Should POW's be Tortured

[ponderingturtle]

As the most common argument for torture is the ticking time bomb one, why shouldn't POW's be tortured?

They are one of the most likely to have intelligence that can save lives in an immediate fashion. So the ticking time bomb situation is the most real for them.

Why don't people who advocate that kind of torture follow their argument to a more regular conflict instead of terrorist acts?

[Mister Earl]

My position is torture should NOT be allowed, with one caveat. If we *know* that the person held had information that could save *many* lives, and it was time sensitive information, then it should regrettably be done. Morals are good and should be adhered to, but not when the lives of innocent people are on the line.

[Almo]

My position is torture should NOT be allowed, with one caveat. If we *know* that the person held had information that could save *many* lives, and it was time sensitive information, then it should regrettably be done. Morals are good and should be adhered to, but not when the lives of innocent people are on the line.

But the question is if you think it's ok for POWs as well as... hell I can't even remember the euphemism used for captured (suspected or known) terrorists.

Also, the question of whether or not to allow torture is very well covered in other threads. Let's keep this thread on the question of whether it should be ok to use on POWs if it's ok to use on suspected terrorists.

Right. Sticking to the premise of the question, no, not on POWs; or you can expect our captured soldiers to suffer the same fate. I'm personally against using torture at all, but it makes even less sense to use it on "official" POWs.

[Cylinder]

Because, by virtue of carrying arms openly, wearing fixed devices and obeying the laws and customs of war, soon-to-be POWs ameliorate the effect of the armed conflict on the surrounding protected civilian population to such a degree as to allow individual protections to be applied without any operational penalty (or one that can be easily mitigated) on the detaining party to the conflict who is adhering to the LOAC.

[ponderingturtle]

Because, by virtue of carrying arms openly, wearing fixed devices and obeying the laws and customs of war, soon-to-be POWs ameliorate the effect of the armed conflict on the surrounding protected civilian population to such a degree as to allow individual protections to be applied without any operational penalty (or one that can be easily mitigated) on the detaining party to the conflict who is adhering to the LOAC.

So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.

[ponderingturtle]

But the question is if you think it's ok for POWs as well as... hell I can't even remember the euphemism used for captured (suspected or known) terrorists.

Also, the question of whether or not to allow torture is very well covered in other threads. Let's keep this thread on the question of whether it should be ok to use on POWs if it's ok to use on suspected terrorists.


Thanks that is very much what I am wondering, why do people seem to hold POW's to be different than others who are your enemies who might well have knowledge that could save the lives of many of your people.

[Loss Leader]

So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.


Yes. Exactly. Let's do everything in our power to forget that technology during WWII made such tactics necessary as precision bombing was flat-out impossible. Using that carefully applied bit of amnesia, let's do everything in our power to morally equate circumstances today with circumstances sixty-three years ago.

Or ... and this is just a suggestion ... we could choose not to do that.

[Tricky]

Should POW's be tortured?
Ours or theirs?

[Mister Earl]

To further muddy the waters, consider the following:
If you knew that a person was deliberately withholding information that could save thousands of people, does he or she deserve to be left alone?

[Tricky]

To further muddy the waters, consider the following:
If you knew that a person was deliberately withholding information that could save thousands of people, does he or she deserve to be left alone?
Thousands of our people, or thousands of their people?

[drkitten]

Thanks that is very much what I am wondering, why do people seem to hold POW's to be different than others who are your enemies who might well have knowledge that could save the lives of many of your people.

Because "lawful combatants" deliberately limit their actions to less than their full destructive capacity.

For example, they wear uniforms, so that civilians can tell when enemy soldiers are present and get the hell out the way, instead of disguising as neutral parties in order to protect themselves from attack.

They avoid targeting non-combatants to the extent practical.

They avoid using illegal weaponry such as poisons.

They do not kill surrendering enemies.

Et cetera.

[Minadin]

I don't think anyone should be tortured, lawful POW or otherwise. There's always a better way.

[drkitten]

I don't think anyone should be tortured, lawful POW or otherwise. There's always a better way.

Oh, I agree. But there's a reason that the Geneva Convention protects combatants but doesn't protect (e.g.) spies and/or criminals.

[headscratcher4]

If you eliminate freedom of speech, religion, freedom of assembly, Habeus Corpus, right to counsel, etc. They won't have any opportunity to get together to make a bomb that we would need to torture the infomation out of them to prevent detonation....See? We don't need torture, just have to do away with pesky old fashioned view of human rights....

[Chaos]

*snip*
They avoid targeting non-combatants to the extent practical.
*snip*

That phrase is extremely... flexible. Especially if one side or the other has declared total war.

In your opinions, did the following forces "avoid targetting non-combatants to the extent practical":

(1) Sherman´s force during his "march to the sea" in your Civil War
(2) bomber crews in WW2 terror-bombing enemy cities (but NOT including daylight "precision" bombing against industrial targets)
(3) Allied bomber crews in WW2 flying "precision" bombing attacks against industrial targets
(4) Waffen-SS and "Einsatzgruppen" teams killing jews and communists in Russia, in WW2

(FWIW, in my opinion (3) is still covered by the phrase, (1) is questionable, (2) is HIGHLY questionable and (4) is definitely out)

[Cylinder]

So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.

You first have to define torture - WWII POWs did not share all of the protections that were codified in the 1949 Conventions. Also, CEPs in WWII were measured in hundreds of yards - not hundreds of inches. Allied air did purposefully target civilian populations as as a form of retaliation and as the lesser of two evils. Had the Germans obeyed the existing laws and customs of war, then the city raids would have been a major moral stain on Allied forces and their host countries. As it stands now (IMO), not so much.

Had the 1949 Geneva Conventions been in place at the time, US aircrew and commanders would have been guilty of grave war crimes as legal combatants.

[Piggy]

I think everyone should be tortured.

I think they should just torture random folks just in case.

You never know what you might find out.

And if you love your country, is it really that much of an imposition?

I think not.

[drkitten]

That phrase is extremely... flexible. Especially if one side or the other has declared total war.

Which is why war crimes tribunals exist.

And also why the definitions of the rules of war change from time to time; my understanding is that the first modern formal codification of the rules didn't happen until about 1899, which makes Sherman's march largely irrelevant. Prior to the 20th century, pillaging was considered to be a standard way to support an army in the field and not an atrocity, but I believe the first Berne convention did away with that. Modern supply technology made it practical to supply an army in the field, which in turn made it practical to establish a "no pillaging" doctrine.

Similarly, given the inaccuracy in bombing technology in the second World War, "terror bombing" was largely unavoidable. Today we can deliver bombs to within yards of the target; in 1941, both sides were lucky to hit the same ZIP code as the target.

Today modern technology makes it possible to deliver firepower with almost pinpoint accuracy; the USAF can put a missile through a selected window of a building. Even this doesn't necessarily make it "practical" to avoid killing civilians in the room next door, but it's a start. And the USAF does try, in general, to hit the right window of the right building; if nothing else, it's more cost-effective.

[SimonD]

How good is information obtained under torture?

If someone wanted to attach electrodes to my body parts, I'd be prepared to say just about anything.

Soldiers on the ground rarely have useful information. Those in command are usually trained to withstand torture.

So how valuable is it?

[Piggy]

How good is information obtained under torture?

If someone wanted to attach electrodes to my body parts, I'd be prepared to say just about anything.

Soldiers on the ground rarely have useful information. Those in command are usually trained to withstand torture.

So how valuable is it?
That's one of the primary problems. It's highly dubious.

Psychological operations are much better at retrieving higher-reliability intelligence.

This is why so many veteran intelligence officers oppose coersion.

[Cylinder]

If someone wanted to attach electrodes to my body parts, I'd be prepared to say just about anything.

How would you know what to say?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Should POW's be TorturedNO.

Contrary to the reports from the Bush admin about only waterboarding 3 people and how they were sure the tortured people had info that would thwart another attack and the lie that Abu Ghraib was a couple rogue night shift soldiers and so on went their excuses, the EVIDENCE is pretty clear torture is ineffective and does more to waste time following false leads than it does uncover useful information.

I reviewed a lot of literature when the Canadian and German were imprisoned and tortured by our government, and when the Brian Ross story came out where Bill O'liely claimed the US had successfully gotten info through torture. Turned out they had gotten info, very little if any was useful.

I found exactly what Piggy notes above, "veteran intelligence officers oppose [coercion]" and recognize it doesn't work. Torture is used to oppress and intimidate one's rivals into being afraid to act. It is not useful for getting information.

[gtc]

Why do people use torture if it doesn't work?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do people use torture if it doesn't work?First there are the purely psychological things in human nature.

Stanford prison experiment aka The Lucifer Effect (http://www.lucifereffect.com/)

Milgram experiment on obedience to authority

Lord of the Flies

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

My Lai Massacre

Then there is the means of control in a totalitarian state.

Torture and Silence; how we all become complicit in torture when we remain silent. (http://lyingthetruth.blogspot.com/2007/06/torture-and-silence-how-we-all-become.html)Totalitarian States, accused of torture, always deny its existence and point to other States that employ torture as a means of obtaining “necessary” information.
The pressures a modern Totalitarian State can exercise over the individual are frightful. The weapons are substantially three: 1) direct propaganda or propaganda camouflaged as upbringing, instruction and popular culture, 2) the barrier erected against pluralism of information, and 3) terror (Primo Levi).
Persistent misinformation and terror lead to war, torture, murder, manipulation and the end of Democracy. Accommodated by the silence of “the people”, totalitarianism takes shape behind the closed doors of power and “the people” are doomed to one day wake up and find that they have abdicated their rights and freedoms and become prisoners of the Totalitarian State.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. Exactly. Let's do everything in our power to forget that technology during WWII made such tactics necessary as precision bombing was flat-out impossible. Using that carefully applied bit of amnesia, let's do everything in our power to morally equate circumstances today with circumstances sixty-three years ago.

Or ... and this is just a suggestion ... we could choose not to do that.

And our enemies lack the technology to have such precision attacks, so why is it so wrong for them to attack the populace? Why are the tactics that we used with similar technological restrictions now war crimes?

[ponderingturtle]

Because "lawful combatants" deliberately limit their actions to less than their full destructive capacity.

For example, they wear uniforms, so that civilians can tell when enemy soldiers are present and get the hell out the way, instead of disguising as neutral parties in order to protect themselves from attack.

They avoid targeting non-combatants to the extent practical.

They avoid using illegal weaponry such as poisons.

They do not kill surrendering enemies.

Et cetera.


Why does this remove their value in the ticking time bomb situation? They might well know of an attack that will kill thousands, so if the idea is saving lives then it would seem that the situation that the ticking time bomb is most likely to actualy come up is with lawful combatants.

[ponderingturtle]

You first have to define torture - WWII POWs did not share all of the protections that were codified in the 1949 Conventions. Also, CEPs in WWII were measured in hundreds of yards - not hundreds of inches. Allied air did purposefully target civilian populations as as a form of retaliation and as the lesser of two evils. Had the Germans obeyed the existing laws and customs of war, then the city raids would have been a major moral stain on Allied forces and their host countries. As it stands now (IMO), not so much.

