When is torture not torture

[Elind]

I was watching our friend O'Reilly last night chatting about torture and what it constitutes and what is acceptable in the realm of interrogation.

We had some emotive chats about this during the Abu Graib scandals, but perhaps it can be addressed in a more thoughtful manner now.

What I would like to ask for is opinions on what actually constitutes "torture", without lengthy dissertations on Geneva Conventions. Just good old gut feel opinions would be fine.

We often hear the mantra that "torture" (however defined) never works and anyone can be made to say anything, which may very well be true. However in the real world one is not, except for pure propaganda purposes, trying to get anyone to say what one wants, but to say what one can verify.

So, while we can no doubt agree that stupid people doing stupid things like at Abu Graib is stupid (but maybe not torture), and pulling out fingernails and so on definitely is; but what is in between?

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
I was watching our friend O'Reilly last night chatting about torture and what it constitutes and what is acceptable in the realm of interrogation.

We had some emotive chats about this during the Abu Graib scandals, but perhaps it can be addressed in a more thoughtful manner now.

What I would like to ask for is opinions on what actually constitutes "torture", without lengthy dissertations on Geneva Conventions. Just good old gut feel opinions would be fine.

We often hear the mantra that "torture" (however defined) never works and anyone can be made to say anything, which may very well be true. However in the real world one is not, except for pure propaganda purposes, trying to get anyone to say what one wants, but to say what one can verify.

So, while we can no doubt agree that stupid people doing stupid things like at Abu Graib is stupid (but maybe not torture), and pulling out fingernails and so on definitely is; but what is in between?

Still desperately trying to forgive yoursef for Abu Graib?
Americans Tortured Iraqis, the sooner you can deal with that the sooner you may be able to move on.

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
Still desperately trying to forgive yoursef for Abu Graib?
Americans Tortured Iraqis, the sooner you can deal with that the sooner you may be able to move on.

Wow. That only took 14 minutes. Your timing is getting better.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...e&pagenumber=1

Once again you've accused someone of advocating torture without addressing the question at hand. Bad debate tactics. Bad. But don't worry, Tmy and Pesky should be arriving soon to back you up.

[Phrost]

If you don't play by the rules of war, you shouldn't expect to get their protections.

[Atlas]

Inflicting physical pain that causes harm is torture. Beatings, electric shock, the rack - all torture.

Slapping the guy who spits on you is not torturing him unless it is relentless.

Psychological pressure is not torture unless it goes too far. Where is that line? I think when it puts a person's life in jeopardy it is torture. Waterboarding where a person is drowned and revived is probably torture.

I think injecting someone with poison and showing the antidote but demanding information is probably torture. I think though that Faking a poison injection, staging it for a prisoner who is going in for questioning, letting him see a writhing, foaming at the mouth, convulsing actor and then injecting the prisoner during interrogation with a harmless saline solution and telling him you have an antidote - I think that is psychological pressure and not torture.

Showing a prisoner pictures of his family is not torture but it suggests that harm could easily come to them. That's psychological pressure.

I'm not suggesting that either method delivers reliable information just what constitutes torture.

If a suicide bomber was thwarted and his target was known to be a playground or someplace with children I think it would be fair to show him pictures of his own children playing in an effort to get him to speak about the support network that outfitted him.

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas

Slapping the guy who spits on you is not torturing him unless it is relentless.

So would Phrost's avatar be considered torture?

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce
So would Phrost's avatar be considered torture?

It's kinda on the edge. I know it really bugs me. I have to scroll past quickly. But i guess as long as I can move it out of my view I don't feel tortured.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce
Wow. That only took 14 minutes. Your timing is getting better.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...e&pagenumber=1

Once again you've accused someone of advocating torture without addressing the question at hand. Bad debate tactics. Bad. But don't worry, Tmy and Pesky should be arriving soon to back you up.

you are a liar Bruce...

can you please quote where I have accused anyone in this thread of advocating torture...can you quote me accusing you or anyone else of advocating torture in that thread you linked to?

come on bruce....don't do a disappearing act like you did in the thread you linked to....so far you are just a liar, lets not add coward to that.....so whats it to be? are you interested in demonmstrating that you are not a liar? where did I accuse someone in this thread of advocating torture? Where did I accuse anyone of this in that thread you linked?

grub.

