REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So, Just What *Is* Torture?

POSTED BY: PERFESSERGEE
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2005 00:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7283
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, August 21, 2005 8:28 AM

SERGEANTX


The policy that created these abuses is what is key. The JAG were right. The administration's efforts to circumvent the Geneva conventions and our traditional sense of decency in the name emergency ethics was seen by many as a license to commit evil. The administration was warned this would happened and they ignored the warning. Jailing a few perps that we happen to catch only says "don't get caught". This needs to be addressed by reversing the policy changes that fostered it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 8:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Torture exists in a very well defined context. It's not just any pain, any misery, but pain and misery inflicted for the reasons underlined above.



Wrongo. It is specifically designated as "...severe pain or suffering, physical or mental...". Severity is key, and how this severity is determined is also key.

Is making someone sit in a straight chair for several hours "severe" physical suffering? How about standing for hours? Sleeping on a bare concrete floor? Squatting in a confined space? Hosing with cold water? A "wedgie"? A slap? A twisted arm with no damage? Loud noise? Etc. etc. etc. Where is the line drawn?

And how about mental suffering? Is being cursed at "severe" mental suffering? Insults? Sexual innuendo? Religious blasphamy? defiling bibles, torahs, korans? Threat of death?


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Yes, and how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin? Your hypothetical is absurd. No such circumstance has ever existed, nor is it ever likely to exist. You just get your jollies imagining this kind of crap.



Not really. Most of the misbehavior for which American forces have been charged and convicted was not just for the jollies of beating someone up. It was in relation to interrogations, either during, or prior to soften up the subject. I'd suspect that these interrogations were to find the location of insurgent forces or materials, with the clear purpose of taking them out, theeby saving American and Iraqi lives.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 9:11 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Most of the misbehavior for which American forces have been charged and convicted was not just for the jollies of beating someone up. It was in relation to interrogations, either during, or prior to soften up the subject. I'd suspect that these interrogations were to find the location of insurgent forces or materials, with the clear purpose of taking them out, theeby saving American and Iraqi lives.



Geezer, you usually seem pretty reasonable, even when I disagree with your positions. But this just seems like rationalizing on the thinnest of justifications. The pictures clearly showed these soldiers taking perverse joy in the humiliation of people under their control. If this is the way our country thinks we should behave, I'll renounce my citizenship right now. But I don't think it is, despite your attempts to explain it away.

The rules of conduct we abandoned were there to prevent just such twisted crap. We follow those rules, not to protect prisoners, but to protect ourselves from sliding into the kind of depravity caught on film at Abu Ghraib.

I'll keep saying it. Bush changed these rules and is responsible for the results. This needs to be corrected clearly and quickly.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 10:21 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Is making someone sit in a straight chair for several hours "severe" physical suffering? How about standing for hours? Sleeping on a bare concrete floor? Squatting in a confined space? Hosing with cold water? A "wedgie"? A slap? A twisted arm with no damage? Loud noise? Etc. etc. etc. Where is the line drawn?

And how about mental suffering? Is being cursed at "severe" mental suffering? Insults? Sexual innuendo? Religious blasphamy? defiling bibles, torahs, korans? Threat of death?


I am completly unsure of you point here.
All those things can be torture given the right context. Loud noise can be torture, thats what they're using right now in Guantanamo...
Ever heard of chinese water torture? Although fictional it gives a good example of how torture can be anything if employed in such a way...
A single drip on to the top of the head, spread over hours, months, or years drives people insane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture

I can, in fact give you an argument for each one of your points as too how and why it could be employed as torture.
So what is your point here?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 10:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
One of the greatest tools used by the Right Wing that I have seen on this board is the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc; if something happens after something else, then there must be a causal relationship, e.g.: The Berlin Wall came down after Ronald Reagan became president, ergo Reagan brought the wall down.



Or like...Bush said there were WMD in Iraq but there were none, ergo Bush lied. Or does post hoc ergo propter hoc only work to invalidate Right Wing proposals?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Geezer, you usually seem pretty reasonable, even when I disagree with your positions. But this just seems like rationalizing on the thinnest of justifications. The pictures clearly showed these soldiers taking perverse joy in the humiliation of people under their control. If this is the way our country thinks we should behave, I'll renounce my citizenship right now. But I don't think it is, despite your attempts to explain it away.



I'm not trying to rationalize or justify the Abu Ghraib actions. I consider that the punishment was justified. I am noting that the misbehavior there started after a request from interrogators to guards to "soften up" prisoners for questioning. This obviously got out of hand.

I do not think this is the way we should behave, and apparently the military and government organizations who have put the miscreants in jail didn't either. I don't believe it's possible to completely eliminate this type of behavior, since you're dealing with imperfect people. However, the response of those charged with identifying and punishing this type of behavior tells a lot about the society they come from.

My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I am completly unsure of you point here.
All those things can be torture given the right context. Loud noise can be torture, thats what they're using right now in Guantanamo...
...So what is your point here?




My point is that the UN defines torture as "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering. How do you define "severe"? Where does legitimate coercion stop and torture begin? Is it the same for all people?