Of course they did, they realized that the work force in a war factory is just as important to the production of that factory as anything else and often easier to target, especialy once some factories moved underground.

[ponderingturtle]

Which is why war crimes tribunals exist.

And also why the definitions of the rules of war change from time to time; my understanding is that the first modern formal codification of the rules didn't happen until about 1899, which makes Sherman's march largely irrelevant. Prior to the 20th century, pillaging was considered to be a standard way to support an army in the field and not an atrocity, but I believe the first Berne convention did away with that. Modern supply technology made it practical to supply an army in the field, which in turn made it practical to establish a "no pillaging" doctrine.

Similarly, given the inaccuracy in bombing technology in the second World War, "terror bombing" was largely unavoidable. Today we can deliver bombs to within yards of the target; in 1941, both sides were lucky to hit the same ZIP code as the target.

Today modern technology makes it possible to deliver firepower with almost pinpoint accuracy; the USAF can put a missile through a selected window of a building. Even this doesn't necessarily make it "practical" to avoid killing civilians in the room next door, but it's a start. And the USAF does try, in general, to hit the right window of the right building; if nothing else, it's more cost-effective.

So what you are saying is that because of the technology gap, some sides with antiquated technology can commit war crimes that would not be war crimes if that technology was the most advanced at the time?

[ponderingturtle]

How good is information obtained under torture?

If someone wanted to attach electrodes to my body parts, I'd be prepared to say just about anything.

Soldiers on the ground rarely have useful information. Those in command are usually trained to withstand torture.

So how valuable is it?


That is not really the issue. If people support the idea that in ticking time bomb situations torture is acceptable, how do they reconcile that with laws regarding treatment of POW's?

[ponderingturtle]

NO.

Contrary to the reports from the Bush admin about only waterboarding 3 people and how they were sure the tortured people had info that would thwart another attack and the lie that Abu Ghraib was a couple rogue night shift soldiers and so on went their excuses, the EVIDENCE is pretty clear torture is ineffective and does more to waste time following false leads than it does uncover useful information.

I reviewed a lot of literature when the Canadian and German were imprisoned and tortured by our government, and when the Brian Ross story came out where Bill O'liely claimed the US had successfully gotten info through torture. Turned out they had gotten info, very little if any was useful.

I found exactly what Piggy notes above, "veteran intelligence officers oppose [coercion]" and recognize it doesn't work. Torture is used to oppress and intimidate one's rivals into being afraid to act. It is not useful for getting information.

Then this is not directed at you, the question was for people who think torture is useful in situations where you need to get information from someone to potentially save many lives in an imminent attack.

[JoeEllison]

Why do people use torture if it doesn't work?

It "works" by making weak and cowardly people feel better? Certainly, in the pre-Bush era, few Americans would have considered this to even be a worthy question. But, with fear-based politics at an all time high, torturing people seems to be important to the powers that be.

I wonder, though, in my least optimistic moments, if they are engaged in torture for nothing more than the sake of being allowed to torture... just one more good thing about America that the Bush administration has taken away from us.

[SimonD]

How would you know what to say?

That is not really the issue. If people support the idea that in ticking time bomb situations torture is acceptable, how do they reconcile that with laws regarding treatment of POW's?

In the case of a 'ticking time bomb' all I have to do is outlast the timer. If I'm resigned to my fate, what's the worst you can do?

In the case of 'confess to the crime', I'd confess to anything to stop the pain.

I just think that information obtained by torture isn't to be trusted, so should we be doing it in the first place? Is there a better way to get the information, other then torture?

[fuelair]

Because, by virtue of carrying arms openly, wearing fixed devices and obeying the laws and customs of war, soon-to-be POWs ameliorate the effect of the armed conflict on the surrounding protected civilian population to such a degree as to allow individual protections to be applied without any operational penalty (or one that can be easily mitigated) on the detaining party to the conflict who is adhering to the LOAC.Right!! A point that eludes a lot of Hamas (supporters?) here. No uniforms, not legitimate military, not treated like legitimate military.

[fuelair]

So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.
No, they were targeting cities with large military production/supply facilities - which are recognized as legitimate targets by rules of warfare. The fact that they were not accurate enough (especially in night bombing) to avoid civilian only areas is unfortunate (and an argument for making sure all war production is done away from population centers) but does not make them war criminals by any rational standard.

[fuelair]

Should POW's be Tortured ?

Almost always no (captured spies, terrorists, etc. are not POWs) - the liklihood that a military person with any functional knowledge of a major plan/offensive will have any information that is useable is close to zero. The exception would be elite unit members (but they are trained to resist torture) and higher level officers. It is highly unlikely,though, that these will be in big supply for capture.

Spies and terrorists/guerillas (Your guerillas are my terrorists) should be asked politely for information, then asked less politely, then rendered. Kidnappers, etc. similar.

[Region Rat]

It "works" by making weak and cowardly people feel better? Certainly, in the pre-Bush era, few Americans would have considered this to even be a worthy question. But, with fear-based politics at an all time high, torturing people seems to be important to the powers that be.

I wonder, though, in my least optimistic moments, if they are engaged in torture for nothing more than the sake of being allowed to torture... just one more good thing about America that the Bush administration has taken away from us.

You really believe that prior administrations, not one single administration, did not use less than desirable means to extract information from (perceived) enemies? Really? Not until Bush? And only because he 'can'?

Heck, before Miranda, it was not unusual for your local cop to smack a perp around to find out what he knew, let alone the FBI, CIA, etc.

And just to be clear, I am not 'pining for the good old days'. It was wrong then, and its wrong now, no matter who's doing it. Its just that the seemingly mindless "blame it all on Bush" has gotten pretty childish.

[Region Rat]

Let's say that the US Army, sometime in late 1944, captures Himmler. (I hope that's not too close to a Godwin. If so, I apologize). Himmler is technically a POW, at least I think he would be. If not, fill in the blank with Goebbels or some other high ranking military type. The US Army knows darn well that Himmler (Goebbels) knows things, and the US Army is staring down the German border, knowing it needs to invade the fatherland to end the war. How far would you go? This is not a situation where you're trolling for info with hot coals or something. You KNOW that he knows things that could hurt you. How far would you go?

[JoeEllison]

You really believe that prior administrations, not one single administration, did not use less than desirable means to extract information from (perceived) enemies? Really? Not until Bush? And only because he 'can'?

Heck, before Miranda, it was not unusual for your local cop to smack a perp around to find out what he knew, let alone the FBI, CIA, etc.

And just to be clear, I am not 'pining for the good old days'. It was wrong then, and its wrong now, no matter who's doing it. Its just that the seemingly mindless "blame it all on Bush" has gotten pretty childish.It is childish to make the claim that "everyone did it." No one before this administration made torture into an openly official policy. If you don't understand the difference, I doubt anyone could ever explain it to you.

[Region Rat]

It is childish to make the claim that "everyone did it." No one before this administration made torture into an openly official policy. If you don't understand the difference, I doubt anyone could ever explain it to you.

I don't believe I made the statement that 'everyone did it', thankyouverymuch. I just questioned your statement that prior to Bush, few would ever consider the question, and that with Bush, somehow torture is important to him.

It might just well be that this administration was the first one stupid enough to get caught with their pants down, and then even more stupidly (proudly?) admitted it. But if it makes you feel better to think there's a real difference between doing it in secret, and doing it openly, have at it.

Actually, I feel better that he's taken the (stupid) position that he has, so it's all well known, he is known for what he truly is, and maybe, just maybe, the next guy or 2 won't try to do the same thing, even in secret.

[Cylinder]

So what you are saying is that because of the technology gap, some sides with antiquated technology can commit war crimes that would not be war crimes if that technology was the most advanced at the time?

No - you have it backward. The Laws of Armed Conflict are the same for parties to a conflict whether they are chunking spears or JDAMS.

One of these laws and custom of armed conflict is proportionality - that is, the manner by which a legitimate military target is attacked must be designed to the best of current ability to damage only legitimate targets. For example, if you attack a communications hub that is located across the street from a hospital you would be restricted from using iron bombs when a guided munitions package was available.

During WWII, bomb accuracy was measured in hundreds of yards - today it is in the ones of meters. This places additional operational restrictions on US forces. In today's Air Force, every single combat mission that is flown is reviewed beforehand for LOAC compliance. It is not uncommon for targeting intelligence types to have real disagreement with a weapons team over ordnance.

[Normal Dude]

Should POW's be Tortured ?

Almost always no (captured spies, terrorists, etc. are not POWs) - the liklihood that a military person with any functional knowledge of a major plan/offensive will have any information that is useable is close to zero.

Precisely.

[Wildy]

Which is why war crimes tribunals exist.

But only for the loser. Winners never commit war crimes.

Similarly, given the inaccuracy in bombing technology in the second World War, "terror bombing" was largely unavoidable. Today we can deliver bombs to within yards of the target; in 1941, both sides were lucky to hit the same ZIP code as the target.

Today modern technology makes it possible to deliver firepower with almost pinpoint accuracy; the USAF can put a missile through a selected window of a building. Even this doesn't necessarily make it "practical" to avoid killing civilians in the room next door, but it's a start. And the USAF does try, in general, to hit the right window of the right building; if nothing else, it's more cost-effective.

Comments like this about how accurate remind me of that comedian (who I don't seem to remember, maybe Arj Barker?) who said:

I'm having an argument with my brother over how accurate the bombs are. He says that they are so precise that they can hit a 50 cent piece, but as I see it when it hits that piece and takes out the whole block then the definition of precision becomes a little hazy.


But talking more about the laws of war, does it not in the examples that are being given favour the more advanced side? If you don't get the joy of having precision guided missiles but you can still deal damage with an IED or ambush, both of which are more likely to kill innocent civilians, that you aren't supposed to do it? Face it, when you are fighting a war no matter how much you want there to be some, you don't really have proper rules. Usually there's no referee who would give you a red card if you break the rules. That's all dealt with afterwards.

So in the end determining whether torture is a war crime all depends on if you lost.

[fuelair]

But only for the loser. Winners never commit war crimes.



Comments like this about how accurate remind me of that comedian (who I don't seem to remember, maybe Arj Barker?) who said:

I'm having an argument with my brother over how accurate the bombs are. He says that they are so precise that they can hit a 50 cent piece, but as I see it when it hits that piece and takes out the whole block then the definition of precision becomes a little hazy.


But talking more about the laws of war, does it not in the examples that are being given favour the more advanced side? If you don't get the joy of having precision guided missiles but you can still deal damage with an IED or ambush, both of which are more likely to kill innocent civilians, that you aren't supposed to do it? Face it, when you are fighting a war no matter how much you want there to be some, you don't really have proper rules. Usually there's no referee who would give you a red card if you break the rules. That's all dealt with afterwards.

So in the end determining whether torture is a war crime all depends on if you lost.
Given that your scenarios (IED/ambush) DO NOT CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE ARMY OF ANY COUNTRY but to terrorists (they can call themselves whatever they want, the rules of warfare - including POWs etc. do not apply to them) your point is moot for now. If that comes up with a real, legitimate armed force, we'll get back to you on it.

