Torture poll

[Pure]

Your opinion about torture.

It is defined in a UN convention as the "infliction of severe pain or suffering," and there is a US federal law, US Code, Title 18, Chapter 113 C, which contains the following, similar, if narrower, definition. Some examples of my own are given near the end of this post.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

[US Code] § 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death;

ADDED: Torture is defined in the UN convention, specifically as

Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means 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.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

==

What's your opinion, in moral terms, not just legal ones, on this ban, and in particular, what is your moral view based on?

ADDED 4-20. "Torture" as being discussed here is that occurring in or officially carried out in institutions of the State; local, regional and nationwide [including military] authorities detain suspects, captives, and prisoners, and it's these, along with convicted prisoners who are the subjects that 'torture' legislation and international conventions address.

Examples: Waterboarding [US, Cambodia]. Being stood chest deep in cold water for a few days [China]. Being stripped and having electrodes applied to the genitals [French in Algeria]. Being kept in a 'tiger cage' [cannot stand up or lie down] for several days in a hot climate [Viet Nam]. If a man, having one's wife or daughter raped in front of one [various]. Being violated anally or vaginally with batons, bottle, etc.

ADDED: 4-20. Individual instances of torture, recognized as crimes in the various criminal codes, are NOT object of this thread, e.g. measures some kidnappers and rapists have employed for sadistic ends. Various laws address such acts: battery, infliction of bodily harm, torture, mayhem and so on. "Abuse" e.g. of children, elders, e.g. extreme maltreatment, is also the subject of criminal and family law. None of these are the main topics of the thread.


ADDED: most bdsm measures do not fit the above descriptions. but in any case, torture, as discussed here, is almost by definition, NON-consensual and applies to someone arrested and or held against his or her will, {deleted->} [[and often without 'due process' , e.g. being brought before a judge]]. hence, bdsm 'torture' does not fit the specs.

 

[3113]

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death;[/I]

The problem, Pure, is that to some people some of these would apply to very "light" measures (meaning, I've a friend who is severely scared of spiders. Show her one and she'd probably spill her guts. Is it torture?). This as compared to the things done at Gitmo and being argued about--which I'm guessing is what this is really all about.

It's much easier, and clearer, if you want to poll on "torture" if you offer a specific example of what was done and why it was done. If you just say "torture"--well, we do make certain assumptions about what that means, but even our assumptions are in our head. Like my friend who would imagine being confronted with spiders rather than being put on the rack or waterboarded.

Meanwhile, on the BDSM board, there are others who would love to endure severe pain and mental suffering.

Arguing morals--which are relativistic at the best of times--using terms with vague, relativistic definitions hardly makes for a good conversation. Especially when it makes you look like you're coming at something specific obliquely rather than just spitting the question out and asking it.

Is there some reason why you have to make this into a philosophy question rather than asking us what's really on your mind?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

3's points are especially relevant given that in the 'real' intelligence community, torture is basically considered a waste of time because (1) you get unreliable answers and (2) it coarsens the interrogators. Interrogation is a subtle art, something that seems to have been totally missed by Cheney & Co. Done best, the interrogator insinuates him (or even better her)self into the subject's circle of 'trusted friends' without any personal involvement. The subject, in hopes of maintaining the friendly relationship, tells the interrogator reliable information that can be verified through other sources.

Interrogation takes time. It takes skill. It isn't done in a slam-dunk manner. But done right . . . it works!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You managed to leave out IT'S OKAY TO TORTURE. What a crock.

Like Paul Newman said in HOMBRE, IF YOURE HUNGRY ENOUGH YOU'LL EAT A DOG AND FIGHT OVER THE BONES.

 

[oggbashan]

I can't answer the poll.

My view is that it is against international conventions and that any country using torture diminishes its stature in the world.

It is wrong because it gets the answers the interrogator wants rather than the truth and isn't worth the damage it does to international relations.

How can we criticise other nations for abuse of human rights if we use torture?

Og

 

[shereads]

Not merely wrong, but also stupid. Waterboarding and some other "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were recently in vogue, were used by the Soviets and the Viet Cong as a means of extracting false confessions for propoganda purposes. These methods were designed to elicit convenient lies, not essential truths.