If you piss on a Bible in front of me, and piss on a Quran in front of a Muslim, is one mental torture and one not? If I play Metallica at 105db at a metalhead and a captured Iraqi insurgent, are both being tortured?

Give me a firm, unequivocal, definition of "severe" mental or physical pain or suffering. What is too much? A slap? A punch? A pinch? Unless you can unambiguously define your terms, how can you argue.

We have the sorts of things which American troops have been convicted for as a baseline. Start there.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:47 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Some American troops have committed acts of "torture"

Was it more than one incident? Was it more than two? Three? Four?
Was in more than one location?

It would seem 'some' is a rather conservative word to use...

A lot is more like it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:59 AM

FLYINGTAMS


Yep, its simple. Its when you do inhuman things to people that you wouldn't do to your own family, and rationalise it as necessary but ok because you are the good guy. And then the other side does the same to you.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:09 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition.



So, are you completely discounting the changed directives concerning torture? This IS a matter of policy. It seems a no-brainer to revert to the standards of decency that existed be for the Bush administration changed them. I can only assume you've ignored my repeated comments to this effect. Is this just another example of Bush's inability to admit a mistake and correct it?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 2:02 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, are you completely discounting the changed directives concerning torture? This IS a matter of policy. It seems a no-brainer to revert to the standards of decency that existed be for the Bush administration changed them. I can only assume you've ignored my repeated comments to this effect. Is this just another example of Bush's inability to admit a mistake and correct it?



Okay. You're making some assumptions here.

1. As I recall, the directives were for changes in interrogation procedures. Strange as to how this suddenly jumps to approval of torture. Must be that post hoc ergo propter hoc thing again. If the goverment approves of torture, why are we putting people in jail for various illegal acts? Huh?

2. Why do I get the feeling that post hoc ergo propter hoc must be Latin for "If Bush did it, it must be wrong".

3. Is the change in interrogation bounds a mistake? Do you have any evidence that the legal application of the new rules (not the excesses of some) have degraded our intelligence capabilities or interrogation results?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 2:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Some American troops have committed acts of "torture"

Was it more than one incident? Was it more than two? Three? Four?
Was in more than one location?

It would seem 'some' is a rather conservative word to use...

A lot is more like it Chrisisall



I've got no idea. Neither do you. A lot depends on your definition of torture. I'm not sure that stepping on someone's Quran qualifies to me, where as beatings and severe sexual humiliation might.

In any case, I doubt that it's as widespread as you think. I haven't seen any actual studies done. You can quote individual cases, but without any overall info they are just anecdotal events. I'd expect that if mistreatment of prisoners was a common occurrance, given the openness of our society, that returning soldiers would be blowing the whistle on more than the relatively few instances reported.

And once again - Please note that the folks who cross the line into torture or other illegal behavior are being prosecuted.

Oh. By the bye. Way to take one line from a post out of context and ignore the rest.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 2:29 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
In any case, I doubt that it's as widespread as you think.

I'm not even so sure it was that widespread, it's just that you have people supervising people who are supervising people and so on. If a guy leaves a toilet seat up where I work, a notice is posted about sexual harrasment; I find it hard to believe torture and even mild abuse can occur in a military chain-of-command environment! And not just once, but what seems like MANY (more than 5 at least) times.

Either I'm expecting too much from the military, or certain highly placed personnel gave the okay for extremes to be put into play.
I don't know which.

Uh-oh, I can already hear the 'C' word Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
up where I work, a notice is posted about sexual harrasment; I find it hard to believe torture and even mild abuse can occur in a military chain-of-command environment!



But I bet toilet seats are still sometimes left up at your work. Right? So are you all guilty of sexual harrassment?

Our military currently works by allowing individuals some operational initiative. This is generally a good thing, since most people have a sense of how their job is done and how to do it properly, or even improve their performance. This has worked to our benefit, since small units and even individuals can operate in an independent manner quite efficently.

We could adopt the soviet style, where no one did anything without direct orders, and out casualty rate in Iraq would probably be much higher.

Giving people the ability to act on their own, or at a small unit level, risks the occurrance of some (No! I don't know exactly how many!) violations of the rules. You can't monitor everyone 24/7 in a wartime situation. You still haven't addressed the fact that our military has a way to react to, and punish for, these violations, and that this has been done.

Face it. You want everything that the United States has done since Bush was elected to be wrong and evil, and you won't hear anything else. I don't particularly like Bush either, but I believe in the institutions of the United States. I do not believe that senior military men who have spent their entire lives serving their country would countenance torture of POWs just for revenge as policy. I doubt that career civil servants (having been one myself) would go along with domestic policies that would enslave the population. I don't think everything is coming up roses, but it ain't the end of the world as we know it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:13 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
[BOkay. You're making some assumptions here.

1. As I recall, the directives were for changes in interrogation procedures. Strange as to how this suddenly jumps to approval of torture. Must be that post hoc ergo propter hoc thing again. If the goverment approves of torture, why are we putting people in jail for various illegal acts? Huh?



