Pentagon explicitly approves Torture

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jan 20 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]378251[/snapback]</div>

I'd love to hear the answer to that one, too, but I'm not holding my breath. Who would Jesus torture?

 

I have brought this up before. The issue is , What is your definition of torture? Personally, if it does not cause physical injury nor long term psychological injury (with, I am sure, a few well specified exceptions) it is NOT torture. The photo above...not torture I'm afraid....undignified, yes, improper , yes, torture...NO!!!!!

And police officers are ALLOWED to lie to suspects.

 

Torture is ok. It says so in the bible, plus there's no commandment, thou shalt not torture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jan 20 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]378361[/snapback]</div>

The caption written on the back of that photo, by those who staged it http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/...pter_4/20.html:

11:04 p.m., Nov. 4, 2003. Placed in this position by HARMAN and FREDERICK. Both took pictures as a joke. Instructed if moved would be electrocuted.

Not torture? Fall off this box and you'll die. Not torture?

Torture is an excellent recruiting tool for terrorists and an excellent way to extract false confessions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 20 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]378382[/snapback]</div>

Maybe in a psychological sense. And psychological coercion can be torture under most of the definitions I've read.

Which makes me wonder, is the "deal" between the DA and one murderer to save his life if he rats out his friend a kind of torture?

What about the insults hurled here in FHOP? They are intended to cause psychological harm. Are they torture?

From a moral standpoint, I think torture would be appropriate only in very limited circumstances, the "hidden bomb" exception, where extracting a piece of information can save many other lives. But even then, you certainly run the risk of abuse, as the "review" of such an act is always after the fact. So the torture conducted should be non-marring, and not permanent (such as water boarding), and then used only rarely, where the moral standard (harming one to save many others) can apply.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 20 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]378504[/snapback]</div>

Obviously, not all psychological coercion is torture -- although I would deem one coercion and one manipulation. Coercion when then threat of death/disfigurment is involved (wire, dog will bite off your face, etc), manipulation when lying to extract information (police, flamebaiting in FHOP). The Iraqis have seen plenty of other Iraqis killed by Americans, so the coercive threat is very real; i.e., they have little reason to doubt it. In a war where supposedly peace depends on winning over the local populace, the coercive threat seems a losing strategy. It works wonderfully for extracting false information. The Soviets used it spendedly for show trials and the extraction of false confessions. Waterboarding was used extensively by the Khmer Rouge for that purpose ( http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/..._is_what_wa.php ). But for Iraq, IMO it is a strategy that will create more terrorists/insurgents than it in fact reveals.

The US used to have a certain moral authority in the world, but excepting ourselves from the Geneva conventions and allowing torture (with the occasional resultant deaths, from beatings, from being covered in ice water and left alone and then freezing to death) feeds directly into the propaganda of our enemies.

This is exacerbated by our using outside contractors for such interrogation operations whose qualifications are frankly unknown. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...0,6476999.story

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jan 20 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]378361[/snapback]</div>

I'd consider this to be torture (warning: rather graphic photos).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jan 20 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]378361[/snapback]</div>

So if I can cause you pain without causing physical injury or psychological injury, I'm good.

Raise your hand if you can think of a way to cause pain without physical or psychological injury. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I can think of several.

And I am against torture, by anyone's definition. Especially our Fascist government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 20 2007, 11:31 PM) [snapback]378525[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and sad to say, could that be some of the reason that the "insurgency" is wanting us out of their country?

I'm kind of surprised folks would debate whether or not it's torture. To the person above who didn't think it was torture: if someone kidnapped you out of your nice house or whatever, wired you up to the 220 and put you on a wooden box for a few hours with a hood on your head and made you think you'll die if you step off, you'd laugh it off as a practical joke? What about "naked human pyramid"? Or the "light stick trick"? But I digress...

In a way, though, perhaps the Abu Ghraib photos got us off topic, and for that I apologize. After all, you can debate whether that torture incident was officially sanctioned by the powers that be, or whatever. But now that we as a nation have officially decided that torture is ok, how do you feel about it?

 

I think it says a lot about the values of those who have been in charge for the last six years.

We'll see what can be done to change that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 20 2007, 09:15 PM) [snapback]378550[/snapback]</div>

Abu Ghraib was not sanctioned torture, so I'm glad you clarified that. In fact, we prosecuted those found responsible, and I know of 9 sentences handed out. There were also some reductions in grade for officers who should have known what was going on, but didn't, and a career of a female general (IIRC) that was short circuited because it happened under her command.

Spc. Sabrina Harman, the woman who was part of the "humiliation" side of the incidents like the naked pyramid (in fact, she is in that photo), plea bargined a relatively short sentence, 6 months in a military prison. She was tried by a panel of soldiers and officers (not a jury trial, as this was a military court).

