Torture - What is it? What's acceptable in 2005?

[Motokid]

I remember hearing about the Chinese water torture where a constant, steady drip of water to the forehead of a restrained man could make him go mad over time.

Stories of prying off fingernails, or shoving sharp things under fingernails.

Electrocution. Physical beatings. Breaking bones. Drownings to the point of death....the stories go on and on.....horrific stories.

The question I have to ask is what exactly is considered torture? Is doing something to a religious book equivalent to physically harming someone?
How many times have you heard that the "mental" torture of an abusive relationship was worse than the physical abuse?

Is whipping a prisoner worse than forcing them to watch female strippers?

What are you willing to accept as "reasonable" in terms of the "techniques" a captor may use to gain information from a prisoner?

Or is there no acceptable technique?

 

[mehastings]

I remember hearing about the Chinese water torture where a constant, steady drip of water to the forehead of a restrained man could make him go mad over time.

Stories of prying off fingernails, or shoving sharp things under fingernails.

Electrocution. Physical beatings. Breaking bones. Drownings to the point of death....the stories go on and on.....horrific stories.

The question I have to ask is what exactly is considered torture? Is doing something to a religious book equivalent to physically harming someone?
How many times have you heard that the "mental" torture of an abusive relationship was worse than the physical abuse?

Is whipping a prisoner worse than forcing them to watch female strippers?

What are you willing to accept as "reasonable" in terms of the "techniques" a captor may use to gain information from a prisoner?

Or is there no acceptable technique?

I'm a tree hugging, prisoner loving liberal, so of course I don't think there are acceptable "techniques".

 

[Shade]

There is no acceptable technique, simply because any confession or information obtained under duress is suspect by definition. If someone desperately wants something to stop, they'll just say what they think you want to hear, whether or not it's true.

 

[Shade]

But whoops - we're not supposed to talk about religion and politics, are we?

 

[Motokid]

I'm a tree hugging, prisoner loving liberal, so of course I don't think there are acceptable "techniques".

If you could uncover a plot involving a car bombing of a military post, or an open market, but it might require some sleep deprivation and 24/7 of Britney Spears music you would rather not apply these techniques in order to possibly save lives?

The comfort of prisoners who plot to kill innocent people, is more important than a bit of mental and physical anguish imposed on those who would otherwise slit your throat given the opportunity?

I do understand that under extreme pressure, an innocent person will admit guilt to relieve the stress. I'm not saying torture is the answer. I'm questioning some of the means of aquiring this information, and if it is in fact "torture".

 

[Shade]

If you could uncover a plot involving a car bombing of a military post, or an open market, but it might require some sleep deprivation and 24/7 of Britney Spears music you would rather not apply these techniques in order to possibly save lives?

The comfort of prisoners who plot to kill innocent people, is more important than a bit of mental and physical anguish imposed on those who would otherwise slit your throat given the opportunity?

Hm, sounds like you've made up your mind already, Motokid! It's important to remember that the people imprisoned at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay have not actually been found guilty of anything. So when you say "prisoners who plot to kill innocent people" or "those who would otherwise slit your throat" you can't be referring to them. Four Britons were released from Guantanamo Bay earlier this year, without ever being charged with anything. Why were they a threat then and not now? Were they ever a threat?

I'm not sure anyway what the figures are for useful information obtained by the Britney method. If anyone else does, they can enlighten us. Meanwhile, read Jon Ronson's The Men Who Stare At Goats for a fascinating insight into these sort of 'psy-ops' practised by the US military.

 

[Geenh]

Motokid - You have to love bleeding hearts because without them, we;d have no stability. They are the ones whose family has not been affected by anything done by terrorists. Without their blind (and need I say naive) views about things, everyone would be at eachother's throats and there'd be a 3rd world war. I agree with what you say, totally, but there will be some who will never agree... at all.

 

[clueless]

Remember the thread about being offended? What is harmless for someone, can be offensive for someone else, depending on their values, beliefs or anything they hold dear. It’s the same with psychological torture. And really, I rather being beaten up than being threatened with harming a relative or friend (just threatening to do it, not actually doing it).

