A short and incomplete discussion on a euphemism

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

The argument over torture has two sides ( and I do not mean left and "right" - but that's coming). 


One is effectiveness and the other is legality. The legal side is clear. It isn't legal, it isn't moral, and it isn't ethical. The only way to legitimize it is to throw out ones belief in our legal system and our values. Those that have already done that have surrendered that point and there can be no discussion. To them the only real argument is that too much can be gained and it trumps the values of our system. Those that do not think it's legal will not be swayed.

So let's look at effectiveness. Torture only works if the person being tortured believes they will be maimed or killed as a result of the torture; and that talking will somehow save them. This can be offset by the belief that they will be maimed or killed FOR talking. The folks of al Qaida have made it clear that they are willing and even sadistically happy to do this. This has also been true of Mexican and Colombian Drug Cartels, The Saudis, The inquisitions of the Catholic Church, The Soviets, Monty Python, the despotic leaders of most of the former Soviet Block, China … you get the idea. We, the US, UK and most of our traditional and current allies, generally are known not to pursue these tactics, and even when we might be inclined to do so (illegally) we are generally perceived to have limits and would not want to kill a possible source of good intelligence. Therefore, it is a somewhat ineffective means of gathering information. The way I see it, if you are willing to torture you are willing to kill and probably will. My telling will not help me or hurt me, and I would be likely to be killed anyway - and if I am not to be killed then the torture looses its meaning. Pain? Sure that would be pretty bad, too. People in pain will say all sorts of unreliable things. It is ineffective and studies have demonstrated that. At any rate a reasonably intelligent person would simply spew out whatever comes to mind to try to convince the torturer to stop.

Information gathered by torture (go read up on this, it is an interesting subject) is typically not very good info. Even in our "humane" methods of "enhanced interrogation" techniques (metaphor like heck - that is a euphemism) the only people to claim that they gained ANY information are the ones that would lose the most should anyone become serious about pursuing charges - which I doubt will ever happen. For every person "Junior's" side rolls out to show off how much they gained from torture (but cannot talk about since it would jeopardize national security) the left and even non-political members of the armed forces and intel community field many that claim that the techniques were flawed, useless and provided nothing of use. Any information that would have been gained from torture (and go read about what was - it is surprisingly sparse and inaccurate - but OH WAIT, you don't know all of what was actually learned, because it is classified... right... It's a shallow argument at this point) was gained so long ago that it's usefulness at this point is null. All the pertinent data used to make this raid was (by necessity) very current. As one itel expert put it (Paraphrased), they don't really catch any of these guys any more. They are typically found dead or are killed in the areas where they are located and we never get to question them. Their intel benefit is voided. We get our Intel from live friendly and sympathetic sources these days. It is more reliable.

No one has EVER stopped a time bomb with torture.

You either believe in our values and our laws, morals, and ethics - or you don't.

Torture is illegal. The definition of what makes up torture is twisted tight to make the argument that what was done is not torture. That is rubbish - simply rubbish. Join that with the completely illogical and ineffectiveness of the practice we can only indicate that it is a wasted effort. Add to this that it is praised and practiced (but always denied) typically by despots and dictators... and I am informed that only the "left" likes them (despite the US history of supporting such governments in both conservative and liberal administrations... what rubbish), I find it Ironic that the "right" seems to support plenty of despots (many known to use torture as a means of reaching various goals) and they supported the use of torture at home - and like the tortures of old, they deny they torture, and then when shown that they do, they simply downplay it as childish little ticks and injuries that couldn't really be harmful in any real way... because that would be torture...!

- Laughing so hard I could pass out like a water boarded detainee -

Torture does three things. It demonstrates sadistic power. It forces predetermined responses. It exacts self determined vengeance. None of these are values we hold in this country.

Torture is NOT defensible.

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Even if torture were effective and legal, we shouldn't do it. It dehumanizes people, has no legal oversight, the victims aren't tried, etc. It degrades us as people to participate and condone it.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

This. The thing about morality is its not based on if it works or not.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

The problem is that the "right" has attempted to support it as if that does matter and that it does work.

Both are in error.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Agreed. We are supposed to have more faith in out system of values and our moral high ground. If we are outraged by similar acts by others we have nothing to say if we engage in it as well.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"No one has EVER stopped a time bomb with torture."