 

[shereads]

I can't answer the poll.

My view is that it is against international conventions and that any country using torture diminishes its stature in the world.

It is wrong because it gets the answers the interrogator wants rather than the truth and isn't worth the damage it does to international relations.

How can we criticise other nations for abuse of human rights if we use torture?

Og

I adore you.

[/threadjack]

 

[Huckleman2000]

Not merely wrong, but also stupid. Waterboarding and some other "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were recently in vogue, were used by the Soviets and the Viet Cong as a means of extracting false confessions for propoganda purposes.

Whereas, BushCo used them as a means of...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Whereas, BushCo used them as a means of...

appearing to be "tough" on terror.

 

[shereads]

appearing to be "tough" on terror.

Why do you hate Freedom?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Why do you hate Freedom?

Hey, nobody ever said it was 'nice', just 'Free'.

 

[Liar]

You managed to leave out IT'S OKAY TO TORTURE.

For shits and giggles?

 

[Belegon]

I can't answer the poll.

My view is that it is against international conventions and that any country using torture diminishes its stature in the world.

It is wrong because it gets the answers the interrogator wants rather than the truth and isn't worth the damage it does to international relations.

How can we criticise other nations for abuse of human rights if we use torture?

Og

I adore you.

[/threadjack]

See, I don't think that is a threadjack.

There are certain lines I feel we must not cross. In my view, these lines are the things that make us able to say that we are human, not animal.

I do not believe in using torture. Period. On moral grounds. The fact that information gained in that manner is generally unreliable is, to me, a kind of natural justice. I would call it evidence that my "moral" stance is valid.

The question I always receive is something along the lines of, "What if torture would save your daughter/son/loved one?"

It would still be wrong. Would I do it? Under those circumstances? I hope I never have to find out. But if I did do it, I would expect my society to hold me responsible for my actions.

I have no belief that I am some kind of superior being. I am susceptible to failure.

But I say it is never justified. Not even to save my life or that of someone I love.

 

[CharleyH]

Your opinion about torture.

There is a UN convention on the "infliction of severe pain or suffering," and there is a US federal law, US Code, Title 18, Chapter 113 C

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death;

==

What's your opinion, in moral terms, not just legal ones, on this ban, and in particular, what is your moral view based on?

Examples: Waterboarding [US, Cambodia]. Being stood chest deep in cold water for a few days [China]. Being stripped and having electrodes applied to the genitals [French in Algeria]. Being kept in a 'tiger cage' [cannot stand up or lie down] for several days in a hot climate [Viet Nam]. If a man, having one's wife or daughter raped in front of one [various]. Being violated anally or vaginally with batons, bottle, etc.

Reason for my choice: Nothing is black and white. I've been reading a lot about anti-porn feminists and the Meese Commission recently, and while it may not speak to your current issue, it is political. Certainly, I do not think that BDSM is bad, even if it does involve torture in different forms.

 

[Pure]

i have added some examples

obviously there are worse cases causing death or serious permanent injury.

---
Examples added to the initial posting:

Waterboarding [US, Cambodia]. Being stood chest deep in cold water for a few days [China]. Being stripped and having electrodes applied to the genitals [French in Algeria]. Being kept in a 'tiger cage' [cannot stand up or lie down] for several days in a hot climate [Viet Nam]. If a man, having one's wife or daughter raped in front of one [various]. Being violated anally or vaginally with batons, bottle, etc.

 

[Pure]

to jbj

sorry, i ran out of options. i was going to include, 'nothing anyone does is wrong or wrong.'

jbjYou managed to leave out IT'S OKAY TO TORTURE. What a crock.

Like Paul Newman said in HOMBRE, IF YOURE HUNGRY ENOUGH YOU'LL EAT A DOG AND FIGHT OVER THE BONES

if the test, as you propose, is just --would anyone ever do it?--then, this 'agnostic' view applies to all major crimes--murder, rape-- including genocide etc.

 

[sr71plt]

Define torture.

I'd like to say I opposed it completely, but if you defined playing "Alvin and Chipmunks" over and over again as torture, I'd have to backpeddle on that.