This article might shed some light on the issue for you:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11456

A highlight:
Quote:

The memorandums provide the most complete record to date of how uniformed military lawyers were frequently the chief dissenters as government officials formulated interrogation policies. "These military lawyers were clearly disturbed by the proposed techniques that were deviations from past practices that were being advocated by the Justice Department," said Senator Graham, himself a former military lawyer.


There are other articles with similar information from reliable sources. Your accusations of 'Bush hating' or whatever, fail to address the clear correlation between the aggressive techniques authorized and the increased reports of abuse.

You seem to think that punishing the wrongdoers somehow erases the fact that the changes in policy, the policy level disregard for Geneva conventions, created at an atmosphere were abuses were much more likely.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:36 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You seem to think that punishing the wrongdoers somehow erases the fact that the changes in policy, the policy level disregard for Geneva conventions, created at an atmosphere were abuses were much more likely.



Lets say I have seen no evidence that changes in policy have produced any more abuses than in previous conflicts. I also have my doubts about "Beyond the Beltway" being an unbiased source. If I did a little googling, I could probably come up with all sorts of apologists for anything done wrong in the last six years, and you'd probably believe them no more than I do.

Are we more evil now than in Vietnam? Korea? WWII? Check histories of "the last good war" describing the shooting of wounded enemy soldiers, misreatment of prisoners, etc. I'd bet that on a statistical basis, less illegal activity has occurred during the Iraq war than any previous. It's still too much, but not the endemic treatment you seem to believe in.

Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 4:27 PM

CHRISISALL


Sorry, it's just that the corporate model has been adopted by so many, including the military, and it flat out doesn't ing work. Micro-managing or Lasaie-faire based on 'scores', neither replaces apprenticing a master or learning your craft from the ground up. Everyone who comitted crimes of abuse had to pass a standardized computer test to be deemed psychologically fit. Oh my, and they did it anyway.
Humanity needs to be inserted into life and death situations; leave computer componants to the satilites. Abuses occured as a result of reports, typed up on a keyboard, not observed reality, IMHO. Put people back in the loop where it counts.

On the other hand, digital photography, the internet, and strange senses of humour have made targeting most abusers of prisoners more simple.
The sword cuts both ways, I guess.

We should have a death penalty for convicted torturers (that is, the ones who leave a prisoner dead or unable to walk kind-of-torture), whatever side. Mad dogs need a rest.


Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 4:38 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I also have my doubts about "Beyond the Beltway" being an unbiased source. If I did a little googling, I could probably come up with all sorts of apologists for anything done wrong in the last six years, and you'd probably believe them no more than I do.



Hehe.... You can't fall back on that one in this case. The source of the article is very pro military, and pro-war from what I can tell. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. This is something that needs to be done for the sake of the military, not as an attack against it. These people realize that.

Quote:

Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.


I'm not interested in bashing Bush. Not in this case anyway. I'm interested in seeing some serious policy mistakes corrected. It's looking like you've made up your mind and are unwilling to consider that things might need to be changed for the better, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I honestly hope you're right. But, the way I see it, we're headed in the wrong direction and it's going to take a lot more than hope to get us back on track.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:44 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
My point is that the UN defines torture as "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering. How do you define "severe"? Where does legitimate coercion stop and torture begin? Is it the same for all people?


Legitimate coercion is asking questions, if the subject does not want to give more information than name rank etc, and the interrogator uses any means to force an anwser that is a breach of the Geneva convention (unless you employ clever laywers of course).
To answer your point that theres no evidence that the Bush administration hasn't sanctioned torture I remember it being widly reported in the British media (at least) that the Bush administration classified the 'terroists' at Guantanomo Bay as 'illegal combatants', not POW's therefore not protected by the Geneva convention.
Why would they do that if they weren't planning on doing things to these prisoners forbidden by the convention?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 22, 2005 1:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Legitimate coercion is asking questions, if the subject does not want to give more information than name rank etc, and the interrogator uses any means to force an anwser that is a breach of the Geneva convention (unless you employ clever laywers of course).



But we're drifting away from the subject here, which is torture. Or are you saying that anything more than politely asking questions is torture?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 22, 2005 2:01 AM

CITIZEN


You asked where legitimate coercion stopped, and torture began. As far as the Geneva convention is concerned, at least as I have read it, all you are allowed to do *is* ask questions.
You cannot administer Sodium Penathol to force an answer, you can't put someone in a little metal box and beat on it until they submit.
And yes, employed in the right way more or less anything could be torture.

Consider a police interrogation, peoples live can be at stake but all they can do is ask questions. Not necessarilly politely, but they can't employ methods other than asking questions.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 22, 2005 5:22 AM

R1Z


GEEZER wrote:
"My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition."

What I don't see anywhere is anyone taking responsibility for the improper actions of the people under their command. Has anyone with a rank higher than sergeant ever been charged?

The people in charge of any facility where people cannot get up and leave of their own free will are responsible for the health and well being of those confined. This includes prisons, jails, hospitals and nursing homes.

Suppose the staff of a hospital took no responsibility for evacuating the patients when the fire alarm went off?

Suppose the janitors were torturing the patients of a hospital? Would that not ultimately be the responsibility of the hospital administration for allowing conditions to exist where that torture was possible?