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
you are a liar Bruce...

can you please quote where I have accused anyone in this thread of advocating torture...can you quote me accusing you or anyone else of advocating torture in that thread you linked to?

come on bruce....don't do a disappearing act like you did in the thread you linked to....so far you are just a liar, lets not add coward to that.....so whats it to be? are you interested in demonmstrating that you are not a liar? where did I accuse someone in this thread of advocating torture? Where did I accuse anyone of this in that thread you linked?

grub.

Ok, here:

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
Do you think beatings are humorously trivial too?

I said nothing in my OP about "beatings" being humorous. You erected a straw man and accused me of making light of torture, when the issue at hand was the silliness of including loud music and incessant political rhetoric and propaganda under the definition of torture.

You also said this:

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
I sincerely hope that one day you are subjected to the things you find so funny. Armed with first hand experience you would then be able to make your comments from the correct orifice.

which I could argue as an indirect threat, but will accept as an ignorant comment because you assumed that I think torture in terms of "beatings" is funny.

So, will you take back the "liar" and "grub" insults, or will you once again claim to know my true feelings and burn down another straw man?

Troll.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think the definition of torture should hinge on whether "physical damage" results. Electricity, below a certain amount, will hurt, but not cause bodily damage. I'd say that's still torture.

[Atlas]

Fool,

Apart from abu ghraib... do you see any difference
1) in the menace from criminals who kill with a gun and are local citizens out to get rich through robbery or ransom

2) and the menace of military force operating under the rules of war killing people

3) and the menace of terrorists many from other countries operating outside the rules of war, seeking to instill fear by targetting innocents for death and killing indiscriminately in hopes of gaining a spiritual reward.

I mean, in terms of treatment, and interrogation. What's allowed? What is torture? And if the enemy is kidnapping and beheading civilians do you pursue more aggressive techniques or not.

I agree that abu Ghraib should not have happened. It seemed pointless and stupid for what we got out of it. If however, naked humiliation in front of female interrogators was enough to break someone, would that be torture? I know there was more to abu Ghraib but I'm asking about limits and thresholds.

What should be allowed and what disallowed. Does seething hatred and mindless violence allow for more agressive techniques to be employed. If we heard about something big coming and then we captured Zarqawi would the rules be any different for him than for someone who probably didn't know anything?

You're hard to figure. You're not a pacifist but the tone you have against perceived American injustice is so loud compared to those who are beheading civilians. I know you don't like them either but it's almost like you hate what you see as hypocrisy much more than real bloody murder.

So is there a way you can define the parameters of torture or is it something you know only when you see an American in the photo.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I don't think the definition of torture should hinge on whether "physical damage" results. Electricity, below a certain amount, will hurt, but not cause bodily damage. I'd say that's still torture.

I guess I consider electric shock much like I consider beating the soles of the feet... It's a beating.

What about psychological pressure... relentless round the clock questioning and sleep deprivation - how long do you keep food and water away before it becomes torture?

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind

So, while we can no doubt agree that stupid people doing stupid things like at Abu Graib is stupid (but maybe not torture), and pulling out fingernails and so on definitely is; but what is in between?

Even though Abu Ghraib may not go down in history as one of the more sadistic actions or examples of "man's inhumanity to man", it was definitely improper and is being dealt with by criminal prosecution.

Here is a good example of why we cannot allow ourselves to go down this slippery slope of "the end justifies the means":

Quote:

China accused the United States on Thursday of using double standards to judge human rights in other countries, adding to a growing list of nations that suggest the government that produced the Abu Ghraib prison abuses has no business commenting on what happens elsewhere.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGHFBK8VK1.DTL

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
Fool,

Apart from abu ghraib... do you see any difference
1) in the menace from criminals who kill with a gun and are local citizens out to get rich through robbery or ransom

2) and the menace of military force operating under the rules of war killing people

3) and the menace of terrorists many from other countries operating outside the rules of war, seeking to instill fear by targetting innocents for death and killing indiscriminately in hopes of gaining a spiritual reward.