[ponderingturtle]

No, they were targeting cities with large military production/supply facilities - which are recognized as legitimate targets by rules of warfare. The fact that they were not accurate enough (especially in night bombing) to avoid civilian only areas is unfortunate (and an argument for making sure all war production is done away from population centers) but does not make them war criminals by any rational standard.

So this explains the firebombing of tokyo now?

[ponderingturtle]

No - you have it backward. The Laws of Armed Conflict are the same for parties to a conflict whether they are chunking spears or JDAMS.

But the laws are based on the highest technological development available. Would incinerating a city be a war crime now? Almost assuredly, but few call the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime.

So the standard changed when the most advanced participants changed and they expect everyone else to change with them regardless of their own military technology.

[ponderingturtle]

Given that your scenarios (IED/ambush) DO NOT CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE ARMY OF ANY COUNTRY but to terrorists (they can call themselves whatever they want, the rules of warfare - including POWs etc. do not apply to them) your point is moot for now. If that comes up with a real, legitimate armed force, we'll get back to you on it.

And like the terrorists who founded the USA also often did not fight according to the laws of war.

They did criminal things like intentionaly target officers when shooting an all kinds of violations of the laws of war at the time.

[ponderingturtle]

Also this means that when the NAZI's tortured french resistance fighters they where doing nothing wrong as they where just extracting information from terrorists.

[fuelair]

And like the terrorists who founded the USA also often did not fight according to the laws of war.

They did criminal things like intentionaly target officers when shooting an all kinds of violations of the laws of war at the time.
I hope you do realize that they were rebels legally, the colonists involved could all have been hanged for treason (or murder, etc. if caught). We won so none of that happened, but.....

i.e., a rousing so what? (not to be offensive, just real.)

[fuelair]

Also this means that when the NAZI's tortured french resistance fighters they where doing nothing wrong as they where just extracting information from terrorists.

From a military standpoint, that is correct. It was not correct if they did the same to a member of the allied military. I also do not assume from your exact question we are talking about punitive torture.

[Cylinder]

But the laws are based on the highest technological development available. Would incinerating a city be a war crime now? Almost assuredly, but few call the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime.

So the standard changed when the most advanced participants changed and they expect everyone else to change with them regardless of their own military technology.

The standards do rise with technology but are are not necessarily tied to the "highest technological development available." I would paraphrase the standard as using the most proportional method of attack to the extent practicable considering military necessity and operational expediency. In no case can the attack be indiscriminate, meaning that it must be conceived, planned and executed in a manner that restricts its effects to legitimate targets and minimizes its effects on protected populations.

In your IED example, I would argue that attacks targeting military convoys not using civilian vehicles (VBIEDs) or prohibited ordnance (e.g. poison gas or banned fragmentation) were fairly consistent with the LOAC. The party to the conflict setting these devices still have the problem of perfidy - that is, they are disguising themselves as civilians when transporting and deploying these devices.

[drkitten]

But talking more about the laws of war, does it not in the examples that are being given favour the more advanced side? If you don't get the joy of having precision guided missiles but you can still deal damage with an IED or ambush, both of which are more likely to kill innocent civilians, that you aren't supposed to do it?

Er, no.

IED and ambushes are both recognized and legitimate military tactics when targeted against military targets. Even the more advanced militaries recognized that sometimes you (meaning, they) don't have the high-tech backup and it comes down to what some poor squaddie can accomplish with himself, a grenade, and a can of petrol that he scrounged somewhere.

The key is who the IED and/or ambush is aimed at. Putting an IED along the route that a military convoy is expected to travel is perfectly fine, even if it ends up going off at the wrong time and killing civilians. Putting an IED on the front steps of a church timed to go off at a civilian wedding is a no-no.



So in the end determining whether torture is a war crime all depends on if you lost.

No. It's certainly very rare that the winners of a war will convene multinational war crimes tribunals, but violations of the rules of war is something that, historically, the US has acted on its own to punish. One of the most famous examples is the My Lai massacre, for which Lt. William Calley was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison. (The sentence was later commuted by President Nixon, but the conviction still stands as an example.)

[ponderingturtle]

I hope you do realize that they were rebels legally, the colonists involved could all have been hanged for treason (or murder, etc. if caught). We won so none of that happened, but.....

i.e., a rousing so what? (not to be offensive, just real.)

Ah but the being a rebel and traitor is not the only reason to label them a terrorist, they also did not follow the rules of war at the time.

[ponderingturtle]

From a military standpoint, that is correct. It was not correct if they did the same to a member of the allied military. I also do not assume from your exact question we are talking about punitive torture.

I am not talking of punitive torture. I am wondering if useing torture to interrogate terrorists such as the french resistance is a crime.

[drkitten]

I am not talking of punitive torture. I am wondering if useing torture to interrogate terrorists such as the french resistance is a crime.

Depends on the local laws. For that matter, the question of whether torturing POWs is a crime also depends on local laws except in very unusual circumstances (such as when one party has just lost a war, and thus another nation-state is in a position to impose international standards of law on them via force majure).

Torturing POWs is a crime in the United States, technically speaking, only because national law makes it so; the United States has both signed and ratified the appropriate Geneva Conventions, thus incorporating them into US law. The US has specifically not ratified the 1985 UN Convention against Torture, which outlaws torture of any person generally.

Cynics might suggest that that's because the USA makes a policy of torture and is thus unwilling to be bound by any instrument that would outlaw such a policy. Absent force majure, there is no way to bring the USA in line with most of the rest of the world in such a regard.

Germany obviously had not signed the 1985 Convention in 1945; if they had, it would have been illegal to torture French resistance members. Germany has now ratified the Convention; if for some reason they decided to replay WWII, such torture would be illegal.

[billydkid]

Of course they should be tortured. In fact, I think the government should pick people at random from other countries or even this country to torture just as a matter of principle and to keep people in line.

[fuelair]

Of course they should be tortured. In fact, I think the government should pick people at random from other countries or even this country to torture just as a matter of principle and to keep people in line.
A touch extreme, I would think. Maybe just Canadian tourists - as an example to the rest!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[billydkid]

A touch extreme, I would think. Maybe just Canadian tourists - as an example to the rest!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Stinking bleeding heart liberal commie!!!

[Jonnyclueless]

All of humanity is about to end i 6 hours. The only one with info to stop it is an enemy combatant. Should humanity perish for the sake of taking moral high ground? That's the most extreme case. Where do you draw the line?

Remember there are polite and impolite ways to kill and hurt people.

[fuelair]

All of humanity is about to end i 6 hours. The only one with info to stop it is an enemy combatant. Should humanity perish for the sake of taking moral high ground? That's the most extreme case. Where do you draw the line?

Remember there are polite and impolite ways to kill and hurt people.Would need other data. But if torture needed would start with painful but not going to wreck for public appearance. Then get unpleasant.

[wowowowye]

Obviously not. A prisoner has relinquished their rights as a citizen (or in this case, had them removed), but they have not relinquished their rights as a human being.

[Piggy]

Of course they should be tortured. In fact, I think the government should pick people at random from other countries or even this country to torture just as a matter of principle and to keep people in line.

I already suggested that, but nobody seems to be on board with it.

I mean, seriously, you never know what you could find out.

And a true patriot would be willing to take a chance at being selected for torture sometime in his life if it's going to make our country safer, right?

Here we are, asking our young men and women to fight overseas, risking death or maiming, and yet we are not willing to risk the chance of mere random torture in order to assure our freedoms?

Makes no sense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then this is not directed at you, the question was for people who think torture is useful in situations where you need to get information from someone to potentially save many lives in an imminent attack.So tell me, Bush and his group keep speaking as if this plot was averted or that plot was uncovered. Yet here they are arresting a bunch of penny-ante terror wannabes in Florida, Bin Laden is at large, and as far as I can tell, there ain't s**t to show for this torture.

We hear the claim over and over, they got this useful information. We hear the excuse, what if you knew there was a ticking nuclear bomb and you had a knowledgeable participant? I hear propaganda. I hear mistakes and failure being spun.

What do you think this torture really accomplished other than to make Bush et al feel like he was doing something after his abject failure to prevent 9/11?

[nzric]

No. As someone has said before, the average grunt on the ground has absolutely no knowledge of any strategic value.

The goal of war should always be trying to find an end to the war. The Geneva Convention and treaties against nuclear proliferation, chemical and biological weapons, landmines, space-based weaponry, etc..., are all aimed at reducing civilian death and stopping war from spreading.

Torture should be used as a last resort. If it's used as an institutional policy you cannot help spreading the war further, creating more hatred and tendencies for escalation of violence from your enemies and those sitting on the fence, which is exactly what you are fighting against.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You really believe that prior administrations, not one single administration, did not use less than desirable means to extract information from (perceived) enemies? Really? Not until Bush? And only because he 'can'?

Heck, before Miranda, it was not unusual for your local cop to smack a perp around to find out what he knew, let alone the FBI, CIA, etc. ...We know for certain this has happened in the past and will likely happen in the future. And the people perpetrating it think they are getting the results they want. Trouble is, they aren't getting results. They send innocent people to jail in the case of cops, and in war, the majority of the experts in the field of interrogation that I have read feel it is a poor tactic which leads to a lot of wasted resources tracking down false leads and very few if any real leads.

[SezMe]

The imminent bomb scenario as a justification for torture is, IMO, falacious. The idea is that we know Sam knows where the bomb is. How do we know that? If the people know that, maybe they know more. Or maybe the info is falacious to take the torture away from them and on to someone else just to gain enough delay for the bomb to go off.

No, it is a scenario so filled with fiction that I do not find it a valid basis for ad hoc torture.

[Wildy]

Given that your scenarios (IED/ambush) DO NOT CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE ARMY OF ANY COUNTRY but to terrorists (they can call themselves whatever they want, the rules of warfare - including POWs etc. do not apply to them) your point is moot for now. If that comes up with a real, legitimate armed force, we'll get back to you on it.

So no army in the world will even consider ambushing another army?

But tell me, how does the insurgency in Iraq differ in any way from the French Resistance in WWII?

Er, no.

IED and ambushes are both recognized and legitimate military tactics when targeted against military targets. Even the more advanced militaries recognized that sometimes you (meaning, they) don't have the high-tech backup and it comes down to what some poor squaddie can accomplish with himself, a grenade, and a can of petrol that he scrounged somewhere.

The key is who the IED and/or ambush is aimed at. Putting an IED along the route that a military convoy is expected to travel is perfectly fine, even if it ends up going off at the wrong time and killing civilians. Putting an IED on the front steps of a church timed to go off at a civilian wedding is a no-no.

Except that wasn't talking about people placing an IED on the front steps of a church. I was saying that by using IEDs to attack a military target is more likely to have civilian casualties.

No. It's certainly very rare that the winners of a war will convene multinational war crimes tribunals, but violations of the rules of war is something that, historically, the US has acted on its own to punish. One of the most famous examples is the My Lai massacre, for which Lt. William Calley was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison. (The sentence was later commuted by President Nixon, but the conviction still stands as an example.)

So the US won the Vietnam war?