Even if the camp administration did not know that improper activities were going on, they were guilty of not knowing what their subordinates were doing.

I am responsible to my superiors for the actions, proper or im, of my subordinates. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here". Too bad he didn't leave it for George W. Bush.





To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:38 AM

PERFESSERGEE


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
GEEZER wrote:
"My problem with this whole "torture" issue the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (thanks HKC) that reads: Some American troops have committed acts of "torture", ergo the American military and government approve of torture. It's
a leap from A to Z with no train of logic in the middle, just self-serving supposition."

What I don't see anywhere is anyone taking responsibility for the improper actions of the people under their command. Has anyone with a rank higher than sergeant ever been charged?

The people in charge of any facility where people cannot get up and leave of their own free will are responsible for the health and well being of those confined. This includes prisons, jails, hospitals and nursing homes.

Suppose the staff of a hospital took no responsibility for evacuating the patients when the fire alarm went off?

Suppose the janitors were torturing the patients of a hospital? Would that not ultimately be the responsibility of the hospital administration for allowing conditions to exist where that torture was possible?

Even if the camp administration did not know that improper activities were going on, they were guilty of not knowing what their subordinates were doing.

I am responsible to my superiors for the actions, proper or im, of my subordinates. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here". Too bad he didn't leave it for George W. Bush.




Good point, R1Z. One concept that has been consistently missing from these debates about US treatment of prisoners (I'm hijacking my own thread here for a minute) is the concept of command responsibility. I'm not sure if it's codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or if it's just tradition, but commanders are supposed to be responsible for the actions of every single person under their command. The Navy certainly follows it. If you are the skipper of a ship, and your steersman runs it aground even when you are off-watch and asleep in your bunk, you can say goodbye to any future blue-water command. And it should be pointed out that the policies in control of US operations in Iraq came from the highest levels of the Administration. For heaven's sake, one of the guys who formulated them is now Attorney General (though he wasn't at the time). Unfortunately, the buck stopped at the level of the NCO's.

So how about it all you folk who argue that the higher-ranking officers didn't know what was going on - what are your thoughts on command resposibility?

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:46 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by perfessergee:
...And it should be pointed out that the policies in control of US operations in Iraq came from the highest levels of the Administration. For heaven's sake, the one of the guys who formulated them is now Attorney General (though he wasn't at the time). Unfortunately, the buck stopped at the level of the NCO's.

So how about it all you folk who argue that the higher-ranking officers didn't know what was going on - what are your thoughts on command resposibility?



I brought this up several times, but no one seemed interested. To me, it's the single most important issue of the debate. If there are systemic, policy-level problems leading to abuse, and I think there are, they need to be dealt with. Instead we're debating the meaning of the word 'torture'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:47 PM

R1Z


Actually, we're debating the meaning of the word torture because the title of this thread is, "So, Just What *Is* Torture?" :>)

But the whole "command responsibility" thing is a good discussion, too.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:55 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
Actually, we're debating the meaning of the word torture because the title of this thread is, "So, Just What *Is* Torture?" :>)



OH... so you're going to play the old 'that was the whole point of the thread' card eh?

Ok, fine. Be that way.

Point taken.

(SanctimoniousAsshole)SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:04 PM

PERFESSERGEE


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by perfessergee:
...And it should be pointed out that the policies in control of US operations in Iraq came from the highest levels of the Administration. For heaven's sake, the one of the guys who formulated them is now Attorney General (though he wasn't at the time). Unfortunately, the buck stopped at the level of the NCO's.

So how about it all you folk who argue that the higher-ranking officers didn't know what was going on - what are your thoughts on command resposibility?



I brought this up several times, but no one seemed interested. To me, it's the single most important issue of the debate. If there are systemic, policy-level problems leading to abuse, and I think there are, they need to be dealt with. Instead we're debating the meaning of the word 'torture'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock




Sarge, I don't disagree with you at all, I just see "what actually occurred(and whether that constitutes torture)" and "who bears the responsibility for it" as two separate issues, though both are important. That's why I mentioned that I was hijacking the thread. Your posts about high-level responsibility on these various threads have been admirably clear and I'm in complete agreement. But we've all seen a lot of posts that ignore or dance around command responsibility, and when they agree that there's been abuse at all, they blame it on rogue elements. Seems to me that the only excuse that can be used at the upper levels of the command structure belongs to the President himself. He can claim that he's not actually a member of the military himself, and therefore command responsibility may not apply, though this would creat some cognitive dissonance with the concept of "Commander in Chief". Every level below that involves military commanders. It's harder to get at civilian accountability (though I personally think the same principles ought to apply). And while I'm hijacking, I think the principles ought to apply to the command structure that led to the (apparently unprovoked) police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in
England.

The whole thing boils down to the following: Not knowing what the people under your command are doing is functionally the same as ordering them to do it. That is to say, the outcomes are the same.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:11 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by perfessergee:
The whole thing boils down to the following: Not knowing what the people under your command are doing is functionally the same as ordering them to do it. That is to say, the outcomes are the same.


