Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a great debate, but no one established a definition of 'torture.' Here is an example of what happens when no one sets the definitions of terms used in a debate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
... Unfortunately, torture advocates tend to lose sight of that big picture. They perceive an opposition to torture as coddling terrorists. They then support torture not for it's claimed utility but just to make sure we're 'being tough'. Of course, this misses the point completely...
...[F]ollowing a certain practice isn't really about accomplishing anything but about feel-good measures that don't really have a useful outcome but make proponents feel good about themselves.
Clearly this writer has never lived or worked in a country where torture was actually used. Interrogators in those countries use torture as a quick way to get information from disposable prisoners because if they are not successful, they will be the next ones on the receiving end of a Black and Decker power tool. Think about that. Either you get intel from this soon-to-be-corpse or you are next. There is nobody - repeat, nobody, 'feeling good about themselves' in such a circumstance.
I don't know any 'torture advocates' anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the US. (My suspicion is that the writer cited above is one of those who think the three AQ subjects who were waterboarded while in CIA custody were subjected to 'torture.' Please go to the library, check out Hayden, Michael V., Playing to the Edge (New York: Penguin Press, 2016) pp. 189-90. You will get an insight that civilians rarely see - and the senate report conveniently chose not to include.)
For the record, one of the most successful interrogators in Iraq, another guy from my agency, was appalled at what some interrogators from other countries were doing there. He was a strong advocate for not using torture, not because it sometimes doesn't work or it sometimes causes a subject to say anything to make it stop, but because we were trained to get the same thing without using torture or abuse or humiliation. We were taught all kinds of ways to get information from subjects without torture. And we did.
So if we continue this debate, can we please have a standard definition of what constitutes 'torture?' My suggestion would be that torture is to intentionally inflict pain, injury, great bodily harm or unlawful death upon a subject in one's custody.
(And for Unsettomati: Please note that waterboarding, as done by the US, does not do any of these. Waterboarding done by some other groups/countries can and very well may do any of these. Please also note that it was Bush's CIA Director in 2006 who asked the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques.)
(And to Blazer: I can't rep you again just yet, but I loved your reliance upon your she-who-must-be-obeyed's opinion. )
This is a great debate, but no one established a definition of 'torture.' Here is an example of what happens when no one sets the definitions of terms used in a debate:
Clearly this writer has never lived or worked in a country where torture was actually used. Interrogators in those countries use torture as a quick way to get information from disposable prisoners because if they are not successful, they will be the next ones on the receiving end of a Black and Decker power tool. Think about that. Either you get intel from this soon-to-be-corpse or you are next. There is nobody - repeat, nobody, 'feeling good about themselves' in such a circumstance.
I don't know any 'torture advocates' anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the US. (My suspicion is that the writer cited above is one of those who think the three AQ subjects who were waterboarded while in CIA custody were subjected to 'torture.' Please go to the library, check out Hayden, Michael V., Playing to the Edge (New York: Penguin Press, 2016) pp. 189-90. You will get an insight that civilians rarely see - and the senate report conveniently chose not to include.)
For the record, one of the most successful interrogators in Iraq, another guy from my agency, was appalled at what some interrogators from other countries were doing there. He was a strong advocate for not using torture, not because it sometimes doesn't work or it sometimes causes a subject to say anything to make it stop, but because we were trained to get the same thing without using torture or abuse or humiliation. We were taught all kinds of ways to get information from subjects without torture. And we did.
So if we continue this debate, can we please have a standard definition of what constitutes 'torture?' My suggestion would be that torture is to intentionally inflict pain, injury, great bodily harm or unlawful death upon a subject in one's custody.
(And for Unsettomati: Please note that waterboarding, as done by the US, does not do any of these. Waterboarding done by some other groups/countries can and very well may do any of these. Please also note that it was Bush's CIA Director in 2006 who asked the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques.)
(And to Blazer: I can't rep you again just yet, but I loved your reliance upon your she-who-must-be-obeyed's opinion. )
You would also probably want to discern between state approved torture and those that use torture for other means (like sending messages to rivals).
State approved torture (national) can be a whole different can of worms that those who torture to get a point across, or for pleasure.
The most evil among us (in my opinion) are psychopathic sadistic, multiple torture murderers. Ones where murder is the motive, with sexual gratification thrown in. Two that come to mind are the Dennis Raider and Jeffery Dahmer. How does their sexually motivated torture differ from that of state sponsored torture, other than the sexual aspects? Is there a gratification that is not present when a sponsored "torturer" does the same thing? Is it less torture because it's his "job"?