The tribunal was convened because of public outcry in the US. And even though Calley claimed that he was only following orders (and the lower sentence of about 4 years given by Nixon basically reflects that) none of his commanding officers were convicted of anything.

But please, show me where Admiral Nimitz was charged by the US for waging unrestricted submarine warfare? Or planning to fight a war?

And what happened to the US Marines who killed those people at Haditha?

[billydkid]

I have to add and I may well be adding nothing - they we know full well that torture goes on, it always has gone on in war and it always will. The question before us is whether or not to give it legal, however limited, sanction, which I think could not be more wrong.

[ponderingturtle]

So tell me, Bush and his group keep speaking as if this plot was averted or that plot was uncovered. Yet here they are arresting a bunch of penny-ante terror wannabes in Florida, Bin Laden is at large, and as far as I can tell, there ain't s**t to show for this torture.

We hear the claim over and over, they got this useful information. We hear the excuse, what if you knew there was a ticking nuclear bomb and you had a knowledgeable participant? I hear propaganda. I hear mistakes and failure being spun.

What do you think this torture really accomplished other than to make Bush et al feel like he was doing something after his abject failure to prevent 9/11?

I don't think torture is useful. I was trying to determine why those who argue for the rightness of the ticking time bomb justification of torture do not aply it to the area it would be most likely to come up in, POW's.

[ponderingturtle]

No. As someone has said before, the average grunt on the ground has absolutely no knowledge of any strategic value.

And what about the non average grunt? I am thinking in cases where armies make their foes think that they are doing one thing and are actualy doing something else, how common is that knowledge?

It is not something that would be useful the vast majority of the time, but learning that the enemy is coming in one way and not another could sometimes be determined.

[drkitten]

So no army in the world will even consider ambushing another army?

Of course they will. But ambushes aren't prohibited tactics, so there's no problem if they do.

The problem is if they "perfidiously" wear civilian clothing instead of simply hiding behind walls and trees or something --- not wearing uniforms is a prohibited tactic.


But tell me, how does the insurgency in Iraq differ in any way from the French Resistance in WWII?

Well, one BIG way in which it differs is that the French resistance was active from about 1941-5, while the Iraqi insurgency is active from about 2002-8.



Except that wasn't talking about people placing an IED on the front steps of a church. I was saying that by using IEDs to attack a military target is more likely to have civilian casualties.[/QUOTE]

... which is acceptable. The legally relevant difference is one of targeting, not of accidental casualties.


Wow. Three objections, none of them relevant or even well-thought out. Let's see how you do with the fourth.


So the US won the Vietnam war?

No, but the Lt. Calley trial was not imposed upon the US. It did that voluntarily.

So, zero for four. Good going.


[QUOTE]
But please, show me where Admiral Nimitz was charged by the US for waging unrestricted submarine warfare? Or planning to fight a war?

You mean, the charges for which Admiral Donitz was acquitted because they were not contrary to the laws and customs of war? No need to charge someone with something that isn't a crime....

Zero for five. I'll bet you vote Libertarian, too.

[epeos76]

In addition to the many problems raised above, there is also the question of who gets to decide that person X might have information that could "save" thousands of lives. Historically, the U.S. has acknowledge the problem with giving that type of unchecked discretion to anyone, and imposed checks and balances.

Assuming there is ever a reason for government torture, Alan Derschowitz argues that it should require a warrant from an independent court (at a freaking minimum, I think it justifies a full trial).

In a Hollywood scenario where Bruce Willis has five minutes to cut the blue wire, the government should be required to justify the decision to use torture in the same manner after the fact, and to bear the risk of a mistake about both the decision and the result. Something on this order is a bare minimum first step for me to even consider tolerating government torture.

[JoeEllison]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to. If you take an enemy soldier, strip his uniform off, and put him in jeans and a t-shirt, does it magically make torture acceptable? It is psychotic to try to re-label human beings in order to pretend that it is sometimes acceptable to torture someone. It isn't wrong or right depending on the victim's status. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is the same as claiming that there is a way to change a person's legal status in order to make raping them legal... it isn't the status of the victim that matters, it is the law that restricts our behavior no matter who the victim is.

[drkitten]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to.

Unfortunately, neither law nor politics recognizes this sort of moral absolutism.

[E.J.Armstrong]

You really believe that prior administrations, not one single administration, did not use less than desirable means to extract information from (perceived) enemies? Really? Not until Bush? And only because he 'can'?

Heck, before Miranda, it was not unusual for your local cop to smack a perp around to find out what he knew, let alone the FBI, CIA, etc.

And just to be clear, I am not 'pining for the good old days'. It was wrong then, and its wrong now, no matter who's doing it. Its just that the seemingly mindless "blame it all on Bush" has gotten pretty childish.
I'm afraid it hasn't . See the words of Bush first here: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7245670.stm

Bush demands that the USA be allowed to torture whoever the US likes.

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't think torture is useful. I was trying to determine why those who argue for the rightness of the ticking time bomb justification of torture do not aply it to the area it would be most likely to come up in, POW's.

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

So they aren't doing to your average guy there, they are doing it to guys like KSM, people who have had direct hands in events such as 9/11 killing thousands of people and have potential information that might affect 1000s more.

And the issue of the ticking time bomb is very important. It proves that everyone has a line they draw and that this issue isn't about right or wrong, but people thinking that their opinion of where to draw that line is more right than others. And then those same people often try to use guilt to bully people into agreeing with their opinion. Hence the need to turn the issue into a black and white one.

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to. If you take an enemy soldier, strip his uniform off, and put him in jeans and a t-shirt, does it magically make torture acceptable? It is psychotic to try to re-label human beings in order to pretend that it is sometimes acceptable to torture someone. It isn't wrong or right depending on the victim's status. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is the same as claiming that there is a way to change a person's legal status in order to make raping them legal... it isn't the status of the victim that matters, it is the law that restricts our behavior no matter who the victim is.

So again. A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in NYC that is set to go off in 24 hours. This terrorist had previously done the same thing that cost the lives of 1000s of people. Do you let 100's of 1000s of people die to uphold your moral standard?

I would like to know how you would explain to everyone that it would have been wrong to torture the guy and that allowing all those people to die was the right thing (ALWAYS).

[Darat]

How do you know it is this person that has planted the bomb, how do you know it is set to go off in 24 hours, how do you know what information you need to make it safe and of course how do you know you can torture the person into giving you the information you need to make it safe?

[Jonnyclueless]

Please answer the question. The question implies that information is already known. Intel has shown it and no, you don't know that the torture will get the information out of the prisoner.

[SezMe]

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

So they aren't doing [missing noun]to your average guy there, they are doing it to guys like KSM, people who have had direct hands in events such as 9/11 killing thousands of people and have potential information that might affect 1000s more.
The noun that is missing in your sentence needs to be specified to determine if your assertion is correct. If the [missing noun] is "waterboarding" you are correct in that that is what the administration is claiming on the part of the USA. I don't trust them enough to believe it, but even if it is true, notice that that statement says nothing about what has been done to prisoners rendered to other countries.

If the [missing noun] is "torture" then the assertion is completely in error. The average guy has, in fact, been subject to torture.

[Jonnyclueless]

We're talking about waterboarding. And if you are pretty much making up your own mind about what is and isn't being done based on what you want to think is happening, then there's no point in discussing it.

[SezMe]

We're talking about waterboarding. And if you are pretty much making up your own mind about what is and isn't being done based on what you want to think is happening, then there's no point in discussing it.
It was you that mentioned torture and waterboarding in the same paragraph so it seems that clarification was called for. If you want to be strict about it, the OP asks if waterboarding should be used on POWs so your scenario does not apply. Other than that, I don't know what your post is trying to say.

[Jonnyclueless]

My post was a response, which was a response to another. If you follow along it will make more sense. The issue was about that torture should never be used ever no matter what. So a scenario is brought up to ask people if they would support it under those circumstances. But as always, no one has the guts to answer the question and brings up things such as the post mine was responding to, which brings up the average joe. Thus implying that every average joe POW is tortured.

But the real issue here is everyone thinking that their moral line is the right one and trying to guilt others into the same moral line.

And my scenario more than applies because we're talking about using waterboarding on a POW.

[epeos76]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to.

Personally, I agree. It just seems possible to me to concoct a scenario where it is difficult to explain why.

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about.

How can you say this with confidence? Don't you think that, at a minimum, we should have some sort of external review in place to make sure this is always, strictly true?

And what abut the questions Darat raised? Given finite time and resources, evidence of poor results, unquantified costs, and the myriad ugly reasons humans might be drawn to torture I would much rather bet our best efforts to save the day on other means.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately, neither law nor politics recognizes this sort of moral absolutism.But the moral absolutism Joe speaks of has that absolutism for a reason. In the long run, those who don't torture come out as the "good guys" of the world and that can have a tremendous impact on whether you get the support of the people wherever you are fighting a war.

We had the support of the world after 9/11 even in countries like Iran. Why is that? It was because the world viewed the terrorists' actions not as some heroes fighting God's war, they viewed the actions as intolerable immorality.

All it took were Bush's decisions reflecting universal immorality to destroy the vast majority of that worldwide support. All the information you could ever hope to gain from torturing any prisoner is never going to make up for what you lost when you lost the support of the people. I'm referring to the support of the people in the county you are fighting in, not the support of your own citizens.

[Piggy]

But the real issue here is everyone thinking that their moral line is the right one and trying to guilt others into the same moral line.

I think we can answer this question without any reference to morality whatsoever.

The real issues are:

1. Does it work?

2. Is it, on balance, worth the negative consequences?

I think the answer to both questions is a demonstrable "No".

If we must bring morality into it, this is the sensible question:

3. Does it violate the moral standards of the majority of Americans, and if so, what are the practical consequences of engaging in it anyway? And, does it violate the moral standards of our allies, and of innocent people in the families and nations of those we may torture, and if so, what are the practical consequences of engaging in it anyway?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

So they aren't doing to your average guy there, they are doing it to guys like KSM, people who have had direct hands in events such as 9/11 killing thousands of people and have potential information that might affect 1000s more.

And the issue of the ticking time bomb is very important. It proves that everyone has a line they draw and that this issue isn't about right or wrong, but people thinking that their opinion of where to draw that line is more right than others. And then those same people often try to use guilt to bully people into agreeing with their opinion. Hence the need to turn the issue into a black and white one.Right, and Abu Ghraib was a fluke, Gitmo doesn't really exist, and we never abducted anyone in a foreign country and flew them off to any secret CIA prisons or turned anyone over to any other countries for torture.

You bought the bait and switch, hook line and sinker. Only waterboarding, according to Anne Coulter a couple minutes of fear and no real physical harm; only a couple guys, the worst of the worst directly involved in 9/11 and other terrorist acts; and only a couple times to get really really really valuable information that of course saved lives!

That's a pretty narrow tunnel your view of the Bush administration is through. And I daresay you didn't notice the white wash all around either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So again. A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in NYC that is set to go off in 24 hours. This terrorist had previously done the same thing that cost the lives of 1000s of people. Do you let 100's of 1000s of people die to uphold your moral standard?