I can't help feeling that the men in power are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. They, and their admirers, are just playing our game as a stall, as a macguffin; anything to slow down the simple realization that of course they authorized these policies. Hello? Of course commanders are held accountable for the bad behavior of their subordinants--the thing is, from the commanders' point of view nothing is wrong with this stuff. So they have to sacrifice a few grunts to public oppinion; hell, they're used to sacrificing grunts in much more perminent ways, aren't they? What part of "Such things happen in war," don't you understand?

And besides, they think they're right to do so. The top brass and half the country tacitly support the torture. Hell, openly in some cases. We know this. We read it every day on this board, and in the news, and at the bus stop and in the lunchroom.

You know, there are military regulations against raping female officers, but does that stop it from happening, and until very recently, happening systematically across the board? There's official policy, and then there's what really gets done. Torture is nothing new, it's not unique to this administration. Before this administration, they were just a hell of a lot better at keeping a lid on it. Kept the number of people involved small and highly trained. Then Rumsfeld got jealous of the C.I.A. and thought he could do better and screwed things up for the future of statecraft as we know it.

In some ways the folks that support torture are just being realistic and acknowledging what we've been doing all along. They are supporting their country. To them, we who oppose the torture look like a lot of sissy tattle-tales trying to get George Bush "in trouble." Or worse, we are undermining the security of the entire nation by trying to remove torture from our international bag of tricks which would put us at a serious disadvantage.

Our country is going through a very dark period in her history. People across this land are still enraged by and terrified by the terrorist attacks. Rage is never a good starting point for making policy--can I even say that nowadays? Or will somebody come back with, "It's that kind of soft-headed, defeatist, pacifist, blinkered, pie-in-the-sky liberalism that got us into this mess in the first place! Rage is what this country needs to deal with the changing political realities of the post 9/11 era! Rage is the only moral choice in an age of terror! Etc.?"

Seriously, what are we gonna do about torture really? Can it really be stopped? Do enough people believe that this country can survive without it? Or is the best case senario that we get George Bush impeached and hand the reigns back over to the professionals in the C.I.A and call it good?



HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:41 PM

R1Z


Quote:

Seriously, what are we gonna do about torture really? Can it really be stopped? Do enough people believe that this country can survive without it? Or is the best case senario that we get George Bush impeached and hand the reigns back over to the professionals in the C.I.A and call it good?


When enough grunts realize that they have a right and an obligation to decline an order that violates all civilized standards of military conduct, then we will have a start.

Until then, we can expect the rest of the world to call for war crimes tribunals to look into what happened on our watch.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:08 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
When enough grunts realize that they have a right and an obligation to decline an order that violates all civilized standards of military conduct, then we will have a start.



A friend of mine, who fought in the first Iraq war, made this point to me in no uncertain terms. A soldier is duty bound to disobey insane orders, and remove the negligent officer from any position of authority. The problem is, you have to prove your action was justified, or the repurcussions are very severe.

In other words, if at least someone up the chain of command doesn't agree with your actions, you're screwed. Especially if it's the Commander in Chief giving the orders.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:15 PM

R1Z


Quote:

A friend of mine, who fought in the first Iraq war, made this point to me in no uncertain terms. A soldier is duty bound to disobey insane orders, and remove the negligent officer from any position of authority. The problem is, you have to prove your action was justified, or the repurcussions are very severe.

In other words, if at least someone up the chain of command doesn't agree with your actions, you're screwed. Especially if it's the Commander in Chieft giving the orders.



I'll assume, for the same of this discussion, that if his commander ordered him to rape a 12 year old girl, he would decline the order as illegal. Somewhere in between "rape that little girl" and "take a picture of your comrade holding the end of this leash attached to the dog collar on that prisoner" there's a line. We, as a society, have to draw that line somewhere since arguably, the military works for us.

I always thought the Geneva Conventions delineated the line, and I was happy with it there.

Apparently I'm also quaint and irrelevant.



To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:48 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer,

Coming in late ... there are roughly 137 military personnel total in some stage of investigation for prisoner abuse for GITMO, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram. They were all using similar techniques - chaining up, hooding, peroneal strikes ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9211.htm), sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and threatening with dogs. It stretches credulity to think that all these people stretched over half the globe independently came up with the same techniques and put together the same equipment (hoods, overhead shackles) out of similar perversions.

Further, there is ample record that people were actively seeking guidance on - out of the things they had been taught - what was and was not allowable treatment of 'terrorists'.

The creation of a separate category not subject to the Geneva Conventions, Constitutional rights or the Treaty on Torture, and documents on 'allowed' torture techniques, both schemes cooked up by the DoD civilians and Office of the President, clearly created confusion and led to torture. As they was meant to.


Quote:

Nor were the rules of engagement very clear. The platoon had the standard interrogations guide, Army Field Manual 34-52, and an order from the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to treat prisoners "humanely," and when possible, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. But with President Bush's final determination in February 2002 that the Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and that Taliban fighters would not be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the interrogators believed they "could deviate slightly from the rules," said one of the Utah reservists, Sgt. James A. Leahy.

"There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise.

