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

[Motokid]

I don't believe prisoners of war are ever taken to court, and put to trial over their actions. They are captured, and imprisoned. Justice may be metered out at the conclusion of war, but rarely during the conflict.

Now the question I have asked is pretty basic. Is there acceptable means for obtaining information from these people? What do you consider torture, and what do you consider to be acceptable practice for gathering information?

 

[Shade]

what do you consider to be acceptable practice for gathering information?

I don't see why surveillance and infiltration of the organisations can't do it. That way, you get it earlier, and the information has more authenticity too.

And these aren't prisoners of war. War is when one country or internal state declares war on another.

 

[Sergo]

I don't believe prisoners of war are ever taken to court, and put to trial over their actions. They are captured, and imprisoned. Justice may be metered out at the conclusion of war, but rarely during the conflict.

Now the question I have asked is pretty basic. Is there acceptable means for obtaining information from these people? What do you consider torture, and what do you consider to be acceptable practice for gathering information?

The war has its own laws. You cannot deliberately kill civilians or POWs, etc.
War without law is terrorism.
"How to get information from these people". Maybe there is no way. That doesn't mean these people could be tortured. By the way, hadn't you heard that it is a bad interrogator who doesn't know the answer to the question he asks? So there are many ways for intelligence agencies to gather information other than direct interrogation.

Isn't it a great thing to feel oneself right? If somebody can make other humans suffer and feel him/herself right after it - that's alien on Earth. That's the person who must be feared more than terrorists.

 

[Motokid]

Technically, right now, pretty much the whole world outside of a few nations, has fallen into the belief that we are at war.

 

[Shade]

They can believe what they like, but we're not at war. As Sergo points out, terrorism is not war. Read Jason Burke's Al Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam which debunks the myth that Al Qaeda is some huge worldwide organisation with Osama bin Laden at the top which is out to topple the west. Then look around for Adam Curtis's documentary series The Power of Nightmares which told the history of politicians who, bereft of the ability to promise people shining futures, instead decided to threaten people with fear of shadowy enemies, in order to stay in power.

 

[Sergo]

They can believe what they like, but we're not at war. As Sergo points out, terrorism is not war. Read Jason Burke's Al Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam which debunks the myth that Al Qaeda is some huge worldwide organisation with Osama bin Laden at the top which is out to topple the west.

Exactly.
And I do not want to criticize USA policy, but I imagine that not everything done by the USA govt is the best. Exactly the same as what we do in Chechnya is a very foolish thing, at least 90% of it.

Not everything could be accomplished by force. If I am pressed slightly - I may give way step by step, but if I am assaulted - I will surely fight back. And if Russians or Americans start to think that some whole nations are enemies - what's left for these nations but fight back? And if regular army doesn't do it by the law - what reason the rebels have to abide by the law?

 

[Zolipara]

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

How can you claim to fight terrorism, when you become a terrorist yourself in the process?
How can you claim that replacing Saddam was a good thing when you yourself break the same human rights he did?

Technically, right now, pretty much the whole world outside of a few nations, has fallen into the belief that we are at war.

What made you say that? Can you back it up or is it just a random statement?

 

[Motokid]

I fear this is going into the political arena a tad too much. We may be on shakey ground here....

I say we are at war because that's a statement that has been made by our president 1000's of times over the last almost 4 years. It's no secret.
Other countries are supporting America, and there are very, very few that are standing against America in a public fashion.

There's a difference between a well planned group of extremists hijacking a jet plane full of civilians and flying it into The World Trade Centers, and depriving a suspected terrorist of sleep, warmth, and/or religious freedoms in order to try to stop something similer from happening again.

I can't equate what the terrorists are doing, with what some of our troops are doing in trying to prevent more acts of terrorism.

 

[Motokid]

"Pakistanis freed from Guantanamo Bay claimed they saw American interrogators throw, tear and stand on copies of Islam's holy book, and one former detainee said naked women sat on prisoners' chests during questioning."


Is this really offensive, inhumane, torture of people who are detained and suspected terrorists?

 

[Shade]

It is offensive and inhumane, but it isn't torture, in my view.

Again you've made the mistake of saying "suspected terrorists" as though that phrase has any intrinsic validity. If I suspect you of being a terrorist, it doesn't actually make you one.

George Bush has said 'we' are at war? Well, I'm won over then!

 

[Motokid]

I'm not making a mistake by saying "suspected".

What I'm afraid of is making the mistake of not doing everything possible to prevent another 9/11 from happening, or worse. There are many who claim that within the next 10 years there will be a nuclear, or at the least a dirty bomb attack carried out by a terrorist organization.

At what lengths are you willing to try to prevent that from happening?
Is a little mental anguish, and inhumane treatment worth it if it prevents the deaths and suffering of 10's of thousands of innocent people? That dirty bomb could be exploded in England, Germany, China, Russia, Japan, France, America, Canada....it does not matter to the terrorist where they detonate. It's the worldwide fallout after the detonation that creates the effect they want. Panic...fear....

Is it best to react after the attack...or to do whatever it takes to prevent an attack?

 

[Sergo]

I fear this is going into the political arena a tad too much. We may be on shakey ground here....

I say we are at war because that's a statement that has been made by our president 1000's of times over the last almost 4 years. It's no secret.
Other countries are supporting America, and there are very, very few that are standing against America in a public fashion.

There's a difference between a well planned group of extremists hijacking a jet plane full of civilians and flying it into The World Trade Centers, and depriving a suspected terrorist of sleep, warmth, and/or religious freedoms in order to try to stop something similer from happening again.