I mean, in terms of treatment, and interrogation. What's allowed? What is torture? And if the enemy is kidnapping and beheading civilians do you pursue more aggressive techniques or not.

you follow the agreements you have signed up to and you respect human rights...Its really not that complex.

I agree that abu Ghraib should not have happened. It seemed pointless and stupid for what we got out of it. If however, naked humiliation in front of female interrogators was enough to break someone, would that be torture? I know there was more to abu Ghraib but I'm asking about limits and thresholds.

you respect the agreements you claim you respect, you respect human rights.

What should be allowed and what disallowed. Does seething hatred and mindless violence allow for more agressive techniques to be employed. If we heard about something big coming and then we captured Zarqawi would the rules be any different for him than for someone who probably didn't know anything?

respect the international agreements you have signed up to, respect people's human rights.

You're hard to figure. You're not a pacifist but the tone you have against perceived American injustice is so loud compared to those who are beheading civilians. I know you don't like them either but it's almost like you hate what you see as hypocrisy much more than real bloody murder.

If you have the time or the inclination you can go back and have a look at what I get "loud" about. I get "loud" when I see people trying to tell me that a duck is a chicken. If I stumble across a group of people trying to present murder of civilians as anything other than murder I'll get "loud" with them too. I am not really sure what I am more disgusted with, the crimes at abu graib and places like it or the procession of people who have been apologists for it....the ones that want to talk about it but just cannot use the "T" word. The ones that can see it walk like a duck and quack like a duck and call it a chicken.

So is there a way you can define the parameters of torture or is it something you know only when you see an American in the photo.
I know what torture is, you do too. It happened at Abu Graib and most likely in plenty of other places too. I understand its a shock to the system the first time people realise that thier nationality is nothing special and is just as capable of atrocities as any other....tough, people need to accept it and get on with life....

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
[b]
Here is a good example of why we cannot allow ourselves to go down this slippery slope of "the end justifies the means":

I remember an interview with Osama where he used a similar arguement. He said the US had no business trying to prevent anyone in the middle east from building nuclear weapons because of our attack on Hiroshima.

We chose two small cities, when we could have hit Tokyo, and we had a lot more than two bombs. After the war, we aided Japan in rebuilding and eventually restored international relations with them. Would any country in the middle east show such restraint, or compassion after the fact?

Oops, we're heading toward total derailment.

Forcing someone to stay awake night after night with repeated questioning is torture. Keeping yourself awake night after night, and asking yourself repeated questions to cram for a political science exam is not torture.....but it should be.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Water boarding=torture
force-feeding pork=torture
stress-positions=torture
electric shocks=torture
sleep deprivation=torture if done to the extreme

I think terrorists and suspected terrorists shoudl still be subject to the same protections afforded to POWs. Especially when there's a good chance a lot of the peopel we're holding aren't actually guilty of anything.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce


So, will you take back the "liar" and "grub" insults, or will you once again claim to know my true feelings and burn down another straw man?

Troll.

I will take back the liar statement if and when you show me where I have accused you or any one else of advocating torture...which is what you said I did.

ok, you struck out in the first attempt, do you want to have another go at finding a quote to back up your lie?

its simple bruce...where did I accuse you of advocating torture. I have certainly accused you of making jokes about torture...do you think thats the same thing?

Bruce, you need to learn that its not a great Idea to shoot your mouth off with claims you cannot support....especially on a skeptics board. Did you honestly expect me to simply accept your claim that i did something I didn't?

[Atlas]

Pepto makes a good point above. But it's about appearences. Regimes the perpetrate nastiness on their own citizenry are given cover when nations who give voice to high minded moral positions exhibit unethical behaviors. What is strange in a way is that war itself is an extreme deviation from moral behavior. The end of war and return to civility should be the foremost goal, but it's not. We must play a strange "ethical" game where we hunt terrorists relentlessly, chase and try to kill them. Then if they are captured instead of being killed we have to treat them "nice". One moment they deserve a bullet and no one denies it, but the next they must be treated with some dignity.