Quote:

"I just don't understand how, if we were given training to do this, you can say that we were wrong and should have known better," said the soldier, Pvt. Willie V. Brand, 26, of Cincinnati, a father of four who volunteered for tours in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
Quote:

In their final report, the investigators recommended that prosecutors charge the junior officer who led the interrogation group, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, with dereliction of duty, saying "she was clearly informed the techniques documented within F.M. 34-52 were the only approved interrogation techniques to be used at Bagram."

But in a statement given in the commander's inquiry, Captain Wood asked for "additional legal guidance" about techniques like stress positions and sleep deprivation.

In interviews, other former interrogators said she and the staff sergeant who was her deputy had for months been seeking clarification from their superiors about the interrogation methods they could use.

"They asked many, many times," said one former Bagram interrogator who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. "The lack of guidance was a source of frustration for them. My own feeling is that it was never given because nobody wanted to put themselves on the line."





Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:58 PM

R1Z


Quote:

"They asked many, many times," said one former Bagram interrogator who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. "The lack of guidance was a source of frustration for them. My own feeling is that it was never given because nobody wanted to put themselves on the line."


And yet we've never heard of anyone thrown out of the military for saying, "No, I'm not comfortable going ahead with this behavior we've asked for guidance on."

"I was just following orders" as an excuse was debunked at the Nuremburg Tribunals.

I'd like to think that if I were there I would have the guts and moral fortitude to say to my commanders that, no matter what my orders, forcing people to masturbate for my amusement is wrong. Chaining people to a bed in a standing position is wrong. And certainly, attaching electrodes to the genitals of a hooded man is wrong.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I try to live my life by my own judgement. Despite that, I'm not sure I would have done any better than the soldiers who were taught to do certain things, were trying to fulfill their mission (make prisoners ready to talk), and in situations where the administration deliberately created confusion.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:46 PM

R1Z


OK, Maybe it's because I'm old.

Robert Heinlein once said that age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

I'll spell it out for you. You may want to write this down on a post-it and carry it in your wallet:

Forcing people to masturbate for your amusement is wrong. Raping anyone at any time is wrong. Chaining people to a bed in a standing position is wrong. And certainly, attaching electrodes to the genitals of a hooded man is wrong.

In general, treating anyone else in a manner you would find objectionable if directed toward you is WRONG.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions.


To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 4:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Peroneal strikes were taught as a way to control prisoners. Nothing was said about them causing permanent disability, the lore was that they could temporarily disable a person and cause a lot of pain for no (or little) physical damage. Stress positions which cause great pain but were reputed to cause little physical damage were also on the 'to-do' list. So were sleep deprivation, loud noises, the use of dogs ('fear up'), and anything which caused humilitation ('pride down'). The idea (I gather) was that anything which didn't cause obvious physical injury was OK. So, for example, if you made a hooded man stand on a box with electrodes attached to his genitals, it was OK as long as you never intended to physically shock him.

Understand, I'm not excusing this. But once some forms of inhumane treatment are allowed by policy and the line that defines 'acceptable' is deliberately blurred, a culture can come to exist where that's just 'the way things are done'.

I've held many unpopular opinions and taken a lot of heat. As I said, I'd like to think I'd do better in the same situation the soldiers faced.

But with the full weight of the President's order, the expectations of your superiors that you'll get the job done without a fuss, and coming into a situation where 'things are just done this way', I can see how people could bow to the weight of the situation and themselves be coerced into doing things they felt were wrong.



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:26 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"You and Anthony enjoy disconnecting torture from its real context and refit it to some PG-rated, everyday passtime."

When you define something, Cavalier, it is best to define it as simply as possible. Torture has been rated X and PG and all grades between, and it IS an everyday occurance, and to some, a pasttime.

But yet I don't think you and I disagree on the validity of torture, so I wonder at the comment.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:37 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Finally, my definition of torture: Discomfort applied to a subject in an effort to obtain a desired result.

This makes the schoolyard bully, who twists your arm in order to get you to cough up your lunch money, a torturer.
It also makes a wrestler a torturer.

The schoolyard bully is a criminal torturer. He inflicts torture on an innocent victim for his own pleasure or benefit.

The wrestler is a sportsman torturer. His opponent and he agreed to enter into a friendly game of mutual torture to see who could torture whom to the greatest effect.


I find your definition too broad, not too simple. The "to obtain a desired result" part is meaningless; that includes any act of will you can name. So your definition boils down to "applying discomfort." How's that for simple? According to you, if I just succeeded in making you feel uncomfortable, I'm a torturer.

Equating wrestling to torture is like equating kidnapping to a road trip and rape to hot sex. The crucially missing element is the power differential and the absolute lack of consent by the victim. Your definition denies the importance of the victim's violation; glosses over it; erases it. It also denies the sadism of the torturer who violates another person who is wholly in their power. Whether you mean it or not, your definition of torture is right in line with the idea that what went on at Abu Graib was the equivalent of frat hazing. Same actions (at least the actions that have been widely circulated in the media are the same), but very different power differential.