 

[impressive]

Morality is entirely subjective. We can outlaw acts, and thereby decree their rightness or wrongness, but such laws are still the creation of man.

I don't like the idea of torture, and as has been noted, it does not produce truths -- but convenient lies. Thus, it is just a means to an end. Is that end justified? That depends on what is most valued.

*shrug*

 

[CharleyH]

Morality is entirely subjective. We can outlaw acts, and thereby decree their rightness or wrongness, but such laws are still the creation of man.

I don't like the idea of torture, and as has been noted, it does not produce truths -- but convenient lies. Thus, it is just a means to an end. Is that end justified? That depends on what is most valued.

*shrug*

Hmm

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I believe most people will torture if the information is important enough.

 

[cantdog]

Is there some reason why you have to make this into a philosophy question rather than asking us what's really on your mind?

For me, since we are getting into a discussion, torture is wrong both pragmatically, because of circumstances, and because it's immoral on its face.

For here we are, humans together in a smaller and smaller space. Human rights apply to everyone, or else they are instruments of privilege. That's the second case. I would add that there is no godly superbeing who will ultimately redress injustices in an afterlife; therefore we must prevent and correct them here and now, in this life.

Pragmatically, torture and beatings and so on are no enhancement to interrogation, but just the opposite.

A) The art of interrogation has changed dramatically over the last sixty years; we know how to loosen people's tongues without that sort of thing. Modern techniques work much better than Brian Donlevy rubber hose methods in back rooms of police stations. Torture methods screw those modern techniques up.

B) Judicial torture has a centuries-long history. Those people under inquisition so long ago, for instance, were not, in fact, witches, though they said they were. Whatever else they said, according to contemporary witnesses, was ignored anyway. Torture hardens resistance and motivates the witness to deceive and mislead. Torture extracts answers designed to appease, true or not. The information gained in this way is less reliable, not more, despite what the writers of screenplays would have you think. We have contemporary witnesses to all this, even today.

Torture, since it doesn't "work," is only of use as a political tool. The Gestapo, the Stasi, the NKVD, the tonton macoutes, the French in Algeria, and so on were banking on this, imagining that people would dully endure much before embarking on a brief career as an insurgent, if they knew insurgents were routinely tortured to death.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/sysladobsis/contradiction.jpg

We Americans don't need a political terror tool. That's the first argument, from pragmatism.

 

[Pure]

jbj

i believe most people will murder is the stakes are high enough.
===============

JBJ said,

jbj://PURE

I believe most people will torture if the information is important enough.//

 

[3113]

ADDED: I don't think most bdsm measures fit the above descriptions, but in any case, torture, here, is almost by definition, NON-consensual and applies to someone arrested and or held against his or her will, and often without 'due process' , e.g. being brought before a judge. hence, bdsm 'torture' does not fit the specs.

Thank you for the addition, but I'm still having problems with the question. It seems to me that rather than facilitating a discussion on torture, what you're really going to get (and perhaps this is what you're after) is an idea of how many people are moral absolutists--and if they're not, what their relativism focuses on. Which means this isn't about torture at all. It's about moral relativism.

I mean, just to go to your addition here--why should "due process" make being arrested and held against one's will any less "torture"? If the due process happens but the judge is corrupt or the legal defense is bad, if a person is innocent but unable, even through due process, of clearing their name...isn't that torture? If it is, then are we to say that arresting anyone is immoral simply because they might end up in the same situation (unable to prove their innocence)?

Once again, I ask you. Why can't we discuss a specific example? Do you have anything in mind to give us a handle on this topic, and which we can say, "No, that is immoral" rather than trying to find out if it's "ever" immoral to do something so vaguely defined and with so many variables as to make the question meaningless?

 

[cantdog]

I'm saying that if they do torture because the information is important enough, they deceive themselves and have acted against their interests.

I would also add that the use of torture as a political tool doesn't work very well either. The macoutes are gone, the Stasi is gone, the Gestapo is gone, and so on.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CANTDOG

I was thinking of something and little closer and personal, like the location of a missing child. If a creep has your daughter you might twist his arm a little. I would. I mean, you want some good evidence he has your kid, and if you have it, go for the gusto.