How far would I go to save innocent lives? That’s a difficult question and it depends on the circumstances but I don’t think I would ever use torture and, if I did, would I be any better than the terrorist? Maybe I would be saving innocent lives, but mine would not be innocent.

 

[Sergo]

If you could uncover a plot involving a car bombing of a military post, or an open market, but it might require some sleep deprivation and 24/7 of Britney Spears music you would rather not apply these techniques in order to possibly save lives?

The comfort of prisoners who plot to kill innocent people, is more important than a bit of mental and physical anguish imposed on those who would otherwise slit your throat given the opportunity?

I do understand that under extreme pressure, an innocent person will admit guilt to relieve the stress. I'm not saying torture is the answer. I'm questioning some of the means of aquiring this information, and if it is in fact "torture".

That's not it again.
Have you ever dealt with a fanatic? It wouldn't be possible for you to make a fanatic speak, as phisical torture and death are the gates to Heaven for him.

BTW, that's the reason of a long-term failure which is inevitable in Afghanistan or Iraq: you civilized people think that you know what you are doing there and for whom, but in reality you are wrong, because the Afghanis and the Iraqis in mass do not need civilization as you know it. And you wouldn't be able to spend all these effort, time and money to teach them your vision of civilization. And without that they will surely have it their way in the end.

 

[Sergo]

Remember the thread about being offended? What is harmless for someone, can be offensive for someone else, depending on their values, beliefs or anything they hold dear. It’s the same with psychological torture. And really, I rather being beaten up than being threatened with harming a relative or friend (just threatening to do it, not actually doing it).

How far would I go to save innocent lives? That’s a difficult question and it depends on the circumstances but I don’t think I would ever use torture and, if I did, would I be any better than the terrorist? Maybe I would be saving innocent lives, but mine would not be innocent.

And there is another reason for "not legalizing" torture: if any government does that - that would be the end of the so-called "Liberty for all", as most people would say anything under torture. Not the truth, but anything. And if somebody thinks that's the way to justice,... that person is in error. We, Russians, have learned that on our own example not once.

 

[Motokid]

But how do you know that some incredibly valuable, and life saving information has never been obtained by less than scrupulous methods? That kind of thing is not going to be recorded, or reported.

Is it possible some of those people detained, for what appears to be no reason, could have been captured before they set off a car bomb or hijacked another airplane, based on information obtained from tortured prisoners?

And is it worth it to "torture" a few, to protect the many?

Is sleep deprivation torture?
What about prolonged exposure to cold, or heat?

 

[clueless]

Is sleep deprivation torture?
What about prolonged exposure to cold, or heat?

I think sleep deprivation was one of the many methods used by the NKVD. Have someone in a cell with the light always on and keep making loud noise, taking the person out of the cell for questioning at completely random times, day or night so that the prisoner would not have a chance to sleep.

Prolonged exposure to cold or heat. Of course is torture. People die of hypothermia, don't they?

 

[Shade]

But how do you know... Is it possible...

We don't, and yes; but in the normal way of things, unless there's evidence we must presume nothing of the sort has happened. Otherwise we're having a purely imaginary discussion about a hypothetic situation which may never exist.

 

[Sergo]

But how do you know that some incredibly valuable, and life saving information has never been obtained by less than scrupulous methods? That kind of thing is not going to be recorded, or reported.

Is it possible some of those people detained, for what appears to be no reason, could have been captured before they set off a car bomb or hijacked another airplane, based on information obtained from tortured prisoners?

And is it worth it to "torture" a few, to protect the many?

Is sleep deprivation torture?
What about prolonged exposure to cold, or heat?

The problem is: when such a thing gets legal, people use it not to the good of Mankind, but very often to suite their private needs: get a promotion, get rich, humiliate others to feel themselves more important etc.
Yes, to deal with terrorists we need some special methods. But if we use exactly the same what they use, what difference there is between us? Maybe their goal is the same or better than our, if our means are the same?

 

[Sergo]

OK, read about our history. It is all there. I believe that if Russians were despised for anything - that's the biggest part of it: we let our bosses rule us with unjust methods.