Have you yourself ever wrestled? It's really not about inflicting pain or coercing a person; it's about physically maneuvering another body into an inescapable position. Sometimes that hurts, but not necessarily. And there are weight classes to keep the contest even. Of course, when your big brother pins you to the ground and tickles you unmercifully, it's humiliating and torturous. The crucial piece there is that your brother is bigger than you and you have no recourse. Torture requires that you have someone at your mercy, that you have complete control over them. That's what's wrong with torture and that's my simplest definition: taking a helpless victim and hurting them. Schoolyard torture is wrong, but it isn't criminal; I wouldn't go bothering Amnesty International about it.

Quote:

So, what is the soldier who tortures another soldier for information? It depends on the unlikely presence of a ticking nuke somewhere.

This part is confusing to me. It sure looks like you're trying to say that if there's a ticking nuke somewhere the soldier who tortures another soldier is akin to your "sportsman torturer" rather than a "criminal torturer?" Please tell me my inference is wrong and you aren't trying to say that torture for the right reason isn't really torture.



HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:46 AM

R1Z


Quote:

The idea (I gather) was that anything which didn't cause obvious physical injury was OK.


Why does this sound like the admonition that you should never punch your wife in the face, because people will see the bruises and ask questions? Much better to kidney punch her so people won't see the evidence.

Of course, it's impossible to say how anyone would would react in a situation they've never been in. It's all conjecture, but I'd still like to think that I'd serve out my term in the stockade rather than follow orders to humiliate (pride down)or torture fellow human beings.

But then, I come from a generation with a lot of practice at distrusting what the government says. If my draft number hadn't been 285, I'd probably be typing this in Canada.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Didn't read much of this thread, so sorry if this is old news...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4180692.stm

" A soldier from a US military intelligence unit has been sentenced to two months in prison for abusing an Afghan detainee who later died. "

So.... say if I wind up in a position where I was fighting the US ( seems more likely everyday )

Is that two months for getting caught beating prisoners to death, or two months for each prisoner ???

Just want to get it straight for when the time comes








When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Just because I don't follow the "Bush is always wrong" dogma doesn't mean I believe Bush is always right. I just get tired of the constant bashing.
What is it that makes you so tired?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:04 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"This part is confusing to me. It sure looks like you're trying to say that if there's a ticking nuke somewhere the soldier who tortures another soldier is akin to your "sportsman torturer" rather than a "criminal torturer?" Please tell me my inference is wrong and you aren't trying to say that torture for the right reason isn't really torture."

That's just my point, Cavalier. Torture is Torture. Discomfort applied to a subject to glean a desired result. It's quite broad, but properly so. You see, the soldier who tortures another soldier is a torturer, regardless of the circumstances.

And, brother, if a man goes up to you, grabs you, twists your arm until you're in agony, and demands your money... he's a bloody criminal. I don't care where it happens.

I have, in fact, wrestled. When I wrestled, it was an elective in college, and it was a Japanese form. Two people grappled until one of them surrendered. Merely incapacitating the opponent wasn't usually enough to illicit surrender. Discomfort was the key factor that caused someone to 'tap out.' The application of inescapable discomfort is rather the point of wrestling. (At least when I did it.)

However, torture itself doesn't need to be classed as 'good' or 'evil' or 'right' or 'wrong.' Most people would class killing as an evil act, but I can think of lots of good uses for it. Killing isn't killing only when you do it for the wrong reasons.

Right and wrong are terms best left to circumstances of an act, not the act itself.

That having been said, I can think of only fanciful and unlikely scenarios where the torturing of a captured enemy for information is anything but a heinous crime.

--Anthony







"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
When I wrestled, it was an elective in college, and it was a Japanese form. Two people grappled until one of them surrendered. Merely incapacitating the opponent wasn't usually enough to illicit surrender. Discomfort was the key factor that caused someone to 'tap out.'


I believe the operative words there are 'tap out'.
I.e. choose to end it...
You think that anyone is ever given a choice to tap out during a torture session?

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Right and wrong are terms best left to circumstances of an act, not the act itself.

That having been said, I can think of only fanciful and unlikely scenarios where the torturing of a captured enemy for information is anything but a heinous crime.


Or maybe toture is always wrong, just in your scenarios its the lesser of too evils?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Or maybe toture is always wrong, just in your scenarios its the lesser of too evils?"

It sounds as though you and Cavalier are advocating an element to be added to the definition of torture. For instance:

Discomfort applied to an unwilling subject.

Unwilling is a better word than innocent, because it's less subjective.

Still, I maintain that there are instances of consensual torture, which would make the 'unwilling' portion moot. I also maintain that there are non criminal applications of torture in everyday society.

I don't think that torture is always wrong, but it is often the lesser of two evils.

Restraining a person often causes a significant amount of discomfort or pain, but it is frequently the 'lesser of two evils.' Of course, I'm not sure that it's evil at all in many cases, nor wrong at all.

Torturing an enemy for information. This continues to be our focus. And it continues to be a bad idea. It continues to be wrong, except in fanciful television drama scenarios.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:17 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It sounds as though you and Cavalier are advocating an element to be added to the definition of torture. For instance:

Discomfort applied to an unwilling subject.


It not only sounds like it, it reads like it:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The crucially missing element [of your definition] is the power differential and the absolute lack of consent by the victim.