I would like to know how you would explain to everyone that it would have been wrong to torture the guy and that allowing all those people to die was the right thing (ALWAYS).Yep, the TV version. That explains your position.

This is a ************ scenario in case you still hadn't noticed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please answer the question. The question implies that information is already known. Intel has shown it and no, you don't know that the torture will get the information out of the prisoner.It's easy to answer the TV version question. What you are missing is that it is 100% phony. That scenario is a fantasy used to excuse the real reasons for torture. I suspect some of the reasons (and there are many) is that many of the Bush people supporting torture do believe they can manage the terrorist threat by simply taking these actions. I imagine they really believe they are doing what is necessary to get information.

I'm not convinced they were using torture to intimidate a population as torture is more commonly used.

But one's motives do not mean one is using wisdom. These guys were incompetent assessing the threat before 9/11. They were incompetent managing the Iraq war after the initial invasion. What makes anyone think their use of torture was any less incompetent?

[Jonnyclueless]

Skeptigirl, why can't you just answer the question? Stop making excuses and calling it phony. Answer the question. Yes or No? It's a simple question.

And stop pretending it's trying to justify to all torture under any condition.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yep, the TV version. That explains your position.

This is a ************ scenario in case you still hadn't noticed.

So you're saying that it's impossible for a terrorist to get ahold of a nuclear weapon? Please provide some evidence to prove that it's impossible. And even if that were actually true, it still does not change a thing and does not change the fact that you are simply trying to avoid the question and missing the point of it.

[Piggy]

Skeptigirl, why can't you just answer the question? Stop making excuses and calling it phony. Answer the question. Yes or No? It's a simple question.

And stop pretending it's trying to justify to all torture under any condition.

She's not answering the question because it's a dumb question.

Ok, yeah, if you -- somehow -- absolutely know that a given person has information which can help you stop a nuclear blast, you put their balls in a meat-grinder if you need to.

But this is such an implausible scenario that it has no bearing on the very real question at hand.

The real world ain't an epsiode of "24".

[Jonnyclueless]

She's not answering the question because it's a dumb question.

Ok, yeah, if you -- somehow -- absolutely know that a given person has information which can help you stop a nuclear blast, you put their balls in a meat-grinder if you need to.

But this is such an implausible scenario that it has no bearing on the very real question at hand.

The real world ain't an epsiode of "24".

First of all, it's far from impossible. But the point is to show the far extreme. The other would be what some of you guys want which is that no POWs can possibly have any information that could save lives.

This proves that it's an issue of opinion on where to draw that line. Something some of you don't seem to get with your holier than thou attitude and unrealistic views of the world.

How about something a little closer to home. What if we had KSM in custody just before 9/11 and we had followed up on the intel as should have been done to know there was an up coming attack. Would that be an impossible scenario? And would you have chosen KSM's rights over the lives and families of those killed on 9/11? Or say that he had been in custody during the attacks but nothing was done with him for fear of people getting upset that we might not be nice to terrorists. Would you have any trouble explaining to the family of the dead that it would have been wrong to torture KSM in an attempt to try and prevent the attack?

yes torture is wrong, but so are a lot of things and life isn't fair. We can't have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people want the meat, but they don't want to see how the cow is slaughtered. Most everything you enjoy in life was based on someone else's suffering. There is a price for everything. And taking this unrealistic moral holier than thou stand point is just an easy way out. Gosh eveeryone will like you if you're against bad things, that's a real toughie. But of course it's 1000x more unrealistic than your show 24.

[Denver]

It seems that the arguments pro-torture are often around the bomb-to-kill-thousands scenario, and the arguments anti-torture are from ethical/moral ground, and from how other countries will see and treat us.

I think there is a way to accommodate both.

1) All torture should be illegal
2) If someone in authority believes so surely that a person has information that could save thousands of lives, then he can make the decision to torture, knowing full well it is illegal. If he is truly a personal of strong morals trying to make a hard decision to save lives, then he should be willing to face the consequences. If he is not willing, than he is not of a the proper moral fiber to be able to make that decision anyway.

[Jonnyclueless]

It seems that the arguments pro-torture are often around the bomb-to-kill-thousands scenario, and the arguments anti-torture are from ethical/moral ground, and from how other countries will see and treat us.

I think there is a way to accommodate both.

1) All torture should be illegal
2) If someone in authority believes so surely that a person has information that could save thousands of lives, then he can make the decision to torture, knowing full well it is illegal. If he is truly a personal of strong morals trying to make a hard decision to save lives, then he should be willing to face the consequences. If he is not willing, than he is not of a the proper moral fiber to be able to make that decision anyway.

The solution you just presented is the pro-torture stance. While some here want you tho think that it means 'torture anyone you can and want', that's simply not true. it simply means that some people understand that the best route is what's best for the overall good and that there can be some situations where we have to go with the lesser evil.

The only difference from what you are saying is that the law should allow a provision for such extreme cases. As opposed to an absolute rule which can put people in danger. And this is where many people in this argument aren't concerned about anyone other than themselves feeling good because they think they are more moral than others.

And as you mentioned, regardless of the laws it will still be done behind closed doors when needed. I wish torture didn't exist. I also wish for world peace, and freedom for all mankind. I wish interrogation form Al Qaeda didn't involve thinks like burning people alive and electrocuting them, or beheading them. I wish it didn't involve flying planes of innocent people into buildings to make a point or get attention. That would be nice too.

[Denver]

The solution you just presented is the pro-torture stance. While some here want you tho think that it means 'torture anyone you can and want', that's simply not true. it simply means that some people understand that the best route is what's best for the overall good and that there can be some situations where we have to go with the lesser evil.

The only difference from what you are saying is that the law should allow a provision for such extreme cases. As opposed to an absolute rule which can put people in danger. And this is where many people in this argument aren't concerned about anyone other than themselves feeling good because they think they are more moral than others.

And as you mentioned, regardless of the laws it will still be done behind closed doors when needed. I wish torture didn't exist. I also wish for world peace, and freedom for all mankind. I wish interrogation form Al Qaeda didn't involve thinks like burning people alive and electrocuting them, or beheading them. I wish it didn't involve flying planes of innocent people into buildings to make a point or get attention. That would be nice too.

Perhaps what I am trying to say, is that the issues of torture, about comparing lives to lives, with possibly humanity-defining repercussions, seem to me to be greater issues than our current level of law and lawmakers can really deal with, and that's what it has been such a messy issue there. Because of that, I move it outside that realm as much as possible (by making it illegal, period), and more into the realm of deep personal ethics and responsibility. The authority themselves, like everyone, sometimes needs to make a decision outside the law (stealing to feed a hungry child, torturing to save thousands of lives), and can take the consequence that way, if they believe it really is the right thing, regardless of the law.

The law never stops something from happening. It just defines the consequences of breaking it. So no matter what any law says, someone can still break it. By making it legal, we loosen and lessen the consequences, and that is what I think is wrong. Make it illegal, make the consequence significant, and then people decide. Like they do with all laws.

[SezMe]

The only difference from what you are saying is that the law should allow a provision for such extreme cases.
No, as Denver explained above, torture should be illegal with no exceptions. If, however, the President (for that is how high such a decision should go) decides there are overriding factors and authorizes torture, then after your silly fantasy scenario plays out, he/she should immediately resign as a matter of honor. And yes, that includes the scenario in which the torture yields useful information.

[Piggy]

First of all, it's far from impossible. But the point is to show the far extreme. The other would be what some of you guys want which is that no POWs can possibly have any information that could save lives.

Nonsense.

You want to deal with this question, deal with the reality we're facing right now, the facts on the ground. Don't go making up implausible claptrap.

And please, don't even try to tell me that I have to deal with your comic-book scenario -- "The world's about to explode and we KNOW that Dr. Evil can stop it if we only get the code out of him in the next 15 minutes!" -- or the other bogus extreme, that we must conclude that no POW has any information we want.

The fact that you're resorting to such middle-school games exposes the utter intellectual poverty of your position.

Now get real.

To talk about detention, torture, and war in such terms is not only useless, it's revolting.

[Piggy]

This proves that it's an issue of opinion on where to draw that line. Something some of you don't seem to get with your holier than thou attitude and unrealistic views of the world.
You're accusing ME of being unrealistic? That's a laugh. Or would be, if we weren't talking about torture and war.

How about something a little closer to home. What if we had KSM in custody just before 9/11 and we had followed up on the intel as should have been done to know there was an up coming attack. Would that be an impossible scenario? And would you have chosen KSM's rights over the lives and families of those killed on 9/11?

You don't get it, do you?

It's not a matter of KSM's "rights". If we had apprehended him, what sort of "rights" would he have had?

If we had tortured him, let me ask you this.... Suppose he had started to talk. At what point would we have known whether he was telling us the truth, or telling us BS so we'd stop torturing him?

And keep in mind, we're talking about people willing to kill themselves for their twisted ideology.

Suppose he had told us that a dozen men were planting a nuclear device in California designed to trigger a massive earthquake.

Would we have said, "Thanks," given him a cup of tea, and rushed off to stop the plot?

Of course not.

The trouble with information gleaned from torture is that once you start, you never know when you've gotten correct information or bad information. And the narrower the timeframe (as in your imaginary scenarios) the more this spoiler comes into play because you don't have time to verify.

Your entire scenario relies upon having known then what we know now in retrospect -- which, if it had been true then, would have removed the need for the interrogation in the first place.

Or say that he had been in custody during the attacks but nothing was done with him for fear of people getting upset that we might not be nice to terrorists.
That is not even worthy of a reply. "Nice to terrorists"? Again, you're indulging in a comic-book fantasy of the world, not reality.


Would you have any trouble explaining to the family of the dead that it would have been wrong to torture KSM in an attempt to try and prevent the attack?

But I'm not arguing about right and wrong. I'm not arguing about morals. I'm talking about what works and doesn't, about actions and consequences.

Most everything you enjoy in life was based on someone else's suffering. There is a price for everything. And taking this unrealistic moral holier than thou stand point is just an easy way out. Gosh eveeryone will like you if you're against bad things, that's a real toughie. But of course it's 1000x more unrealistic than your show 24.

Go back and read my posts. You're projecting your own unfounded biases on me. I fully understand that my soft life is built on others' grief. I'm not holier-than-thou... in fact, I admit to being totally amoral. I don't talk in terms of "bad things".

When you grow up, come back and we'll talk.

[Jonnyclueless]

No, as Denver explained above, torture should be illegal with no exceptions. If, however, the President (for that is how high such a decision should go) decides there are overriding factors and authorizes torture, then after your silly fantasy scenario plays out, he/she should immediately resign as a matter of honor. And yes, that includes the scenario in which the torture yields useful information.

No, that's not acceptable. To make laws and then break them when convenient? For one thing, the president wouldn't have the authority to break the law. And then to expect them to do so and resign for it? And for what? Because you want a black and white absolute rule so you can feel like you are morally superior.

[Skeptic Ginger]

She's not answering the question because it's [a dumb an irrelevant] question.

Ok, yeah, if you -- somehow -- absolutely know that a given person has information which can help you stop a nuclear blast, you put their balls in a meat-grinder if you need to.