Fool, your point about it not being so very hard to understand - respect international agreements and human rights - still is open to interpretation. Can you imagine a situation when a terrorist's human rights comes into conflict with an innocent civilian population's right not to be bombed to hell. If you know you've got a guy with information that could save the lives of innocents and he happens to fall into a group for which the international agreements have not been clearly articulated, whose human rights are to be preferred? - the man who planted the bomb or those about to be blown up?

I seem to have embraced a "Dirty Harry" ethic. Sometimes the situation demands the good to act with cruelty towards evildoers. It's kinda strange. On any question regarding torture my kneejerk answer is "It's always wrong." When I ponder the capture of Zarqawi, however, my moral position becomes more elastic.

I guess that's another reason to steer clear of torture as a hard and fast rule. It's just too easy to identify those who you feel are deserving. Once you accept it as a moral answer for some evils you'll surely find more and more deserving souls.

That being said, I think I still feel like there are times when a situation may warrant cruelty. If a battlefield commander believes quick, harsh actions can save lives I might not be quick to label it torture, especially if it works, even if I would label it torture if done in the "comfort" of the interrogation room. The ethic of the battlefield demands occasional harshness. Didn't some officer get into some trouble for going up to a prisoner and firing his pistol into the ground near where the prisoner knelt? The prisoner, in fear of his life, told of an attack that was coming and that officer was able to save the lives of his men by being prepared for it. Had this happened away from the battlefield I would have thought it verged on torture. I did not think it was the way the officer handled it.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
Fool, your point about it not being so very hard to understand - respect international agreements and human rights - still is open to interpretation. Can you imagine a situation when a terrorist's human rights comes into conflict with an innocent civilian population's right not to be bombed to hell. If you know you've got a guy with information that could save the lives of innocents and he happens to fall into a group for which the international agreements have not been clearly articulated, whose human rights are to be preferred? - the man who planted the bomb or those about to be blown up?

You can shove lit cigarettes up his anus if you like...just don't try and tell me in the next breath that you are much nicer people than the sort of people that shove lit cigarettes up peoples anus...And don't sign agreements that you won't do it either.

Ends justifies the means is how people rationalise doing things like 911...I'd rather not.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
You can shove lit cigarettes up his anus if you like...just don't try and tell me in the next breath that you are much nicer people than the sort of people that shove lit cigarettes up peoples anus...And don't sign agreements that you won't do it either.

Ends justifies the means is how people rationalise doing things like 911...I'd rather not.

Actually, I wouldn't like that. I don't smoke - so it's probably unlikely I'd try something like that. But I agree that people around the planet are equally capable of maltreatment of their fellow man.

By the way, are the agreements you allude to the Geneva Convention articles?

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
I will take back the liar statement if and when you show me where I have accused you or any one else of advocating torture...which is what you said I did.

First, you must define the meaning of "is".

You make things tedious, Fool.

Merriam-Webster definition of advocate:
2. one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal

Your accusations:

Quote:

Are you now intending to tell us about the possible good, just and wise uses of torture? How about the kidnapped infant girl starving in a box somewhere and the captive kidnapper example, Should we torture to save the girl? Bruce may find that one amusing too.

Dammit lets make her a Nun instead...always like to work religion in where I can. Bruce may find that one amusing too.

You accuse me of finding humor in torture, which implies that I'm not upset or outspoken against it, which vicariously implies that I defend it.

Go on, analize the logic of that statement, or look up the definition of imply. I'm in no hurry.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce
You accuse me of finding humor in torture, which implies that I'm not upset or outspoken against it, which vicariously implies that I defend it.

Go on, analize the logic of that statement, or look up the definition of imply. I'm in no hurry.

last chance bruce, thats 2 strikes. Feeling lucky enough for a third try?
Find somewhere, anywhere, that I accused you of advocating torture or withdraw the lie. I'm not a vindictive person bruce withdrawing the lie will be enough....