Torture can mean a lot of different things and shouldn't be lumped into one category by the press.
The worst torture videos I've witnessed involved slowly killing a person, on camera, to share with that person's family or associates to send a message. Or in the case of ISIS, caging a Christian, pouring gasoline over them, leading the gas away from the scene, and lighting it so that the victim has a few moments to agonize in terror before they start to burn to death.
I completely agree that waterboarding is not torture, or at least a very mild form of discomfort to the victim, when compared to what David Parker Ray did to his victims, or what the Los Zetas do to theirs.
when America captures a known terrorist, do you think we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary or just ask nicely a few times?
I personally say get it any way you can. Start by asking then gently escalate it up to the brink of death. If you disagree, please explain why.
It's been studied and documented that torture isn't helpful as an information-procurement tool.
I have a practical opposition to torture, not a philosophical one. I do think that we can imagine scenarios in which torture isn't just morally acceptable but is morally obligatory, such as a terrorist who has hidden a large bomb in a populated area and refuses to give up the location. However, in the real world, it is very, very difficult to know when we are in such a situation. In practice, I think torture should generally be illegal. There are simply too many unknowns, and there are legitimate questions over whether torture in practice has actually been effective. The Senate report on the CIA's torture program concluded that it wasn't particularly effective.
I think there should be some mechanism by which we can torture people in extremely limited circumstances when a very high standard has been met. Clearly, this sort of decision needs to go through an exhaustive process of approval. In general, however, I think the risks of a torture program far outweigh the benefits.
I couldn't have said it better myself. The knee-jerk reaction is, "Heck yea! Let's torture 'em!" But the knee-jerk reaction is usually the wrong reaction.
You would also probably want to discern between state approved torture and those that use torture for other means (like sending messages to rivals)....
The most evil among us (in my opinion) are psychopathic sadistic, multiple torture murderers. Ones where murder is the motive, with sexual gratification thrown in. Two that come to mind are the Dennis Raider and Jeffery Dahmer. How does their sexually motivated torture differ from that of state sponsored torture, other than the sexual aspects? Is there a gratification that is not present when a sponsored "torturer" does the same thing? Is it less torture because it's his "job"?
Torture can mean a lot of different things and shouldn't be lumped into one category by the press...
I agree.
Torture by an individual in almost any country is a considered a violent crime and punished by society (government) as such. Jeffrey Dahmer was doing life w/o parole when he suddenly..., ahem, died. John Wayne Gacey they just executed.
Torture by a non-governmental organization (ISIS, al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, for example) is considered terrorism. The debate about how terrorism should be prosecuted (by a military or by a criminal justice system) has been raging in the US for years. Probably grist for a different debate.
Torture by a stated nation is considered torture, and the UN takes a dim (but relatively ineffective) view of it.
I can't - and won't - talk about what inhumanities I've seen, but Wise Man has some valid points here. As long as we're setting definitions, can we limit the debate to state-sponsored (government approved/ordered) torture?
I continue to have a moral objection, and my stance is supported by international law. Debating whether it "works" or not means you've already considered it to be an option. To my mind, that makes you no better than a terrorist.
I recommend watching The Guantanamo Guidebook. The Guantanamo Guidebook - Top Documentary Films It's a British documentary using volunteers as subjects and ex military as interrogators to recreate some of the psychological torture methods used at Guantanamo Bay.
when America captures a known terrorist, do you think we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary or just ask nicely a few times?
I personally say get it any way you can. Start by asking then gently escalate it up to the brink of death. If you disagree, please explain why.
Yes... we should be able to get information from them by any means necessary... including torture
In the event they don't know anything useful.... we should continue to torture them so that our interrogators can get the practice they need
I also feel they should be kept healthy with a diet consisting exclusively of Pork products, Bacon is my favorite.... yummy
I definitely touched upon degrees/methods of torture in previous posts.
I mentioned that whenever the "Team Murica" types talk all big about torturing 'those' terrorists/enemies, their definition of torture are the things they see in the movies and TV. You know, the 'bad guy' strapped to a chair in a dark and dingy cell, bright light shining in face. Bruised face and blood oozing from lip as interrogator slaps and threatens him (of course these same types cry foul if the same was done to Americans).
The irony being, even methods that the pro war crowd probably deem as 'lightweight' such as waterboarding and psychological torture (which isn't lightweight at all), have provided no reliable information.
So beating and maiming a prisoner is in reality sadism, which some attempt to gloss over by considering it an effective means of gathering information.
Bottom line, torture doesn't work and has no place in a civilized world. I don't care what other people and countries do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
