what is torture

[ QUOTE ]
Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."


1. Grab: the interrogator grabs a suspect's shirt front and shakes him.


2. Slap: an open-handed slap to produce fear and some pain.

3. Belly Slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury. A punch is said to have been ruled out by doctors.


4. Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).

5. Cold Cell: a prisoner is made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water.

6. Water Boarding: the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.


[/ QUOTE ] apparently, this is how we role. Thoughts? I think the issue of "tourture" is very complicated. On the one hand, it may be neccesary to save lives. on the other, it takes away our ability to play the moral high card, and it often elicits false statement, which lead to faulty intelligence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4499528.stm this is a link to the whole article.

[elwoodblues]

I tend to think that if a foreign country did any of these things to our soldiers/POWs we would call it torture. If we did it to their soldiers we would call it, well, we call it "enhanced interrogation techniques."

[hmkpoker]

Screw the moral high card, who cares?

The government wants to make our citizens comfortable with the fact that we brutally torture brown people who are often innocent. It destroys lives, families and makes it more likely that the US will suffer another terror attack.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that if a foreign country did any of these things to our soldiers/POWs we would call it torture.

[/ QUOTE ]
OTOH, what enemy have we fought in the last hundred years that we did not expect such techniques from?

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, what enemy have we fought in the last hundred years that we did not expect such techniques from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Germany. Watch "the great escape".

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that if a foreign country did any of these things to our soldiers/POWs we would call it torture.

[/ QUOTE ]
OTOH, what enemy have we fought in the last hundred years that we did not expect such techniques from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing by the tone of your question, that you're expecting the answer to be "none," and then you counter by saying "well, torture is an accepted practice for others, why shouldn't it be for us?"

I would say that it's because we've spent the last 4 years in a war to depose a tyrant because he used torture on his own people. I think we would do well to take the moral high ground here.

If, of course, my original assumption was wrong, I'm sorry.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing by the tone of your question, that you're expecting the answer to be "none," and then you counter by saying "well, torture is an accepted practice for others, why shouldn't it be for us?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm on the fence regarding torture and leaning towards the "no" side. Just an observation of the disadvantage we put ourselves at by outright banning it.

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that it's because we've spent the last 4 years in a war to depose a tyrant because he used torture on his own people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Careful. You're deviating from the "phony war for oil" mantra when you make such statements... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I think we would do well to take the moral high ground here.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the main reasons for my leaning towards no torture.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would say that it's because we've spent the last 4 years in a war to depose a tyrant because he used torture on his own people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Careful. You're deviating from the "phony war for oil" mantra when you make such statements...;)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I meant to say "Started under the false pretenses of deposing a tyrant..."

I keep getting confused over whether or not we went in there because of Al-Qaeda, or WMD, or torture. It just seems like it changes every day, how is a boy to keep track?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I keep getting confused over whether or not we went in there because of Al-Qaeda, or WMD, or torture. It just seems like it changes every day, how is a boy to keep track?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can there be more than a single reason for war? Perhaps the reason that it appears to be "switching" to you is because all of those were reasons given? Try to keep up.

[vulturesrow]

I had every one of those things (or some variation thereof), except the water board(some of my friends experienced it), done to me while I was going through survival training and if thats the worst some terrorist ever has done to him than he is getting off pretty easy. You want to define real torture, why dont we start with some of the things that were done to our Vietnam POWs.

[BCPVP]

This ^ is partially my reason for still being on the fence about U.S. "torture". We're being asked to not use techniques that parents use on their children, for Pete's sake! I have a hard time feeling sorry for a known terrorist being slapped around to find out some more information.

I mean, wouldn't you feel at least a little guilty if you supported a ban on such techniques and found out later that their use could have saved hundreds of lives.

Waterboarding is usually done with a cloth, not cellophane. Many US servicemen have been waterboarded, as it is part of the SERE school.

None of this--shaking, slapping, discomfort positions, sleep deprivation, waterboarding--is torture. There are several reasons for this.

(1) no long-lasting physical injury occurs
(2) generally there is a low risk of death
(3) the amount of "pain" inflicted is relatively modest

I personally think we should add tasers to the list of acceptable enhanced interrogation techniques, but I'd probably be considered a wacko for saying this. Tasering + waterboarding would probably also be quite effective.

The Rack, the Garrote, and Rectal Pears are to Torture as Sleep Deprivation, Slapping, and Underwear on the Head are to ____________________.

[ QUOTE ]
The Rack, the Garrote, and Rectal Pears are to Torture as Sleep Deprivation, Slapping, and Underwear on the Head are to ____________________.

[/ QUOTE ]

This question works better if phrased slightly differently.

"The Rack, the Garrote, and Rectal Pears" are to "Sleep Deprivation, Slapping, and Underwear on the Head", as Torture is to ____________________.

The answer is:

Getting only 1 scoop of shepherds pie from the cafeteria lady.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
I had every one of those things (or some variation thereof), except the water board(some of my friends experienced it), done to me while I was going through survival training and if thats the worst some terrorist ever has done to him than he is getting off pretty easy. You want to define real torture, why dont we start with some of the things that were done to our Vietnam POWs.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the major issues with the whole torture debae as that these detainees have no recourse to due process or any way to fight the charges levied against them. As a result, many of them aren't terrorists and are just people who got picked up based on anonymous tips or spotty evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
As a result, many of them aren't terrorists and are just people who got picked up based on anonymous tips or spotty evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this?