But this is such an implausible scenario that it has no bearing on the very real question at hand.

The real world ain't an epsiode of "24".Actually, as Piggy says, the answer is rather obvious but has nothing to do with the torture question in the real world.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you're saying that it's impossible for a terrorist to get ahold of a nuclear weapon? Please provide some evidence to prove that it's impossible. And even if that were actually true, it still does not change a thing and does not change the fact that you are simply trying to avoid the question and missing the point of it.Do you ever address anything other than straw men?

[Piggy]

Actually, as Piggy says, the answer is rather obvious but has nothing to do with the torture question in the real world.

No offense, but please don't alter my post when you quote.

I would prefer if you would say something like "I wouldn't call it dumb, but I would call it irrelevant".

I think the forum rules also require this.

Thanks.

[SezMe]

For one thing, the president wouldn't have the authority to break the law.
*snort* Now I know why you have posed a fantasy scenario; because you live in a fantasy world.

Let's see. Hmmmm. George W. Bush. Richard M. Nixon. Franklin Roosevelt. Need I go on?

C'mon, the title of this thread contains an important question. Can you please engage it in our real world and not some fun place you dreamed up.

[Wildy]

Of course they will. But ambushes aren't prohibited tactics, so there's no problem if they do.

The problem is if they "perfidiously" wear civilian clothing instead of simply hiding behind walls and trees or something --- not wearing uniforms is a prohibited tactic.

Pray tell me, in a time of war who ensures that people wear their uniforms? Who are these referees who seem to be able to command any army at will?

Well, one BIG way in which it differs is that the French resistance was active from about 1941-5, while the Iraqi insurgency is active from about 2002-8.

Your point?

... which is acceptable. The legally relevant difference is one of targeting, not of accidental casualties.

And you still missed my point.

Wow. Three objections, none of them relevant or even well-thought out. Let's see how you do with the fourth.

You miss my points and you say that I am not thinking?

No, but the Lt. Calley trial was not imposed upon the US. It did that voluntarily.

So, zero for four. Good going.

And do you think that had there not been a public outcry Lt. Calley would have been charged?

You mean, the charges for which Admiral Donitz was acquitted because they were not contrary to the laws and customs of war? No need to charge someone with something that isn't a crime....

Zero for five.

Wrong my friend. Read the charges again. Why not look here? (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/juddoeni.htm)

He was found not guilty on count one, which was:

Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Count three relates to the submarine warfare. What they did however was basically give him 0 years in prison for it because of the evidence that showed that the Allies did it as well. He was still found guilty.

Oh and on the score thing, how can you say that I am 0/5 when in one of my points you played a semantic argument? And another where you are clearly wrong? And one where you clearly agree with what I say?

I'll bet you vote Libertarian, too.

Poor deluded fool. I'll tell you how I voted:

1. Democrats
2. Greens
3. Family First
4. Independent
5. Liberal
6. Liberty and Democracy
7. One Nation
8. Labor

[Skeptic Ginger]

No offense, but please don't alter my post when you quote.

I would prefer if you would say something like "I wouldn't call it dumb, but I would call it irrelevant".

I think the forum rules also require this.

Thanks.I don't know how to react to your complaint. Surely Piggy, you of all people recognize [] indicates a divergence from the original quote? I believe I used proper identification that the bracketed wording was mine and not yours. It was simply a way of indicating where my view differed from yours. That is pretty standard nomenclature. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. But it is proper to add bracketed changes to quotes as a way of indicating one's changes. Are you suggesting I apologize when it was done properly? I'm at a loss here.

From the Guide to Grammar and Style by Jack Lynch. (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/q.html)When you quote others, you're expected to quote them exactly, right down to the spelling, capitalization, and italicization. If you change anything, you have to signal it to your readers. The most common ways to do this are with [brackets] for additions and ellipses (. . .) for omissions

[torporchair]

Torture is not what America is trying to be all about. America is a long, long way from perfect, but torture has no place in our treatment of POWs. What kind of a country do we want to be? Who are we, what are our values, do we have principles or do we have pseudo-principles?

If we torture a POW, our own troops will be far more likely to be tortured.

Also, the veracity of information gained from torture, as has been pointed out time and again, is very questionable.

[gumboot]

No. It's certainly very rare that the winners of a war will convene multinational war crimes tribunals, but violations of the rules of war is something that, historically, the US has acted on its own to punish. One of the most famous examples is the My Lai massacre, for which Lt. William Calley was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison. (The sentence was later commuted by President Nixon, but the conviction still stands as an example.)


I think something important needs to be pointed out here.

Under the LOAC breaches by military personnel are to be persecuted using the military justice system of the holding nation. This is called a Courts Martial. Soldiers of your own armed forces suspected of war crimes are tried in this way (and there were trials for allied soldiers who committed warcrimes during WW2) and holding powrs also trial enemy POWs under their own system (and German soldiers suspected of warcrimes were tried by allied Courts Martials).

Enemy POWs may also be tried by their own military justice system once repatriated at the end of hostilities, as also happens to enemy soldiers who were not POWs (and this also happened with many soldiers in WW2).

The question is what happens to suspected war criminals who are not POWs at the time of surrender. Normally surrender is conditional, and one of those conditions is the fate of suspected war criminals. Typically they are tried by the civilian judiciary of their own country (and again, many German war criminals were subsequently tried in German courts).

But WW2 ended with something very, very unusual, which was the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers which essentially dissolved the Axis states. This left the question of what do to with suspected enemy war criminals that were not POWs. Hence why the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was created. And it was perfectly in keeping with international law. It was illogical for suspected allied war criminals to be tried by a tribunal as both the military justice system and the civilian judiciary of the allied nations was still intact.

[JoeEllison]

How do you know it is this person that has planted the bomb, how do you know it is set to go off in 24 hours, how do you know what information you need to make it safe and of course how do you know you can torture the person into giving you the information you need to make it safe?

Because you're Jack Bauer, and in order to catch an international terrorist, Jack Bauer must become...


... a rapist!

[Cylinder]

Pray tell me, in a time of war who ensures that people wear their uniforms? Who are these referees who seem to be able to command any army at will?

You answered your first question with your second. Other than in the case of spontaneous uprising, legal combatants are required to be subject to a command structure - one responsibility of which is LOAC compliance.

[Piggy]

I don't know how to react to your complaint. Surely Piggy, you of all people recognize [] indicates a divergence from the original quote? I believe I used proper identification that the bracketed wording was mine and not yours. It was simply a way of indicating where my view differed from yours. That is pretty standard nomenclature. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. But it is proper to add bracketed changes to quotes as a way of indicating one's changes. Are you suggesting I apologize when it was done properly? I'm at a loss here.

I don't think Lynch applies to message board etiquette.

I'm not all hot under the collar or anything, but I do think it's unkosher to make edits inside the cite other than <snip>.

Many people on this board use the strikethru in their posts. If you add them to quoted material, it's not clear that it does not belong to the original.

So I'm just asking, please, if you don't mind, don't alter quoted material beyond the <snip>.

Do any mods here have a word on this issue?

[Jonnyclueless]

Do you ever address anything other than straw men?


Go learn what a strawman is. And kinda funny coming from someone who can't even answer the question. Oh the irony in your post.

[Jonnyclueless]

*snort* Now I know why you have posed a fantasy scenario; because you live in a fantasy world.

Let's see. Hmmmm. George W. Bush. Richard M. Nixon. Franklin Roosevelt. Need I go on?

C'mon, the title of this thread contains an important question. Can you please engage it in our real world and not some fun place you dreamed up.

That's funny, because you are the one trying to imply the fantasy world where there is only right and wrong. Good guys and bad guys. Yet at the same time saying that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon is impossible. Who's the one living in a fantasy here?

but let's be honest. All this is is you trying to push your political views and using torture as a means to try and guilt your opinion on others. Hence the need to bring up presidents when this issue has little to do with them. You don't like the current administration and have to try and use issues such as this to mislead people. yeah let's bring up torture something that is not very common and pretend it is while we ignore really serious issues.

Don't go pretending that I am not addressing the issue when you are the one using it for your personal rhetoric.

[Piggy]

Yet at the same time saying that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon is impossible.

No one has said that.

What we have said is that the comic-book scenario being spun around that possibility -- i.e., somehow we're holding the master-mind of the plot, somehow we know that this plot exists, somehow we know he knows all about it, and somehow we know what the timing is -- is straight out of Hollywood and is not really helpful in deciding what our policy should be in the real world.

[Jonnyclueless]

Torture is not what America is trying to be all about. America is a long, long way from perfect, but torture has no place in our treatment of POWs. What kind of a country do we want to be? Who are we, what are our values, do we have principles or do we have pseudo-principles?

If we torture a POW, our own troops will be far more likely to be tortured.

Also, the veracity of information gained from torture, as has been pointed out time and again, is very questionable.

No, torture is not what America is about. It's what people here want to make it about so they can pretend that the people they don't like are evil war mongers and stereo-typical bad guys out of a comic book. That's why they want to mislead people into thinking this is a policy. They will use rogue incidents such as Abu Grabass to imply that it's some kind of policy, or the waterboarding of 4 people 5 years ago and mislead people into thinking its some common policy.

And torturing POWs will not make our own troops far more likely to be tortured. They are already guaranteed to be tortured no matter what. This is a case that is being blown out of proportion to serve as propaganda. These same people when proposed situations that question whether they are for the better good of the people or their moral principle cower and then pretend any situation where a terrorist could have information that could save people is impossible. This is a fantasy they live in.

No one is saying torture should be policy or any kind of regular event. These dishonest people simply want you to think that so they can make people feel guilty. Preying on the concept that anyone that isn't against any possible situational use is bad. These people don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and pretend to be moral when they are anything BUT that. They just want to put on a show to impose their political beliefs and don't truley understand reality.

Luckily our lawmakers are a little more honest (if you can believe that). They understand that there are certain circumstances where it could be for the better good. And hence the whole issue being up for debate. Most of them want torture to be illegal, but with a few exceptions for extreme cases. This issue is not about making torture some standard policy as these people here would like to make you believe.

[Jonnyclueless]

No one has said that.

What we have said is that the comic-book scenario being spun around that possibility -- i.e., somehow we're holding the master-mind of the plot, somehow we know that this plot exists, somehow we know he knows all about it, and somehow we know what the timing is -- is straight out of Hollywood and is not really helpful in deciding what our policy should be in the real world.

No you said just that. i propose the far extreme example. YOU imply that it's the only possible scenario and that it's out of a comic book. Completely missing the point (as expected) that there are a billion circumstances inbetween torturing someone who is known to be innocent but doing it for pleasure, and a situation where millions of lives are at stake.

The fact that you DONT get that speaks miles. It just shows that you are thinking in black and white. There's only good or bad. Only innocent people being tortured, or some hollywood scenario. Nothing in between.

And again, to say that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon to use against people is not a hollywood scenario. It's been used in hollywood because it is such a plausible one. But that doesn't go along with your rhetoric campaign so you just brush it off so you don't have to answer the question.

[Piggy]

And torturing POWs will not make our own troops far more likely to be tortured. They are already guaranteed to be tortured no matter what.