And prior to 1969, nobody ever sent a man to the moon.
But it can happen.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your analogy is?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It's not ridiculous. Sorry that you don't like it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So you're saying that torture put a man on the moon?

You know, I also like that American-centric view of the moon being the ultimate exploratory milestone. I think the Soviets going into space was a much bigger one, but that never gets tossed around.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

No I'm not saying any such thing.

I'm saying that when a thing hasn't been done yet, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

If you do have a ticking time bomb and a as-certain-as-you-get guilty bomb-planter? Don't you use any and all resources to stop the bomb?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'd break your two questions into four:

1. Is it moral?
2. Is it tactically effective? That is, can it obtain useful information more effectively than other techniques?
3. Is it strategically effective? That is, does the society that employs it benefit from its use?
4. Is it legal?

The answer to all of these questions is no.

And for me, the moral question trumps the others anyway. Slavery was once tactically effective, strategically effective, and legal in the United States. (That is, if our measure of “strategically effective” excludes slaves as part of society, which is itself monstrous.) But it was a moral abomination, which trumps the other concerns.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

How do you know that #2 is "no"?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Professional interrogators universally say so.

References on this point are easy to find.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

I agree entirely.

Thanks

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'The definition of what makes up torture is twisted tight to make the argument that what was done is not torture. That is rubbish - simply rubbish.'

I am tortured by seeing my country be destroyed by liberalism. It's akin to seeing my family lines up and shot in front of my eyes. I don't want to see people try and twist terms now. It is absolutely torture. It should be outlawed the same as any other form of torture.

Okay, now that I have your attention with hyperbole.

What isn't torture? Imprisonment for life. Is it torture? Being confined to a 6x9 cell for years with only a few hours out of it a day... is that torture.

Being kept in a chilly cell with men asking you questions and screaming at you... is that torture?

So there's a huge argument over what is and isn't torture. Personal opinion isn't the end of it.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

In your personal opinion, does being deliberately put in a state where you experience...

a) Intense fear of imminent death
b) Being prevented from breathing until you pass out from lack of oxygen
c) Severe physical pain

...constitute torture?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Waterboarding, being made to stand for hours on end, being sodomized by guards, all this is torture. Granted, I realize it's painful to note that Son of Bush was using methods used by the Imperial Japanese Army and the Gestapo against Al-Qaeda, but that's real life for you.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Your questions seem to be clearly answered by our legal definition of torture:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The United States of America should not support torture in the forms of 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. In this country, you are not a witness to your own crime. If we truly cared about promoting freedom and democracy, we would use the same standards on foreign combatants as we do on our citizens. Show them our peace and understanding, not this twisted torture that only incites hate and has the chance to make them hate us if they already did not.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Torture against terrorists illustrates one of the paradoxes of using evil means to fight evil. Use it too far and then you end up just another evil against that evil, not a representative of a positive good. As you said, torture is associated with the regimes the USA spent the better part of the 20th Century opposing, and if the USA has decided waterboarding is not torture now, there are families of some WWII Axis generals who need financial compensation for wrongful death.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

agreed/

[raven-blue.livejournal.com]

First of all people who claim torture is not effective are wrong. Torture when done correctly on the right person is effective. Secondly what is tprture? The definition has been moving around a lot. John McCain concluded that waterboarding was torture which means that he places it on the same level as what he went through as a POW (electrodes, fingernail removal, isolation, drowning, extreme physical pain and degradation) but many people consider almost anything to be torture. For example if we prevent a known terrorist from having access to reading material including the Koran many Muslims will conclude this to be torture. Yet is preventing someone from reading really on par with beating a mans testicale until they turn blue?

I for one think that putting a man on death row and then leaving him there for years is torture even though no physical harm is being done to him. The problem with this whole debate is that the media defined it long before the people had a chance to really consider what it all means.

While I agree that torture is not defensible I must maintain that the real problem here is how do we define torture.

"Torture does three things. It demonstrates sadistic power. It forces predetermined responses. It exacts self determined vengeance. None of these are values we hold in this country."

Isolating a man until he thinks he will never see another human being will make a man talk. Is this torture? I dont think so.