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, wouldn't you feel at least a little guilty if you supported a ban on such techniques and found out later that their use could have saved hundreds of lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been through SERE as well, no big deal, however I'm adamantly opposed to "enhanced interrogation techniques" or whatever the current flavor of the day is.

I think what's being largely ignored is the validity of the 'results' produced through these techniques. Those with experience (not all, but many) assert that people under duress will admit anything, erroneously sell out their neighbor and say whatever the interrogator wants to hear.

We'll never reach consensus on the morality...some will do it, some won't. For those that would, are the 'results' up to snuff?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a result, many of them aren't terrorists and are just people who got picked up based on anonymous tips or spotty evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because many detainees have been realeased due to the fact that they were picked up for no good reason.

[ QUOTE ]
I think what's being largely ignored is the validity of the 'results' produced through these techniques. Those with experience (not all, but many) assert that people under duress will admit anything, erroneously sell out their neighbor and say whatever the interrogator wants to hear.


[/ QUOTE ] Yes. I think this is an underdiscussed point in regards to torture. Torture, or even enhanced interogation will obviously lead to bogus conffessions. Also, in general, no self respecting terrorist who possesses any break through info will ccave in and confess after having his belly slapped. conversly, some know nothing driver bodygaurd etc... who has less at stake is likely to make up some bogus story to save his skin.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an underdiscussed point in regards to torture. Torture, or even enhanced interogation will obviously lead to bogus conffessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a correct observation, but it actually cuts in FAVOR of torture. Coerced confessions in the law enforcement context are prohibited precisely because they lead to wrongful convictions. This is basically the Supreme Court's reasoning for excluding so-called "coerced" statements.

In the intelligence/anti-terrorism context, the risk of a "wrongful confession" is much less important, because securing a criminal conviction is not the purpose of the interrogation. The purpose of the interrogation is to obtain actionable intelligence. In the intelligence context, you should be less concerned about "punishing an innocent man" and more concerned about "obtaining information that can be acted upon to prevent terrorism."

Thus, while torture in the law enforcement context is an abomination, it should be a necessary tool in the anti-terrorism context.

[BCPVP]

I've been thinking about torture w/ regards to the 8th amendment. Is the 8th amendment used as proof that we can't/shouldn't torture in the intelligence context? That would seem incorrect because the purpose of such torture isn't to punish, but to glean information.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an underdiscussed point in regards to torture. Torture, or even enhanced interogation will obviously lead to bogus conffessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a correct observation, but it actually cuts in FAVOR of torture. Coerced confessions in the law enforcement context are prohibited precisely because they lead to wrongful convictions. This is basically the Supreme Court's reasoning for excluding so-called "coerced" statements.

In the intelligence/anti-terrorism context, the risk of a "wrongful confession" is much less important, because securing a criminal conviction is not the purpose of the interrogation. The purpose of the interrogation is to obtain actionable intelligence. In the intelligence context, you should be less concerned about "punishing an innocent man" and more concerned about "obtaining information that can be acted upon to prevent terrorism."

Thus, while torture in the law enforcement context is an abomination, it should be a necessary tool in the anti-terrorism context.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. The danger of false information "cuts in FAVOR" of torture because we're looking for actionable infomation?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about torture w/ regards to the 8th amendment. Is the 8th amendment used as proof that we can't/shouldn't torture in the intelligence context?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no.

[InchoateHand]

Listening to right wing morons?

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an underdiscussed point in regards to torture. Torture, or even enhanced interogation will obviously lead to bogus conffessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a correct observation, but it actually cuts in FAVOR of torture. Coerced confessions in the law enforcement context are prohibited precisely because they lead to wrongful convictions. This is basically the Supreme Court's reasoning for excluding so-called "coerced" statements.

In the intelligence/anti-terrorism context, the risk of a "wrongful confession" is much less important, because securing a criminal conviction is not the purpose of the interrogation. The purpose of the interrogation is to obtain actionable intelligence. In the intelligence context, you should be less concerned about "punishing an innocent man" and more concerned about "obtaining information that can be acted upon to prevent terrorism."

Thus, while torture in the law enforcement context is an abomination, it should be a necessary tool in the anti-terrorism context.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. The danger of false information "cuts in FAVOR" of torture because we're looking for actionable infomation?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Elliot. I didn't follow his logic either. Saved me a long post.

[Bjorn]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that the use of "questionable" and potentially cruel techniques for interogation are quite detrimental to the psychological wellbeing of the person carying out as well as to the person on the reciving end.

After using said "enhanced interogation techniques" on prisoners for a while I think it would be quite common for the person using them not to start sliding down his or her sloping moral plane towards behaviours that are even more unseemly. This risk would also most likely be increased under stressful circumstances like beeing in combat conditions for an extended piece of time.

Use of "torture" or other "atrocities" is also in general quite harmfull to the morale of the organisation carying it out.

/Bjorn

If I had a son, daughter, ,loved one, kidnapped and was able to apprehend one of the accomplices, I would do everything in my power, short of killing him(because then hes of no use) to find out where they took said loved ones. Torture, you better believe it. I have to believe the majority of posters on this site if confronted with that situation would do the same. Torture or the threat of it has to be left on the table when interrogating believed terrorists. I dont think most Americans realize that Al quada, etc, if giving the opportunity would walk into your home and slice your throat, your newborns throat, everyones throat. We cant sit back and take a reactive position, we have to become proactive in these matters.

What if we caught a terrorist who we believed had info. on a dirty, nuclear, bomb on its way to America. Do we do nothing and hope for the best?? The stakes are to high my friends. The protection of American lives are paramount.