This is where you're wrong.

You seem to imagine that extremist terrorists are the whole ball of wax.

They're not.

Yeah, the kind of people who decapitate journalists on TV are beyond reach. They need to be killed or locked up, period, and nothing we do is going to impact them.

But what about the little brother of an innocent young Muslim man who gets caught in a round-up of a city block, taken to a holding facility, held incommunicado, subjected to extreme interrogation methods, determined to have no information, and released?

What about that little boy?

He could have been our ally. Now he's our enemy.

What about the fence-sitters who hear the rhetoric about America being the Great Satan and are not sure whether to believe it. Then this young man comes home and tells his story. Will our actions make up their minds in ways we would rather they not be made up?

What about our allies who have to ask themselves whether they can afford to support us militarily, and whose populations are repulsed by the practice of torture? What about moderate Islamic governments who are having difficulty controlling the "street"?

Yes, there are those who would torture our troops no matter what. But there are others who would not -- unless, of course, they believed that it was the policy of the US to torture those whom we capture. Then it's just tip for tap.

If you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to a soldier who was there:

I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.”

A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.

[Piggy]

No you said just that. i propose the far extreme example. YOU imply that it's the only possible scenario and that it's out of a comic book. Completely missing the point (as expected) that there are a billion circumstances inbetween torturing someone who is known to be innocent but doing it for pleasure, and a situation where millions of lives are at stake.

The fact that you DONT get that speaks miles. It just shows that you are thinking in black and white. There's only good or bad. Only innocent people being tortured, or some hollywood scenario. Nothing in between.

And again, to say that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon to use against people is not a hollywood scenario. It's been used in hollywood because it is such a plausible one. But that doesn't go along with your rhetoric campaign so you just brush it off so you don't have to answer the question.

No, my friend, I'm not missing the point.

No one here was proposing the need for some "moral line". You invented that notion, then you proposed a game wherein you outlined extreme cases and invited us to propose where this line of yours (not ours) was to be drawn.

And it's a fool's game, like trying to determine where the atmosphere ends exactly.

What we're saying is that there's no need to play such a game.

I never mentioned good and bad. In fact, I've said explicitly on this thread that it's not even a moral issue, but a practical one. If we consider morality at all, it only needs to be in the context of factoring in the reaction of the American people, our allies, and those who are faced with the choice of believing in what we stand for or what the terrorists stand for.

You choose to ignore this and continue projecting your myth of who we -- those who disagree with you -- are onto us, rather than actually listening to what we have to say.

Rather childish, actually.

And here again, you come back to the claim that someone here is saying that it's impossible for terrorists to get a hold of nuclear weapons, which in fact no one is saying.

As I explicitly pointed out in plain language that everyone can see, it's not this point to which we object. Rather, it's the implausible drama you spin around it which is so absurd.

Bottom line: There is no need to play your "draw the line" game b/c it is wholly your invention and is irrelevant to the real arguments against torture, which are much more complex and are concerned with much thornier real-world questions such as whether it works, what the negative impacts are on our allies, to what degree it actually emboldens the enemy and supports their recruiting campaigns, etc.

It's fine if you disagree, but this business of trying to claim that people are saying what no one has said, and of ignoring what people clearly have said... well, you can't expect to pull those kinds of tricks and get any respect.

[Jonnyclueless]

No one is saying that the average joe prisoner should be tortured. And when such things do happen, it's illegal. Hence people being involved in Abu Grabass going to jail. And yes that indeed makes things worse for us. But this whole issue has come up over the waterboarding issue. And this is something done in the extreme cases. This is what congress is arguing about. Not the rogue interrogators who break the law. But whether the act of waterboarding, or at least the loop hole on it should be made illegal.

But this is the problem with this being turned into a political issue. The implication is being made that torture should be used on every and anyone. And what gives the bad guys (for lack of a better term) this impression of us being this society of torturers are those that use this stuff as a political tool.

To simply make a hard set rule is going to mean putting lives in jeopardy when (not if) the extreme scenario comes around. This is why there need to be conditions for these extreme cases.

The issue at hand is how to handle the loop hole of enemy combatants. The best solution is to make it illegal with provisions for extreme cases. Otherwise the rules of the Army handbook are to be followed. And for every story you provide, there is a counter one. It's all about a balancing act and that is why absolute rules are dangerous.

[Cylinder]

No one has said that.

What we have said is that the comic-book scenario being spun around that possibility -- i.e., somehow we're holding the master-mind of the plot, somehow we know that this plot exists, somehow we know he knows all about it, and somehow we know what the timing is -- is straight out of Hollywood and is not really helpful in deciding what our policy should be in the real world.

There's a bit of misunderstanding of how good intelligence works. I suggest the A&E program The First 48 if you're interested in seeing a decent-enough civilian analogue. There are moments of immediate understanding but more often than not it's a very painstaking - and frankly boring - assembly of a broader mosaic from seemingly trivial details. Who drives the truck? How is the cell financed? How does the operational commander receive orders? Those are the stuff of Eureka! moments - not some Hollywood plot that fits nicely between commercial breaks.

[SezMe]

That's why they want to mislead people into thinking this is a policy.
Jonny, go here (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/powtorturememos.html) to read various articles about the Bush Administration's policy discussions regarding torture. Now I know where you got part of your handle.

[SezMe]

but let's be honest. All this is is you trying to push your political views and using torture as a means to try and guilt your opinion on others.
Tell me, Jonny, when I and Piggy and Joe and others express our opinions regarding this powerful issue, how does that constitute trying to lay guilt on others? And when YOU express an opinion, why is that NOT trying to lay guilt on others?

[Piggy]

No one is saying that the average joe prisoner should be tortured. And when such things do happen, it's illegal. Hence people being involved in Abu Grabass going to jail. And yes that indeed makes things worse for us. But this whole issue has come up over the waterboarding issue. And this is something done in the extreme cases. This is what congress is arguing about. Not the rogue interrogators who break the law. But whether the act of waterboarding, or at least the loop hole on it should be made illegal.

But this is the problem with this being turned into a political issue. The implication is being made that torture should be used on every and anyone. And what gives the bad guys (for lack of a better term) this impression of us being this society of torturers are those that use this stuff as a political tool.

To simply make a hard set rule is going to mean putting lives in jeopardy when (not if) the extreme scenario comes around. This is why there need to be conditions for these extreme cases.

The issue at hand is how to handle the loop hole of enemy combatants. The best solution is to make it illegal with provisions for extreme cases. Otherwise the rules of the Army handbook are to be followed. And for every story you provide, there is a counter one. It's all about a balancing act and that is why absolute rules are dangerous.

Thanks for that post.

I still don't see eye-to-eye with you on this issue, but now I have a much better grasp of where you're coming from.

[Piggy]

There's a bit of misunderstanding of how good intelligence works. I suggest the A&E program The First 48 if you're interested in seeing a decent-enough civilian analogue. There are moments of immediate understanding but more often than not it's a very painstaking - and frankly boring - assembly of a broader mosaic from seemingly trivial details. Who drives the truck? How is the cell financed? How does the operational commander receive orders? Those are the stuff of Eureka! moments - not some Hollywood plot that fits nicely between commercial breaks.

There's also an interesting article in the May '07 "Atlantic Monthly" called "How to Break a Terrorist" which speaks to this issue.

Painting with an overly broad brush here (admittedly), a lot of this debate comes down to the value of psy-ops, generally favored by the military, versus dirty tricks, generally favored by civilians such as CIA.

From what I've seen, the record clearly comes down in favor of the former.

[gumboot]

I think a number of people might agree that in the hypothetical situation where you know person X has information that will definitely save the lives of lots of people, torture is acceptable. I'd be inclined to agree with that myself.

The problem, of course, is that this hypothetical scenario does not and can not exist. You can never know without question that the person in question has the information you need, and you can never know without question that torture will give you that information, and you can never know without question that once you have that information it will guarantee you will save the lives of lots of people.

The real world simply does not work this way.

Our legal systems recognise this - that is why a person must first be proven to be guilty in a court before that can in fact be considered guilty.

Finally, the above scenario speaks only from the concept of saving lives. During WW2, and countless other wars, our societies have accepted the loss of millions upon millions of lives, based entirely upon the premise that many things are more valuable than the collective value of the individual human lives. Freedom. Justice. Equality. We have died for these, generation after generation after generation. We have established, through blood, that these ideals, these values which constitute the very fabric of our society are worth more than a human life. They are worth more than entire generations.

To surrender those values for the sake of saving a few lives, then, is a direct rejection of everything our society stands for. Let's pretend that I know for a fact I can save the lives of 1 million people. All I must do is reject the values of my society and torture a single individual.

What that says is that 1 million people are worth more than our values. And what does that say of the millions of people who sacrificed their lives to preserve those values?

Torture is an insult to our fallen, because it rejects their sacrifice as worthless.

[SezMe]

Very well said, gumboot.

[Piggy]

Yes, thanks, gumboot.

And we must never forget that habeas, which is granted to all persons within US jurisdictions -- not just citizens -- was not instituted because the founders were ignorant of terrorism. They knew terrorism all too well.

Yet they also understood that an even greater threat to life and liberty lay in the exercise of arbitrary power by those who hold the reins of governmental authority.

What would they think about the cowardly rush by so many to abandon liberty today?

I believe they would be repulsed at the notion that the liberties they risked and sacrificed so much to attain would be tossed aside for fear of violence.

They were made of stronger stuff.

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

It's a shame that so many today look at risk and say, "No. Never. Anything but that. We cannot have that. Go ahead, engage in torture, give the government the power to spy on citizens secretly, send people to black cells in foreign lands without trial or due process, anything... just please, don't let any harm come to me."

[Cylinder]

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

No they didn't.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

[JoeEllison]

Yes, thanks, gumboot.

And we must never forget that habeas, which is granted to all persons within US jurisdictions -- not just citizens -- was not instituted because the founders were ignorant of terrorism. They knew terrorism all too well.

Yet they also understood that an even greater threat to life and liberty lay in the exercise of arbitrary power by those who hold the reins of governmental authority.

What would they think about the cowardly rush by so many to abandon liberty today?

I believe they would be repulsed at the notion that the liberties they risked and sacrificed so much to attain would be tossed aside for fear of violence.

They were made of stronger stuff.

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

It's a shame that so many today look at risk and say, "No. Never. Anything but that. We cannot have that. Go ahead, engage in torture, give the government the power to spy on citizens secretly, send people to black cells in foreign lands without trial or due process, anything... just please, don't let any harm come to me."

Whatever else they were, they weren't cowards, unlike the present crop of "take our freedoms, just keep us safe" yellow scumbags.

[Piggy]

No they didn't.

Oh, sorry. I wan't referring specifically to habeas in that passage, which came much later in my post than my reference to habeas in the beginning. But since I led w/ habeas, I can see how I'd give that impression. Mea culpa.

[gumboot]

Yes, thanks, gumboot.

And we must never forget that habeas, which is granted to all persons within US jurisdictions -- not just citizens -- was not instituted because the founders were ignorant of terrorism. They knew terrorism all too well.