Man, I find Australian government actions often extremely funny....whats next? By your logic I must be advocating the things Australia does because I find them funny? I must admit I've got to give you points for the best attempted escape in the face of overwhelming odds...

Time to put up bruce....find where I did what you claimed I did or stop whining about being called for it.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
Actually, I wouldn't like that. I don't smoke - so it's probably unlikely I'd try something like that. But I agree that people around the planet are equally capable of maltreatment of their fellow man.

Hmmm, on re-reading my cigarette example I realise that a reasonable person may conclude there is something a bit creepy about me...oh well, I'll just have to live with that..

By the way, are the agreements you allude to the Geneva Convention articles?
There are many and varied international laws and agreements. for example.
http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000625.html

The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (which I will call "the Torture Convention") forbids torture under any circumstances and does not allow the prohibition to be derogated even in conditions of national emergency.

It's important to note here that the U.S. – as well as all other liberal democracies – are signatories to the Torture Convention, and that under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.

Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

This sensible definition reflects our instincts about what torture is, and why it is wrong. It makes clear that torture to extract information is still torture. And it makes clear, too, that torture need not put its victim on the brink of death to be torture.

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
last chance bruce, thats 2 strikes. Feeling lucky enough for a third try?
Find somewhere, anywhere, that I accused you of advocating torture or withdraw the lie. I'm not a vindictive person bruce withdrawing the lie will be enough....

Man, I find Australian government actions often extremely funny....whats next? By your logic I must be advocating the things Australia does because I find them funny? I must admit I've got to give you points for the best attempted escape in the face of overwhelming odds...

Time to put up bruce....find where I did what you claimed I did or stop whining about being called for it.

I find your analogies most amusing. I'm neither running, hiding, nor playing baseball, however you seem to be doing a lot of back-peddling and playing dodge-ball. It reminds me of Clinton trying to explain what he meant when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

If your arguement is that you are not saying that I'm an advocate of torture, the what exactly are you saying when you falsely accuse me of finding humor in beatings?

This should be good....

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
So, while we can no doubt agree that stupid people doing stupid things like at Abu Graib is stupid (but maybe not torture), and pulling out fingernails and so on definitely is; but what is in between?

The issue was not just that it was torture, but that the acts at Abu Graib were a systematic process, some of which people were stupid enough to capture on 'film' at one point in time. Various people have complained at various times about similar acts at other times at that, and other, locations.

Except Mycroft didn't think it was torture, either.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce
I find your analogies most amusing. I'm neither running, hiding, nor playing baseball, however you seem to be doing a lot of back-peddling and playing dodge-ball. It reminds me of Clinton trying to explain what he meant when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

If your arguement is that you are not saying that I'm an advocate of torture, the what exactly are you saying when you falsely accuse me of finding humor in beatings?

This should be good....

Bruce...listen up, I'm only going to say this one more time. Either find and quote where I accused you of advocating torture or stop whining about being called for it....simple enough.

if you advocated torture I would have no problems saying you advocated torture...so quote me where I did so.....get the Idea yet?

If you are not going to do it...just says so and I'll let people draw thier own conclusion about your integrity and drop these pointless requests for you to justify your lie.

[Bruce]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
Bruce...listen up, I'm only going to say this one more time. Either find and quote where I accused you of advocating torture or stop whining about being called for it....simple enough.

if you advocated torture I would have no problems saying you advocated torture...so quote me where I did so.....get the Idea yet?

If you are not going to do it...just says so and I'll let people draw thier own conclusion about your integrity and drop these pointless requests for you to justify your lie.

Congratualtions, Fool, you win. You've defeated the great Bruce in a completely pointless debate by using classic fallicies, dodging simple questions, and using a wide array of unethical debating techniques.

Hear this, JREF forum members. I cannot contend with the infinite wisdom of The Fool.

You may now do a victory lap around the baseball diamond inside your sad, deluded little mind.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce
Congratualtions, Fool, you win. You've defeated the great Bruce in a completely pointless debate by using classic fallicies, dodging simple questions, and using a wide array of unethical debating techniques.