Torture does not force a predetermined response. Torture is designed to make a man talk. Once a man talks he starts talking about almost anything. A skilled torturer does not ask a yes or know question and listen for a reply under duress. He applies duress and then listens to everything that is being said. It goes more like this. A man is tortured (lets say by thumb screws) then he is let out into the general prison pupulace He goes to someone he knows and says they tortured me but I was loyal, I never mentioned Achmed. Well, people were listening and now they have a name so the next time they torture him they might say, so one of your fellow prisoners had a nice conversation with us, tell us about Achmed. If we are going to b eable to define torture we should understand how torture really works. My point is not that torture is acceptable but rather most people who talk abouot it dont really understand how it works.

As for self determined vengence? I disagree. Any form of punishment for a crime is a measure of self determined vengence.

I would add one last thing. When you say "You either believe in our values and our laws, morals, and ethics - or you don't."

That is a bit like Bush saying you are with us or against us. When you talk about our values do you mean the values or a christian who opposes abortion or the values of a feminist who supports it? Are you talking about the values of a conservative republican or a liberal democrat?

P1 Torture

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Torture is defined much better than "everyone has their own description of what torture is".

the argument is not so much that it is not effective (I'll come back to that. The actual discussion is that it IS illegal, immoral, and unethical (yes I know that the initial comment turned away from that discussion - it cannot really be easily answered when the two opposing sides are so polarized at a dogmatic level - though I fully believe that has been pounded out pretty clearly).

As for the effectiveness - the question is can it be considered (generally) effective in the specific case of gathering information that is not already known to you. I stand by the idea that it is not. IT CAN be effective in extorting a pre-defined answer or action you want from someone (ie: Sign this false confession or I will jam bamboo shoots up your toenails) or as a means of exacting vengeance.

The argument about access to the Koran and kicking a guy in the balls is somewhat glib; but I understand your point. In a general sense we are not talking about that sort of comparison. In specifics the term "water-boarding" has been trotted out - and threatened (or actual) mauling by dogs, Electroshock, severe sleep deprivation, etc. While we DO provide Korans for socio-religious tolerance NO ONE is equating torture with access to holy texts and we we have gone to some lengths to be cooperative on that issue as far as we are aware.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The USA has no business creating its own Lubyanka and the willingness of the so-called small government party to go along with Bush's refusal to ever state whether Al-Qaeda fighters captured are or are not POWs is highly revealing of "small government" mentality. Waterboarding is torture and was the cause of hanging several Axis generals, and not just as part of a broader gallery of atrocities, that would be *SS* agents.

Yes, that kind of isolation is torture, it's called sensory deprivation.

He refers to the values of the Enlightenment including that torture is a refuge of barbarians. Are we now to commemorate such sterling champions of their societies' values as Reinhard Heydrich and Lavrenti Beria?

pt2 A BUSHel of apples and a sinking ship

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

As for Junior and his belief that you are either for or against, we are not really comparing apples to apples.

In the case of Junior, we have an individual, the organization of that organization, and (or) the supporters attempting to supplant the will of an entire population to agree with their policy which WAS in its very action a failure of faith with regards to the values of the system they represented – and in an official capacity. In the other case we are determining a society's faith in those values themselves. His was more a projection of his personal agenda onto a national canvas. My point is that the canvas was not his in the first place.

The term "inalienable" leaves little room for discussion. This is not and should not be a political question. It is one of morals, ethics and legality. All of these are pretty well defined. Sure there are grey areas; but when the word “inalienable” comes up - no sorry -it's not really optional – unless you are admitting that the system is in fact just a matter of convenience... and that is actually one of the hidden topics here. How inalienable are our rights. How much faith do we have in our system. How willing are we to allow them to be what they are no matter the danger.

If you have a dogmatic belief that if our system of value is to have any integrity we cannot sway those values in the face of convenience. The Captain of a ship can effect the hull, but the integrity of the hull has an effect on us all. The captain can do as he feels is best but if he breeches the hull we are all sunk.

pt3 Values

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

I think I was pretty clear on the values issue... the values of the nation - the cornerstones of our system of government. Things that we take for granted. Habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, our Judicial System, our belief in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, Protection from search and seizure, protection from cruel or unusual punishment, simple promises etc. These are societal values. The ones you speak of are more organizational or individual values.

Torture is not considered a value in moral or civilized society anywhere. It is contrary to everything we are supposed to stand for. It is defined and specifically illegal.

And then there is the simple question - what about when it happens to us? How we react defines the action. If we treat it as illegal when it happens to us then it is certainly to be treated that way FROM us.