Charles Graner, the ringleader of the human pyramid episode, was prosecuted under the following provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and fought the charges rather than enter a plea:

He was found guilty of the charge for the "human pyramid" and other maltreatment of the prisoners:

From: http://www.cdi.org/news/law/abu-ghraib-graner.cfm

It isn't accurate to hold up Abu Ghraib as an example of sanctioned American torture. While many think the punishments for these acts is too severe, no one can really excuse this type of behavior, and we prosecute the offenders.

The real question is the one posed by an official policy sanctioning some kinds of torture, and for what reasons. Some would remove any questioning as coercive, some would support Jack Bauer-like methods.

I think you have to approach it from a moral and legal standpoint. When, if ever, is it permissible?

I've already stated my view that I would support it from a moral standpoint if the information deemed to be available has the opportunity to save many lives, and if the torture itself does not normally cause permanent harm. I would add an immediacy clause to that, where any delay would endanger those lives. I think that's a position that is defensible from a legal standpoint, using third party self defense rules. I'm actually interested in other views, from a moral or legal standpoint, if you can state them without insults (I already know you think President Bush is a poo-poo head).

 

If THIS can be done to the American public, none of that stuff happening on the war front comes anywhere close.

:blink:

 

Torture should be reserved for dishonest public officials feeding out of the public trough, and CEO's who cheat the public by any devious means they can come up with (hear me ENRON?). Militarily, just as the US 'encouraged' China to imitate the US's space missile program, the US, going against international law and 'encouraging' torture will surely be cause for other nations to use the SAME tactics on our solders. War is a horror in and of itself. To put on the menu of the horrors our solders face by this policy is unconscionable. Not only should the policy be repealed, but those responsible for implementing it should be forced to a first hand experience of what they dictate. ENOUGH ALREADY! WWJD

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jan 20 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]378361[/snapback]</div>

This is true. And it is why you should never believe anything any police officer says to you, ever!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jan 21 2007, 04:16 AM) [snapback]378626[/snapback]</div>

So you feel that if an American citizen who you disapprove of is allowed to run for and hold public office, then American soldiers should be allowed to torture prisoners of war?

Very interesting thesis, that. Kind of puts you in the same category as Mr. Berman. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your comment?

Or perhaps you are just joking. You feel that torture is an acceptable subject for jesting? If that's the case, then perhaps I owe Mr. Berman an apology for comparing the two of you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jan 21 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]378626[/snapback]</div>

OK, say we give the President carte blanche to lock up and torture anyone they please for any reason they like. What will you do if Hillary becomes president and suddenly gets that power?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jan 21 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]378606[/snapback]</div>

Since you insist on extracting a single quote out of context and ignoring my point entirely, without offering any insight into your views, I won't take up your "bait". My view has been clearly stated, and already answers your absurd questions.

Lest you think my position is one that is formed by my political viewpoint, it is not; it is one I have come to after reading a bit on the issue by someone about as far from my political viewpoint as possible, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

From http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

This is an important issue that deserves rational debate, not the kind of in your face polemic the fringe posters on the right and left so frequently employ here in FHOP.

I will respectfully ask you to state your view on this issue: Do you feel that torture (as defined by the UN, for instance, which includes psychological coercion as we've discussed here) is never justified? Even if getting the person to tell you the truth can save 250,000 people from a nuclear bomb blast in the next 60 minutes?

On what basis do you claim that water boarding of a person who planted a bomb is worse than the 250,000 deaths of innocent people?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 21 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]378761[/snapback]</div>

Though you were not directly addressing me, I'll give you my view:

Torture is never justified, for a conjunction of three reasons: It is a violation of basic human rights; it is never possible to really know that you are torturing the right person; and it seldom if ever produces accurate information.

The first point should need no elucidation.

The second point: Apologists for torture always bring up the "ticking bomb" scenario, positing that you have a person who can tell you where the bomb is. But just as in the death penalty issue, you never really know whether your suspect has any actual information, or even if there really is a bomb, so the question becomes, How many innocent people are you willing to torture, in your search for a bomb that might or might not exist?

The third point: As the Brits eventually found out in Ireland, people under torture will give you notoriously inaccurate information, in order to end the torture. Under torture, Charlie tells you, "Joe's the one who knows where the bomb is!" So you pick up Joe and torture him. So he tells you that Julie is the one who knows, so you torture her, etc., ad infinitum.

As an off-the-cuff definition, I will suggest that torture is the infliction of extreme or lasting pain. I will also note that the School of the Americas, at Ft. Benning, Georgia, is where many Latin American torturers have been trained, and the school is a world leader in the development of methods of torture that do not leave visible marks. Not exactly something for Americans to be proud of.