Yet they also understood that an even greater threat to life and liberty lay in the exercise of arbitrary power by those who hold the reins of governmental authority.

What would they think about the cowardly rush by so many to abandon liberty today?

I believe they would be repulsed at the notion that the liberties they risked and sacrificed so much to attain would be tossed aside for fear of violence.

They were made of stronger stuff.

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

It's a shame that so many today look at risk and say, "No. Never. Anything but that. We cannot have that. Go ahead, engage in torture, give the government the power to spy on citizens secretly, send people to black cells in foreign lands without trial or due process, anything... just please, don't let any harm come to me."


To be entirely fair, I suspect that the founding fathers would probably be horrified by the number of liberties there are in the USA today. Let's not forget that you're talking about people who kept slaves, followed sexually repressive religions, were almost certainly racist, sexist, and so forth.

You're right that they might also be disturbed by government spying and such things, but I suspect such matters would be overshadowed by their moral outrage at the USA's social liberties.

This is why I feel that appealing to the Founding Fathers is not necessarily a good thing. I doubt the current state of the USA is anything like what they envisaged. Tough. It's no longer their USA. The question is whether the current state of the USA is what the current population of the USA wants, because ultimately that's all that matters.

The checks and balances established by the founders were not designed to restrict the USA to an unchanging formula based on what the founding fathers wanted. They were designed to prevent any future government of the day from turning the USA into something the people of the day didn't want.

The starting point, thus, is not "What would the founding fathers think of this?" but "What do I think of this?"

At least, that's how this non-American perceives it. :)

[SezMe]

While the USA founding fathers were certainly influenced by Locke and the Enlightenment, they were also the product of their times. Their guiding principles were humanistic, many were Deists, but they were also politicians and merchants.

Thus, I think it is a folly to wonder what they would think of the American culture today. Another question would be what would they think had they been raised in our culture. Who knows.

The checks and balances established by the founders were not designed to restrict the USA to an unchanging formula based on what the founding fathers wanted. They were designed to prevent any future government of the day from turning the USA into something the people of the day didn't want.
Unfortuantly, this view is not universally held and is, in fact, rejected by, for example, the "strict constructionists" who inhabit the federal judiciary. Notable among these are Justices Scalia and Thomas.

I do agree that your posited starting point is the right one. Sadly, others do not.

[Piggy]

To be entirely fair, I suspect that the founding fathers would probably be horrified by the number of liberties there are in the USA today. Let's not forget that you're talking about people who kept slaves, followed sexually repressive religions, were almost certainly racist, sexist, and so forth.

You're right that they might also be disturbed by government spying and such things, but I suspect such matters would be overshadowed by their moral outrage at the USA's social liberties.

Some would be outraged, others would no doubt be pleased.

And although an appeal to the founders certainly cannot be our basis for all law, there is a meme floating around these days that we need to give more power -- of secrecy, torture, rendition, spying on citizens, denying due process, etc. -- to the government because our current situation of terribly terrifying terror is a totally new thing in this world, something that the framers of our government could not have foreseen.

My point is that they didn't have to foresee war, terrorism, and internal enemies, because these were part of their experience. And they built these protections into our Constitution anyway.

[billydkid]

To be entirely fair, I suspect that the founding fathers would probably be horrified by the number of liberties there are in the USA today. Let's not forget that you're talking about people who kept slaves, followed sexually repressive religions, were almost certainly racist, sexist, and so forth.

You're right that they might also be disturbed by government spying and such things, but I suspect such matters would be overshadowed by their moral outrage at the USA's social liberties.

This is why I feel that appealing to the Founding Fathers is not necessarily a good thing. I doubt the current state of the USA is anything like what they envisaged. Tough. It's no longer their USA. The question is whether the current state of the USA is what the current population of the USA wants, because ultimately that's all that matters.

The checks and balances established by the founders were not designed to restrict the USA to an unchanging formula based on what the founding fathers wanted. They were designed to prevent any future government of the day from turning the USA into something the people of the day didn't want.

The starting point, thus, is not "What would the founding fathers think of this?" but "What do I think of this?"

At least, that's how this non-American perceives it. :)Actually, I don't think you are being entirely fair. I think the founders knew full well that they didn't actually live up to the creed they espoused and figured on the country becoming more liberal and eventually being able to fulfill the ideal, more or less, of what it means to be genuinely, politically free. And I think it is a mistake to confuse liberty with the libertine. If I follow your argument one would have to assume that if the people decided they wanted a socialist empire like the former USSR the founders would be okay with that. I think that is obviously not true. The founders espoused certain bedrock principles which would preclude the possibility of having a government, merely, that the people of a certain generation want. One of the fundamental principles is the idea of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men, which is why following the Constitution is so basic. If a society has come to believe that some aspect of the Constitution is not viable, the proper thing to do is to change it, not disregard it.

Another fundamental belief of the founders is that people should have the power and the means to throw off and change the government should it become oppressive and that is the purpose of the second amendment. The founders were quite explicit about this and virtually all the 2nd amendment debate is entirely disingenuous. It should be recognized that one of the first steps any repressive regime takes is to disarm the populace and the first steps toward gun control were taken to disarm blacks in the south and to prevent them from being able to meaningfully stand up for their basic rights.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No one is saying that the average joe prisoner should be tortured. And when such things do happen, it's illegal. Hence people being involved in Abu Grabass going to jail. And yes that indeed makes things worse for us. But this whole issue has come up over the waterboarding issue. And this is something done in the extreme cases. This is what congress is arguing about. Not the rogue interrogators who break the law. But whether the act of waterboarding, or at least the loop hole on it should be made illegal.

But this is the problem with this being turned into a political issue. The implication is being made that torture should be used on every and anyone. And what gives the bad guys (for lack of a better term) this impression of us being this society of torturers are those that use this stuff as a political tool.

To simply make a hard set rule is going to mean putting lives in jeopardy when (not if) the extreme scenario comes around. This is why there need to be conditions for these extreme cases.

The issue at hand is how to handle the loop hole of enemy combatants. The best solution is to make it illegal with provisions for extreme cases. Otherwise the rules of the Army handbook are to be followed. And for every story you provide, there is a counter one. It's all about a balancing act and that is why absolute rules are dangerous.

Perhaps a start would be not to vote for torturers like Dick and Dub and Condie? If you blame the people for electing Hamas then you must blame the people who elected torturers as their representatives - or have I missed something important?

[gumboot]

If I follow your argument one would have to assume that if the people decided they wanted a socialist empire like the former USSR the founders would be okay with that.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[drkitten]

No, that's not acceptable. To make laws and then break them when convenient?

Actually, that's very close to the way that the current legal system generally works.

Are you familiar with the term "necessity defense"? Basically, it is a defense to any criminal prosecution that an illegal act was "necessary." For example, if there is a fire in a prison, and the prisoners escape (in order to avoid being burned to death), then they will be acquitted if charged with illegal escape. Driving drunk in order to get someone to the hospital is legal if you're the only driver on the scene. The Model Penal Code (which many states follow) explicitly allows that "Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that: . . . the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged"

The proposed torture policies thus go far beyond anything that would be required to protect someone who in good faith tortures a proven terrorist and thereby saves the lives of millions of innocents.

Therefore, it's a straw man. No matter what laws are enacted, it will still be legal to violate them in order to avoid harm or evil to another.

What the torture proponents here want is simply a blanket justification to carry out whatever sadistic whims they might have. They're lying to me and to themselves.

[ponderingturtle]

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

WHat does that have to do with those useing the ticking time bomb justification for torture?

And the issue of the ticking time bomb is very important. It proves that everyone has a line they draw and that this issue isn't about right or wrong, but people thinking that their opinion of where to draw that line is more right than others. And then those same people often try to use guilt to bully people into agreeing with their opinion. Hence the need to turn the issue into a black and white one.

So? This has nothing to do with does the ticking time bomb justification of torture mean that POW's should be tortured as it is with them that the situation is most likely to come up.

[ponderingturtle]

We're talking about waterboarding. And if you are pretty much making up your own mind about what is and isn't being done based on what you want to think is happening, then there's no point in discussing it.

The thread was never about any particular technique. It was why do those who argue for torture under the ticking time bomb argument not extend to POW's. Many large offensives depended on suprise and used misdirrection quite effectively. This would seem to be the a real world example of the ticking time bomb.

[ponderingturtle]

It was you that mentioned torture and waterboarding in the same paragraph so it seems that clarification was called for. If you want to be strict about it, the OP asks if waterboarding should be used on POWs so your scenario does not apply. Other than that, I don't know what your post is trying to say.

No it specifies torture, it is not specific about the methodology of that torture.

[ponderingturtle]

How about something a little closer to home. What if we had KSM in custody just before 9/11 and we had followed up on the intel as should have been done to know there was an up coming attack. Would that be an impossible scenario? And would you have chosen KSM's rights over the lives and families of those killed on 9/11? Or say that he had been in custody during the attacks but nothing was done with him for fear of people getting upset that we might not be nice to terrorists. Would you have any trouble explaining to the family of the dead that it would have been wrong to torture KSM in an attempt to try and prevent the attack?

Ah but you again creating an entirely fictional senario. Or does there not need to be a ticking time bomb? You seem to be tortureing him just because he might know about a potential attack, not because you know he knows about a definite attack.


So then when does some terrorist suspect get tortured?

[shadron]

Getting close to a resolution on this issue, piecemeal if not universal:

DOD: DETAINEES ARE TO BE TREATED HUMANELY, NO EXCEPTIONS
Not even a valid intelligence requirement can be used to justify cruel
treatment of a detained enemy combatant, according to Defense
Department doctrine on "detainee operations."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff last week issued a slightly revised version
of that DoD doctrine on detainees (the second revision this year).

The document reaffirms that all detainees must be treated humanely.

"Inhumane treatment of detainees is prohibited by the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, domestic and international law, and DOD policy.
There is no exception to this humane treatment requirement."

"Accordingly, the stress of combat operations, the need for
intelligence, or deep provocation by captured and/or detained personnel
does not justify deviation from this obligation."

See Joint Publication 3-63, "Detainee Operations," 30 May 2008:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_63.pdf
Bolding is mine. From the Secrecy Project Newsletter sponsored by the Federation of American Scientists. see www.fas.org (http://www.fas.org%5D).

[Travis]

Perhaps a start would be not to vote for torturers like Dick and Dub and Condie? If you blame the people for electing Hamas then you must blame the people who elected torturers as their representatives - or have I missed something important?

On the ballot it said: George W. Bush (Republican) not George W. Bush (Torturer Advocate). Not that it would have mattered to me since I voted against him anyways.

[Beerina]

So if there's a nuclear bomb about to go off, it's ok to cut off the guy's fingers or threaten to shoot his kid, like in "24", but otherwise just detain humanely?

I'm fine with that.

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps a start would be not to vote for torturers like Dick and Dub and Condie? If you blame the people for electing Hamas then you must blame the people who elected torturers as their representatives - or have I missed something important?
Sorry I missed something here: who blamed the Pals for voting in Hamas in Gaza?

Eff me, it was a superb exercise of democracy, and all that comes with it.