 

[Motokid]

But we don't use the same methods as they use...they saw peoples heads off while video taping it, and then "publish" it on the internet for all the world to see.

Sergo, I think you are using the word legal, when you really mean to say acceptable. I don't think there's anything legal about torture. But I do think there are acceptable means of gathering information from combative, and dangerous prisoners. Manipulation and coerce, are good words too, but they all hang around on the fringes of the broad definition of torture.

Sleep deprivation, cold, heat, holding back food, loud music, and preying on a persons religious beliefs have a different consciousness than electrodes to the testicles or bamboo shoots under the fingernails.

The question is, at what point should the prisoners individuals basic human rights (and define those please...), be placed above the basic human rights of the masses?

I don't have a huge moral problem with administering some pretty harsh mental anquish on suspected terrorists if it means the possibility of diverting another 9/11.

 

[Sergo]

But we don't use the same methods as they use...they saw peoples heads off while video taping it, and then "publish" it on the internet for all the world to see.

Sergo, I think you are using the word legal, when you really mean to say acceptable. I don't think there's anything legal about torture. But I do think there are acceptable means of gathering information from combative, and dangerous prisoners. Manipulation and coerce, are good words too, but they all hang around on the fringes of the broad definition of torture.

Sleep deprivation, cold, heat, holding back food, loud music, and preying on a persons religious beliefs have a different consciousness than electrodes to the testicles or bamboo shoots under the fingernails.

The question is, at what point should the prisoners individuals basic human rights (and define those please...), be placed above the basic human rights of the masses?

I don't have a huge moral problem with administering some pretty harsh mental anquish on suspected terrorists if it means the possibility of diverting another 9/11.

No, I mean LEGAL, as everything that is done by the govermant agencies should be legal - strictly by the law. Otherwise if we decide that there are situations when we can apply the law, and others, when we can do without law - that would mean that there is no law at all, that justice ended.

You know, there must be a line somewhere dividing what a honest person could do, and what cannot. If we begin to move this line to our current needs - we will be the same as terrorists. Yes, they saw heads away. But almost all the world hates them for it. And you offer that some people do "acceptable things" and all the world loved them? Ghgm...

 

[Shade]

Sleep deprivation, cold, heat, holding back food, loud music, and preying on a persons religious beliefs have a different consciousness than electrodes to the testicles or bamboo shoots under the fingernails.

The first five all have the capacity to cause permanent physical or psychiatric harm, so I don't think they are different.

 

[Sergo]

"The question is, at what point should the prisoners individuals basic human rights (and define those please...), be placed above the basic human rights of the masses?

I don't have a huge moral problem with administering some pretty harsh mental anquish on suspected terrorists if it means the possibility of diverting another 9/11."


You know, when people start defining what human rights could be placed above and what below "the basic human rights of the masses" - fashism starts. All the worst things in the last century were made under this slogan: "the basic human rights of the masses", meaning that any individual means nothing against masses...

OK, Moto, if you are really interested in that - we can talk about that, here (remember the restrictions?) or elsewhere, as this theme is the one I discussed quite a lot already and am ready to do so again.

 

[novella]

Motokid - You have to love bleeding hearts because without them, we;d have no stability. They are the ones whose family has not been affected by anything done by terrorists. Without their blind (and need I say naive) views about things, everyone would be at eachother's throats and there'd be a 3rd world war. I agree with what you say, totally, but there will be some who will never agree... at all.

Geenh,

Is this really what you think?

I could write you a long message about the family and friends of mine who were killed at the Trade Center. About my first cousin who was a 30 year old cop, about my brother's girlfriend who worked for AON, about the twin brothers I grew up with, the firemen from my neighborhood who went out from the firehouse in Brooklyn Heights and were decimated . . . I could tell you why I believe that the principles expounded in the US Constitution must be extended by the US to everyone they deal with in order to retain their meaning, about my belief in innocence until proven guilty, about the moral and practical problems of forceful interrogation—all these views despite my personal losses at the WTC.

But what would be the point? Clearly, if you really believe what you've written here, you will not be able to process those kinds of complex ideas about human rights and due process and you obviously have no idea what 9/11 means to someone like me.