I kinda get the feeling that you didn't read my whole post (you know, there's nothing wrong with that--I can't get through some of the posts I read on here either--but if you're going to refute a guy's argument you oughta finish reading it first). I stated my simple definition thus: taking a helpless victim and hurting them.

Let me clarify my definition: though a lack of consent is often present, it needn't be. Consent is moot in the face of the power differential inherent to torture. Furthermore, If consent is all that's needed to escape the definition of torture, then all you have to do is torture a person until they consent. You read 1984, right? Would you say that once Winston Smith accepts his torturer's actions as right and good and thanks Big Brother for torturing him for the good of the Party, it really isn't torture anymore? Torture does some very effed up things to your psyche. When you are wholly in another's power, you eventually become very concerned about that person's needs and feelings and eventually you come to care about them as if your life depended on it (because, of course, they've convinced you that it does--through torture btw); you revert to the state of an abused child for whom loving is the only means of survival. The subjective experience of the victim is not, as you and Geezer would like to think, a defining aspect of torture.

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Unwilling is a better word than innocent, because it's less subjective.


Innocence has nothing to do with it. It's a total macguffin used by torture apologists to accuse folks like me of colusion with the victim. "You care more about the terrorist than the lives of 1,800 American soldiers and civilians!" I don't care if you're torturing Adolf Hitler, torture is torture. It is never justified by the former actions of the victim. Once a person is wholly in your power and at your mercy the only moral course of action is to be merciful. Torture is a tool of coercion merely, never a just punishment for one's crimes.

Quote:

Still, I maintain that there are instances of consensual torture, which would make the 'unwilling' portion moot. I also maintain that there are non criminal applications of torture in everyday society.

Why, AnthonyT, do you maintain these things? What does it serve? Torture is a big issue these days. The question of whether or not what went on at Abu Graib etc. was torture is a major concern of people around the world. All your argument does is deny the validity of the question entirely: "Is it torture? Sure it is, but so's wrestling and (as Geezer would say) so's S&M sex play and getting a flu shot or just being alive. Next!" What does it serve to think as you do?

Quote:

I don't think that torture is always wrong, but it is often the lesser of two evils.

By your empty definition, how could it ever be wrong? To your mind, this "torture" is never the problem but the intent and severity of it might in extreme cases be an issue.

The weird thing in all this, AnthonyT, is that you seem to think the real torture that we're all talking about here is wrong anyway, so I don't see why you're insisting on this outragiously watered down definition of torture that only serves its apologists.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:32 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Restraining a person often causes a significant amount of discomfort or pain, but it is frequently the 'lesser of two evils.' Of course, I'm not sure that it's evil at all in many cases, nor wrong at all.


People are restrained against their will in order to stop them hurting themselves or others. Hows that the same as torture?

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Torturing an enemy for information. This continues to be our focus. And it continues to be a bad idea. It continues to be wrong, except in fanciful television drama scenarios.


Let me reiterate what I said. Torture is always morally wrong. I conceed the fact that it may, in your aforementioned fanciful TV scenarios, be the lesser of two evils. However, circumstances do not make a morally wrong act right... at best they can make them necessary.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:22 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"People are restrained against their will in order to stop them hurting themselves or others. Hows that the same as torture?"

This is why I insist on a basic, simple definition of torture.

Because when you make a statement like this, you're saying that if you hurt someone in order to stop them from hurting themselves or others, it's not torture.

Which means, of course, you can torture someone to keep them from hurting others, and it's not torture.

Which therefore means that you can torture people for information that will keep them from harming others, and it's not torture.

Which means torturing people for information that will foil plots to harm American citizens is all right.

A subjective definition for torture is what makes torture not torture some of the time.

If you don't like my definition of torture, come up with a new one. One that is always true, and non-subjective.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:36 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The crucially missing element [of your definition] is the power differential and the absolute lack of consent by the victim."

"The subjective experience of the victim is not, as you and Geezer would like to think, a defining aspect of torture."

Cavalier, it sounds like you're joining my camp. Or are you just not reading my posts, either?

My definition of torture does not rely on subjective experiences of the victim. Consensual or non-consensual, I still mark it as torture.

What I will not do for you, is mark torture, as an independant act outside of context, as good or evil, right or wrong.

The context must always be considered for ethical purposes, but the context never makes torture not torture.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:47 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Let me sum up.

If we use my definition of torture, it is broad. It is simple. It is encompassing of a great many things.

But here's what my definition of torture does.

1) There is no way to torture someone and call it something other than torture.

2) If the US government asks its agents in the military to torture our enemies, they can't call it a hazing. They have to say, "Yes, we told them to torture these people, but it is not wrong and it is justified."

3) Now the government has to explain why torture is okay in scenario X and situation Y. When you call a duck a duck, you are forced to talk about the damn duck. That's something that's not happening right now.

There's a method to this logic, if you'll see it.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 29, 2005 12:55 AM

R1Z


A tidbit of news:

From today's (Mon, Aug 29) New York Times

"Senator John W. Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee . . . has also said he will schedule a hearing in the next several weeks on whether the Pentagon has failed to hold senior officials and military officers responsible for the prisoner abuses that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, and at other detention centers in Iraq, Cuba and Afghanistan."



To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL