Torture poll

[sr71plt]

My guess is that the thread isn't over until the black church lady with a sixth-grade education finds another sandbox.

 

[wmrs2]

wmrs

You should calm down, dear.

I told you, I'm American. One of my Shorey ancestors was at Popham colony, and actually met the Mayflower when she made landfall. I truly cannot imagine what would make you believe I was from somewhere else.

I said I support my country, and I did discuss the extent to which my country has recently undertaken human rights violations. I also see that you do not admit, in your morality, that enemies have any human rights. That does not dissuade me, however, because I have seen that everyone uses the moral compass they see fit to use.

I have always imagined I could at least make comprehensible my stand on something as uncomplicated as this issue is, but for you I cannot. Even when you get something I've said, you lose hold of it later, and the thread hardly two days old!

I have attempted to explain a small number of other things, here, but you have consistently failed to understand. I fear we can have little to say, since what I say doesn't even echo. It just vanishes.

But some of what you now say is right out of nowhere. Discussions of terrorism make me tired, so I can be fairly certain I have not addressed terrorism one way or another on this thread, even though you repeatedly maintain that I said something about it. You accuse. You now seem excited; you gibber. It is not healthy to gibber, and people will lose interest.

You did not deny that you said you supported your terrorist country which is not the USA. We know you live in America but are you a citizen of the USA? Why did you edit out the dangerous words of your original post about the justification of terrorism? Why did you just now say you wrote about the abuses in your country? Not only do you not appear to be an American citizen but you do not even act like an American citizen.

You are certainly from somewhere else because you even write with an accent. We only have your word that your ancestors had anything to do with the Mayflower, this would not qualify you as an American in any event.

I am too concerned with the human rights of the children the terrorist in you country plan to blow up to worry about the rights of terrorist. They have no rights other than the right to die.

What I have to say is not out of nowhere but it came out of your mouth first. Since you edited out your terrorist statements, I wanted to establish a record that you did say the things you said. This pretty much has been accomplished. I suggest you underestimate your echo because many of us heard clearly what you said about terrorism and your support of it. I am afraid the cat is out of the bag and you will not be able to put the cat back either.

I am excited! But you best be nervous brother. I know the thread is only two days old but you emptied your guts on the first day in your hurry to down grade the USA. I know you hate our morality because our morality will not permit your torture of the whole world in the name of Allah or whatever God you worship. I suggest that people have not lost interest in this conversation and I understand why you do not want to continue it. Just rember this, Allah is not the God that opened your mouth to curse the morals of the USA. It was the humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ that forced your mouth open to reveal who knows what evil lurks in the heart of a terrorist. How is that for gibber?You asked me once how you were doing in this debate. Now you know.

 

[wmrs2]

You are astonishingly patient with this person, cant.

What always emerges from discussions on topics like this is that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is completely over the heads of about half the population. They cannot make a distinction among terrorists, terror suspects, witnesses, detainees, etc. It does not compute.

You meet these people when you are on the jury in a criminal trial. They are the ones who pretend to listen to the evidence until they get behind the closed doors of the jury room, and then blurt out, "The police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty of something."

They claim to Love and Defend Freedom, but they despise one of the most essential underpinnings of a free society. Presumption of innocence is the first thing they throw to the hyenas when faced with even the most remote or abstract threat to their own well-being.

Sorry to correct you brother, but people are innocent under the law until proven guilty but when they confess to terrorism, I believe them and believe they are guilty. I don't need a liberal judge to tell me he is guilty if he admits his sin openly. Oh! I know what it is. I did not read him his rights before he opened his mouth to confess. Well, that makes him innocent of anything he does now, right? Shereads. you are too obsessed with revenge to get in a game of wits with me. You are really going to look bad if you don't cool it.

 

[Blackie Malone]

Sorry to correct you brother, but people are innocent under the law until proven guilty but when they confess to terrorism, I believe them and believe they are guilty. I don't need a liberal judge to tell me he is guilty if he admits his sin openly. Oh! I know what it is. I did not read him his rights before he opened his mouth to confess. Well, that makes him innocent of anything he does now, right? Shereads. you are too obsessed with revenge to get in a game of wits with me. You are really going to look bad if you don't cool it.

Bahahahhaahahhaaa. SHEreads is smarter than the average litster.

 

[shereads]

"What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer."

Wow. Bertrand Russell, right? Not exactly on topic, but it's certainly thought-provoking. Thanks!

 

[wmrs2]

Wow. Bertrand Russell, right? Not exactly on topic, but it's certainly thought-provoking. Thanks!

Can't believe Russell. He based every thing on his chicken dinner.

 

[shereads]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3461268451_694d8372bf_o.jpg

Are you still speaking, dear? This is coming out all blurry, like your recent lines of reasoning. Keep trying, okay?

The rest of you, goodnight. I'm off to bed.

 

[Verdad]

Dear God. The pictures.

Many of the instances of torture, aka "prisoner abuse," documented at Abu Ghraib fell into that grey area between rape and mind-rape. Cheney/Rumsfeld unofficially decided that the term torture would only apply to actions that might result in organ failure or death. (A definition that would exclude actual rape - yet they expressed shock and outrage when the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced.)

It's significant that the people who green-lighted these "enhanced interrogation technques" went to great lengths to distance themselves, obscure their involvement, and assure that the nastiest violations took place outside US borders, often carried out by foreign nationals under CIA supervision. As if having other people do our dirty work would keep us clean.

In my own mind, modern-day torture isn't defined by the type or degree of pain inflicted, but by the degree of shame and secrecy involved.

Beyond the moral issue, the question of efficacy applies even to absurdist examples. We know that information collected by means of physical torture is unreliable; should we expect better info from someone who's been subjected to repeated top-volume playings of "Gypsies Tramps & Thieves"?

Since I asked about the gray areas, I should probably say why. I'm worried now it looked like an attempt to make light of the subject, which it most certainly wasn't. It was partly a residual from the absolutist/relativist talks from the other threads, and in other part, an honest lack of knowledge. The moment I began thinking about the infamous examples like waterboarding, I began worrying about what else is possible, how well the regulations cover it, and how much is known to the public.

The question of "what" seized me because it's the only one that can be considered tricky in a civilized world, which still needs to deal with its criminals but has to do it within strict boundaries of ethics and law. Thanks to Ogg's and Pure's links, I've learned a bit about those boundaries and the problems in defining them. Perhaps everyone else already knew.

But I suppose I'm sometimes naive and start with "well of course I'm against torture; what kind of a question is that?" Then I consider that settled and go looking for some fine points. If the debate needs to be led about whether it's okay for a society to cross the lines "sometimes", or when "lots is at stake", or when the other guy is a "pedo", a "terrorist", or some other kind of "nasty character" or enemy du jour, it's disheartening to say the least, and I should have made a single post that says NO.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Dear God. The pictures.
Since I asked about the gray areas, I should probably say why. I'm worried now it looked like an attempt to make light of the subject, which it most certainly wasn't. It was partly a residual from the absolutist/relativist talks from the other threads, and in other part, an honest lack of knowledge. The moment I began thinking about the infamous examples like waterboarding, I began worrying about what else is possible, how well the regulations cover it, and how much is known to the public.

Look, of course everything is complex and I'm not trying to gloss over that. Asking questions over a long period of time may well cause distress - and asking questions over too long a period of time (350 hours continuously, dear God) is clearly abusive. But I think the answer is that if you do anything - anything at all - for the deliberate purpose of causing pain or distress, however mild, to an unwilling prisoner, then that is absolutely wrong, and absolutely not something an honest person can do.

'Slippery slopes' are slippery slopes. Playing music you know someone doesn't like, when they can't escape from it, isn't quantitatively the same as waterboarding. But it's qualitatively the same. And once you allow that quality, quantity becomes very hard to police.

Good people don't do things like that.

End of.

This doesn't mean I think BDSM is immoral. Heavens, I've practised it, and hope to again. But consent is a critical factor, in my opinion. And I would argue that those of us who have taken dominant roles in BDSM (and thought about it) probably have a clearer understanding of the moral issues around torture than most people.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Our system of laws is organized around contexts. Our law allows certain conduct within certain contexts. For example, the law allows you to kill to protect yourself. Within the context of self-preservation killing isnt immoral or unethical.

PURE's poll presupposes or assumes that our enemies are gentlemen and scholars. He assumes that theyre naturally indisposed to treachery.

 

[Pure]

note to jbj

my poll has at least two options for those who want to allow or approve torture in particular circumstances. e.g., when dealing with a 'treacherous' and deadly enemy.

{6} If generally not right to torture, but there are no hard and fast rules; circumstances and context have to be considered.

{7} It's definitely wrong to torture UNLESS there is some immensely great, 'social good' [general welfare] that is preserved (e.g., keeping a city from suffering an atomic explosion).

jbj said, PURE's poll presupposes or assumes that our enemies are gentlemen and scholars. He assumes that theyre naturally indisposed to treachery.

no it does not. true, i did not include a choice "torture is great, if it preserves America as a unique experiment in human history" your choice and amicus's.

nor did i include "torture is great, if it promotes xiantiy against islamic barbarians', wmrs's choice.

but it's obvious that your view is easily subsumed under the second alternative {7}, above, which references the common good.

incidentally, as a good fascist, torturing, when it's in the public interest--e.g. to get the truth from commie and anarchist subversives-- shouldn't present much of a problem. what's your prob with {7}?

PS. alternatives {3} and {8} are also relevant and allow for the position you and others take, regarding 'special circumstances.' {3}, for example, reads,

{3} It's objectively wrong, except in an emergency, to torture.

 

[Pure]

note to simon

SB But I think the answer is that if you do anything - anything at all - for the deliberate purpose of causing pain or distress, however mild, to an unwilling prisoner, then that is absolutely wrong, and absolutely not something an honest person can do.
============

there is something to what you say, though you give no reasons or arguments. however, i'd say this is a *pragmatic* rule: you catch more flies with honey. respectful, kind treatment is often the most effective. [[i posted recommendations from several interrogators about the key element, 'building rapport.']]

whether it's morally obligatory, to the nth degree, is not so clear.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I think coercion and torture are different things.

If I hurt you just to be hurting you, I'm a sick twisted sadist. This is torture, in my mind.

If you have significant information about imminent harm or disaster, breaking your arm or skull to get the information is coercion NOT torture. If I put a cap in your companion's brain, to intimidate you to talk, I havent tortured anyone.

I disagree with your presupposition that pain is torture.

 

[Verdad]

Look, of course everything is complex and I'm not trying to gloss over that. Asking questions over a long period of time may well cause distress - and asking questions over too long a period of time (350 hours continuously, dear God) is clearly abusive. But I think the answer is that if you do anything - anything at all - for the deliberate purpose of causing pain or distress, however mild, to an unwilling prisoner, then that is absolutely wrong, and absolutely not something an honest person can do.

'Slippery slopes' are slippery slopes. Playing music you know someone doesn't like, when they can't escape from it, isn't quantitatively the same as waterboarding. But it's qualitatively the same. And once you allow that quality, quantity becomes very hard to police.

Good people don't do things like that.

End of.

This doesn't mean I think BDSM is immoral. Heavens, I've practised it, and hope to again. But consent is a critical factor, in my opinion. And I would argue that those of us who have taken dominant roles in BDSM (and thought about it) probably have a clearer understanding of the moral issues around torture than most people.

I don't know if you know, Simon, but you're preaching to the choir with BDSM, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps there'll be some other thread where we can talk about that; ever since Pure clarified the context of his questions and excluded consensual situations, I dropped the BDSM line of thought because it's, indeed, totally inappropriate to talk about the two kinds of 'torture' in the same breath.

As for the rest of what you say, I thank you for taking the time to consider the question. I have a feeling it's been received with some hostility by some, as if I'd posed in it order to erode some kind of a line and open the door to some kind of a slippery slope, where my intentions couldn't be further from that.

My definition is the same as yours: "torture is anything done with the deliberate purpose of causing pain or distress." Yet this definition is clearly too broad, as it wouldn't allow an interrogator to do so much as verbally poke a suspect. Most of what one sees in an average TV show about cops would fall inside the definition, so precisely because I began from it, I was forced to notice that we do condone some forms of inflicting distress, and even that it would be absurd if we didn't. Otherwise an interrogator would be pretty much left with, "I'm terribly sorry for asking, but have you raped and murdered X?" "No." "Oh. Okay. Apologies."

Much to my discomfort, my definition failed, and I was forced to go looking for where the line lies between the widely accepted manipulations and torture. Again, I regret if it's made me appear 'soft on torture'. I've learned a few things and am bowing out now.

 

[xssve]

If what you need is information, then you use the best method to get it - torture doesn't work because eventually you can get a person to say anything to get it to stop; if they don't know anything, they'll make shit up, and you can't sort good information from bad.

Interrogation takes time and patience, and it definitely might make the interogatee uncomfortable for a while, but there is seldom any lasting damage from proper interrogation.

In short, there is not so fine line between causing discomfort, even extreme discomfort, and outright sadism. The tortures administered in Abu Graib could have been just as easily staged if compromising material was needed - abetting sadism just backfired and the bottom line is, it didn't work, and it's pointless to try and justify it.

 

[SimonBrooke]

My definition is the same as yours: "torture is anything done with the deliberate purpose of causing pain or distress." Yet this definition is clearly too broad, as it wouldn't allow an interrogator to do so much as verbally poke a suspect. Most of what one sees in an average TV show about cops would fall inside the definition, so precisely because I began from it, I was forced to notice that we do condone some forms of inflicting distress, and even that it would be absurd if we didn't. Otherwise an interrogator would be pretty much left with, "I'm terribly sorry for asking, but have you raped and murdered X?" "No." "Oh. Okay. Apologies."

I don't think this is so at all. I think the investigator is still at liberty to ask -

Where were you on the night of the fourteenth?
When you were seen with X earlier in the evening, you were observed to argue violently with her. Why was that?
How do you account for fibres from the clothing X was wearing at the time she died being found in the boot of your car?
You had sex with X very shortly before she died. Where did this take place?
When exactly did you last see X?

And so on, and so forth. Some people will obviously be better able to stick to a convincing pattern of lies than others, but the forensic process involves assembling the material and witness evidence, and then questioning the suspect in the light of this evidence, exploring the inevitable inconsistencies in the story (which will exist even if he's being wholly honest - when I was assaulted recently I told the police in good faith that the incident took place between 0830 and 0845, but the photograph which I took of my assailant is timestamped 0855), evaluating their responses.

There are no magic bullets for finding the truth. No, JAMESBJOHNSON, whether our 'enemies' (I have none, I don't know about you) are gentlemen or not is orthogonal to the issue. The issue is, what is the most productive and reliable means of finding a truth you don't already know. You assert that torture is such a means - but all the scientific evidence is against you. If torture were a pragmatic solution you would be up against a utilitarian calculus: is the evil done to the suspect balanced by the good done to his (potential) victims? But since it doesn't work, the utilitarian argument isn't available to you.

 

[wmrs2]

Here is the latest development over the interrogation methods used by Dick Cheney to gather information from terrorist held captive. The democrats and liberals have maintained that the information gather by Cheney's methods was not good information that could be used to fight terrorism.

Today, Cheney is asking that the information gathered by the CIA be released and made public. The democrats are going crazy over this request and now argue that to release this information was greatly damage and impair Obama's administrations ability to protect the country. They say that Cheney is playing politics.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

If they lie, you kill them. This is incentive to be truthful.

 

[shereads]

Dear God. The pictures.



Since I asked about the gray areas, I should probably say why. I'm worried now it looked like an attempt to make light of the subject, which it most certainly wasn't.

Not at all. It's perfectly valid to question what is and is not torture. When the infliction of pain is of the mental variety - no blood, no broken bones, not even a bruise left behind - I honestly don't know the answer.

 

[CharleyH]

When the infliction of pain is of the mental variety - no blood, no broken bones, not even a bruise left behind - I honestly don't know the answer.

Torture comes in many forms. I know that Pure is speculating political and physical torture as a means of acquiring knowledge or information. Still, I can't seem to take a hardline position on this. Morally, I know that torture is wrong. It is merely a means to someone's end, and usually not to the benefit of the tortured no matter the truth. History tells me this very plainly. The Inquisition is a good model.

Subjectively, I know that some people enjoy being tortured (BDSM) and even in a worst case scenario like that of the Brandt case, I feel conflicted (though in my heart I know it to be morally wrong and believe it to be quite insane). Where do we draw the line?

What one person considers torture is not necessarily what others do, as in the above. However and for example, the Bobbit case, Lorena Bobbit was abused for years. In the end, she cut off her husband's cock. Who is the tortured and who is the torturer? Would your opinion be the same if Lorena had been 7 years old and her rapist 20 years old?

All torture is a means to get something from the one who is tortured - information or sex. Is torture beneficial? I think some people might think yes. I think that torture is a means of insidious coercion that has no benefit (outside of safe, sane and consensual sex aspects).

 

[wmrs2]

Your logic can not be trusted and this fact based on this "but all the scientific evidence is against you." You certainly can not prove that.

 

[amicus]

CharleyH, I want to pull just one sentence from your post:

"...Morally, I know that torture is wrong..."

~~~

You may or may not be following a long lasting discussion concerning 'moral and ethical', that several have been engaged in.

I really don't have to pose the question as you already know what it is.

But for the record, how do you, 'know' that torture is wrong, and if you have an expressed opinion on 'abortion', or even global warming, how do you 'know', your decision is truth?

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Revised précis of statement I made above:

Enhanced interrogation techniques damage the US's standing in the world.

Og

 

[shereads]

Revised précis of statement I made above:

Enhanced interrogation techniques damage the US's standing in the world.

Og

And have done no small amount of damage to the word "enhanced."

 

[amicus]

Fluttering in the wind of political spin is an alleged report that 'enhanced interrogation', prevented a second 9/11 like attack on a skyscraper in Los Angeles, California in 2002.

"Waterboarding", was the method that, again allegedly, produced the information from a terrorist, who by the way, is still living.

?

Amicus