the British. Washington's policy was actually the more traditional, and hence the more "conservative" regarding values. It was our previous regime which ignored "traditional American values" in regards to torture and abuse (among other things). There is no need on my part to "rush to any judgment," since I share the perspective of Washington and the other Founders and I feel centered and anchored by the sharing of their values.

If you wish to select the "liberalizing" policies regarding the Constitution, the DoI, and basic rights of the individual of the Bush/Cheney regime, and use them as your moral compass, than feel free to do so, but that regime is mere dark history now and the more traditional values upon which this country was founded have been once again restored. Read it for yourself:

You can read the full text of the document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/

 

It's actually worse than that. The use of torture is actually counterproductive on the strategic level. Let's assume some good intel came out of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, the black sites, et al. The damage knowledge of those operations did to us more than outweighs the value of whatever info we managed to extract.

 

I thought it was enough that torture was you know, wrong. That it was something that kinda separated the good guys from the bad guys. All this fancy reasoning and arguments is all nice but isn't it a bit redundant because torture is WRONG.

 

Well, quite. And that's good enough for me. Evidently our traditional values types feel differently.

Who knew that when they said traditional values, they meant the Inquisition?

 

AMaster, you're stereotyping and making general statements about a huge group of people while really meaning to attack a few. I'm very traditional and very conservative.

 

You're right, I'm being rather unfair and imprecise. Apologies.

 

I appologize. I was generalizing you with others, and that lead to a wrong conclusion.

Yes, the Rule of Law and Due Process apply to everyone, but what that law is that is ruling differs. POWs don't have the same rights as US citizens. They have rights, certainly, but not the same ones. You can argue that torture is against current law but then you assume two things:
1.) that current law is right and good on all points (or at least this one) when this is what we are trying to establish in the first place
2.) that this set of laws should be applied to everyone, including POWs and terrorists (a valid opinion, but again far from a universal one)

Joacqin, I ask you, why is torture wrong? My guess is you'll come up with things like: it creates suffering, it is unnecessary, etc. These are many of the very things we have been or are discussing. Basically, we are talking about whether or not it is really wrong.

Again, you are using the same example over and over again. Was torture counter-productive to the US during the Cold War (and I'll bet money we used it then)? Was it counter-productive to the USSR? You present the above statement as if it were a universal truth, when you've actually only shown it for one example.

That's your complaint, T2? Not the fact that he's conjuring up a fearful spectre that has nothing to do with our discussion? Not the fact that he's throwing out a blatantly illogical comparison?

 

While that may be technically true, there is also this:

This is part of a correspondence between Jefferson and Madison regarding the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

NOG - I also wanted to remark that I'm not really sure if you support the Bush/Cheney policies regarding torture. I certainly don't mean to imply that you agree with everything they attempted in regards to this policy and I don't mean to generalize on your position regarding torture and the rule of law. I was not trying to be offensive in anyway towards you in the previous post. I only wanted to suggest that on the one-hand you have Bush/Cheney, and on the other, Washington/Jefferson.

 

no but according to the Geneva convention of 1949, signed and ratified by the united states, they have certain rights, most important to this discussion is article 3

that is why the former goverment of the USA had to invent the term "Unlawfull combatants", so that these rights could be denied.

 

Thank-you AMaster.

NOG, IMO the image of the inquisition is not irrelevant here. Inquisitors used torture to extract confessions that often times were not true -- this is a specific point many here have made over and over again. At some point the person being tortured will say anything to get the pain to stop. The Inquisition provides literally thousands of examples of that point. And thousands of examples where torture failed to extract accurate and relevant information. You may have a problem with the comparison with the Inquisition because it is quite damning to your argument, but I do not. I do have a problem with wide stereotypes being used.

Also, if you wish to use the rule of law, the Geneva Convention would be the governing document regarding treatment of prisoners of war. It specifically forbids torture. In Article three:

Edit: Equester beat me to it.