Hear this, JREF forum members. I cannot contend with the infinite wisdom of The Fool.

You may now do a victory lap around the baseball diamond inside your sad, deluded little mind.

If it is your opinion that asking someone to show where I did something they claimed I did is pointless I wonder what you are doing posting on a skeptics board.

What you cannot contend with is not the "Infinite wisdom of the fool" its just a simple request to backup a claim...Your claim that I accused you of advocating torture is a lie...not accidentally untrue, deliberately untrue...nothing to do with "infinite wisdom". I suggest you try checking if someone has actually said what you intend to claim they said before you claim it. Or go somewhere that nobody cares what lies are told about them..

Want the last word?...you got it if you want it, I'm done with repeating the obvious....

[shuize]

Quote:

You may now do a victory lap around the baseball diamond inside your sad, deluded little mind.

Do it Fool!

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
Still desperately trying to forgive yoursef for Abu Graib?
Americans Tortured Iraqis, the sooner you can deal with that the sooner you may be able to move on.

May I suggest that if you don't have an opinion on the posted topic you stick to other threads?

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Phrost
If you don't play by the rules of war, you shouldn't expect to get their protections.

And if you did not take up arms against the US and did not engage in any insurgency whatsoever, should you expect to get the protections that the US gives to Geneva Convention signatories? Hundreds of prisoners were released from Abu Grahib because they were determined to be innocent.

Quote:

Elind
What I would like to ask for is opinions on what actually constitutes "torture", without lengthy dissertations on Geneva Conventions. Just good old gut feel opinions would be fine.

Beating someone to death consistutes torture and U.S. forces did that in Abu Grahib.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000625.html

Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Good article, Fool.

It is slanted in it's treatment but it's still pretty good. The US government should continue to define what they mean by the term. What constitutes severe. I think I agree that a killing shot to the head is not torture. Slow death by bleeding is if it involves the withholding of medical treatment. And the judge is correct that the threat of death can in some cases be considered torture.

However, we are a society that maintains, in some states, a death penalty for capital crimes. At the federal level, I believe treason is punishable by death. So where the torture definition says punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, - it gives me pause.

Is solitary confinement torture? Surely it is a severe and intentionally inflicted punishment that will result in some degree mental suffering. I think it's torture and am horrified when a kidnapper inflicts it on a victim. I look the other way when the state inflicts it on prison inmates. It's a standard operating procedure.

Actually the loss of liberty - being thrown in jail for any reason could cause someone mental anguish. We know it's punishment. We also do it to protect society.

If the US government is playing with the definition of torture because it wants to torture people then it is acting horribly and against humanity. If by trying to articulate and define where the boundaries of torture exist to keep its operatives from engaging in torture then it is operating as a responsible state.

I believe torture exists both in intent and perception. A person bent on killing himself might be tortured by the person who is restraining him. No one calls that torture but the one with suicide intent. One person may not be affected by solitary confinement, another might go nuts. If you intend to cause ongoing mental suffering but fail I still think you meet the definition of a torturer.

Bottom line though, it is acceptable for nations to determine the meaning of the treaties they sign and the laws they enact. It is desirable for nations to know the boundaries of those agreements. I think we are in agreement that it's not ok to try to subvert them. I don't know that the US is trying to subvert its agreements.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
I am not really sure what I am more disgusted with, the crimes at abu graib and places like it or the procession of people who have been apologists for it....the ones that want to talk about it but just cannot use the "T" word. The ones that can see it walk like a duck and quack like a duck and call it a chicken.

How about those of us who can objectively look at a list of actions and notice that many of the things presented as torture aren't?

You know, like when pouring the contents of a light-stick on someone is called "torture." "Hey! They're telling me this is a duck, but I can plainly see it's a chicken! How many more chickens do we have here?"

Or what if the sadism of one guard is presented as the policy of the United States government? "It does look like a duck, but this may be a goose!"

If your squawking were a contribution to the discussion, that would be one thing, but you seem more bent on disrupting and preventing conversations where ideas contrary to your worldview might come out.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The issue was not just that it was torture, but that the acts at Abu Graib were a systematic process, some of which people were stupid enough to capture on 'film' at one point in time. Various people have complained at various times about similar acts at other times at that, and other, locations.

Except Mycroft didn't think it was torture, either.

I'll borrow the Fool's tactic for a moment.

Exactly where did I say the events at Abu Graib were not torture?

I remember specifically saying many of the events described were not torture, such as pouring liquid from a light-stick on a prisoner, but nowhere did I say that nothing that happened at Abu Graib was torture.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
If it is your opinion that asking someone to show where I did something they claimed I did is pointless I wonder what you are doing posting on a skeptics board...

You know, you're starting to sound like E.J.Armstrong.

The bottom line here is you're just as guilty of misrepresenting your opponents point of view as you claim (and squawk about) they misrepresent yours.

You're always free to challenge anyone to "show where" you said something, because your chosen tactic is never to say anything, but instead rely on sarcasm to put down what everyone else says without needing to make a logical case for why it might be wrong.

[BPSCG]

Is torture like pornography, i.e., is it in the eye (or the mind) of the beholder?

If I subject you to psychological pressures that would nauseate you, make your heart race, interfere with your breathing, make you vomit and cause you to lose consciousness, is that torture?

Don't say "yes" too quickly...

Quote:

MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins ... hearing Summers, "felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow." And, "I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill." She said that if she had not bolted from the room, "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."

...unless you want to accuse Harvard's president of torture.

Now, I didn't have any of those symptoms when I heard what Summers had said.

So I ask again, is torture in the eye/mind of the beholder? Did Summers's words amount to torture depending on who heard them?

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'll borrow the Fool's tactic for a moment.

Exactly where did I say the events at Abu Graib were not torture?

You didn't. However, when asked to clarify you didn't answer - maybe you will now?

Quote:

Since I don't read everything here and it's a bit unclear for me what your viewpoint is, could you please answer again: Which of the things in Taguba qualify as torture? A short list will do.

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
I seem to have embraced a "Dirty Harry" ethic. Sometimes the situation demands the good to act with cruelty towards evildoers. It's kinda strange. On any question regarding torture my kneejerk answer is "It's always wrong." When I ponder the capture of Zarqawi, however, my moral position becomes more elastic.

I guess that's another reason to steer clear of torture as a hard and fast rule. It's just too easy to identify those who you feel are deserving. Once you accept it as a moral answer for some evils you'll surely find more and more deserving souls.

Well said. Maybe that's the reason the UN Convention is saying:

Quote:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

There are probably people who disagree, but this is what we have signed and should be bound by as of now.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
... the UN Convention is saying:

Quote:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

There are probably people who disagree, but this is what we have signed and should be bound by as of now.

I think it's appropriate to spell it out in terms of absolutes. It makes it clean and seems appropriate for 99.9% of all situations.

The US congress is considering allowing for deviation from the hard and fast absolute but only in the case where the President has given written authorization.

In actual practice I don't believe there would ever be a situation that would come up to warrant a Presidential authorization.

I think if the FBI or CIA discovered an individual who had deployed a smallpox bomb or a suitcase nuke they would take it unto themselves to shield the president and use whatever horrible techniques they could devise to extract the location and explosive timing of the device. If they saved the world from Apocalypse I would consider it a good use of torture.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas


I think if the FBI or CIA discovered an individual who had deployed a smallpox bomb or a suitcase nuke they would take it unto themselves to shield the president and use whatever horrible techniques they could devise to extract the location and explosive timing of the device. If they saved the world from Apocalypse I would consider it a good use of torture.

Ahh, the old ticking bomb scenario. If it were to happen as you present it, I fear that I might support torture to gain the necessary information. Unfortunately, it almost never happens that way. How appropriate is torture when the FBI picks up three people and knows for certain that one is the bomber and two are innocent people. If the agency doesn't know which is which, is it permissable to torture all three.