I can't equate what the terrorists are doing, with what some of our troops are doing in trying to prevent more acts of terrorism.

Alas, my dear Motokid, that's exactly where all evil starts.
First you are told that it is OK to forget that some human beings are human beings.
OK, you think, that doesn't mean me - that's these bearded foulclothed people we are speaking about.
Next thing they come to you, asking questions you do not have answers for, as you are innocent. OK, - they say, we have means to make you speak, - and next moment you find yourself singing. That could be done with drugs, so the bowels could be left comparatively intact. So what? Next 9/11 prevented, or all humanity ruined?

Another scenario. I mentioned before that the terrorists are but small groups. When some govt makes it the everyday fashion to harrass some people because they are of the certain ethnical group, how do you think, the total quantity of above mentioned terrorists will go down or will rise up? I believe you Americans were considered Justice and Liberty loving people? What would you do, if you are harrased because some other person of the same ethnic group was supposedly a terrorist? And when such a huge "Terror Preventing Campaign" is rolling, there surely be a lot of unjust things...

So. To get any info from a fanatic terrorist by torture is mostly impossible. And most of the terrorists are fanatics, period.

 

[Zolipara]

I fear this is going into the political arena a tad too much. We may be on shakey ground here....

Well it was political from the first post...

I can't equate what the terrorists are doing, with what some of our troops are doing in trying to prevent more acts of terrorism.

How many civillians have been killed in iraq by bombs etc?

How about this sentence from the link you provided "He claimed inmates staged a hunger strike in protest, and were then tortured with electric shocks." Although physical torture is often seen as worse, mental torture can be just as bad.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Do you really want to live in a country where you can be arrested and tortured because you are a "suspected terrorist?" What is a "suspected terrorist" anyway, and how much evidence would you need to suspect someone of terrorism?

One of the biggest reasons for invading Iraq was to install a government that respected human rights. Where is it?

What about the nations know for violating human rights that are working together with america in the name of "war on terror". Whats beeing done in their prisons with american approval?

From Amnesty Internationals website:
"Torture is the ultimate corruption of humanity," said Denise Searle, Senior Director of Campaigns at Amnesty International. "Attempts at justification and the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the 'war on terror' threaten the global ban on torture and ill-treatment, with traditional 'torture states' taking comfort from the actions and rhetoric of their former critics. We need to tackle torture and ill-treatment in the 'war on terror' if we are to reassert the global ban on these practices."

I say we are at war because that's a statement that has been made by our president 1000's of times over the last almost 4 years. It's no secret.
Other countries are supporting America, and there are very, very few that are standing against America in a public fashion.

The support was enormous after 9/11 from all over the world, yet day by day more and more people are withdrawing their support for the american "war on terrorism". Many nations are still officially supporting america, but in many of those nations the majority of people are now against the "war". Its not a war just because Bush says it is.

News reports like this dont give you more support.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

 

[Sergo]

I'm not making a mistake by saying "suspected".

What I'm afraid of is making the mistake of not doing everything possible to prevent another 9/11 from happening, or worse. There are many who claim that within the next 10 years there will be a nuclear, or at the least a dirty bomb attack carried out by a terrorist organization.

At what lengths are you willing to try to prevent that from happening?
Is a little mental anguish, and inhumane treatment worth it if it prevents the deaths and suffering of 10's of thousands of innocent people? That dirty bomb could be exploded in England, Germany, China, Russia, Japan, France, America, Canada....it does not matter to the terrorist where they detonate. It's the worldwide fallout after the detonation that creates the effect they want. Panic...fear....

Is it best to react after the attack...or to do whatever it takes to prevent an attack?

Sorry, how do you think to prevent that? Kill all the terrorists? Sorry, they have sons, young relatives etc. Also these other people you will kill by mistake (do you know how many people were killed by mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq?) also have sons and relatives. And these would have more reason to revenge.

Really, there were no real big terrorist act so far not because our govt agencies prevented them, but because terrorists never wanted to make it. Imagine that dirty bomb, or poisoning water, or something else, and 9/11 or our several houses with several thousands killed would have seemed not that big case... And I do not know how it is in the USA, but in Moscow they can do it anytime they wish, nevermind FSB, militia, the military etc.
Dirty bomb? I heard some plutonium were lost in Japan... And if it was lost in Ukraine, Bielorussia or Russia - we may never know about it...

There is a good saying: one who lives in a house of glass wouldn't throw stones at passers by... We have what to lose. Terrorists and those who will be made terrorists because of their relatives killed have NEXT THING TO NOTHING TO LOSE. So we have to find other way than force with them.

 

[Motokid]

Getting back to topic.

The question I have to ask is what exactly is considered torture? How many times have you heard that the "mental" torture of an abusive relationship was worse than the physical abuse?

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

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

Or is there no acceptable technique?

So most of you are of the opinion that there is no form of acceptable technique for gathering information from prisoners? Is that what I'm getting here?

 

[Shade]

There are many who claim that within the next 10 years there will be a nuclear, or at the least a dirty bomb attack carried out by a terrorist organization

There are many who claim a lot of things. I haven't heard from any who believe that Islamist terrorists have nuclear capability or have any likelihood of gaining it (even from those who pretended that Iraq was going to arm them with it!), and the myth of the dirty bomb has been well debunked in The Power of Nightmares and elsewhere. It could never actually cause widespread harm.

 

[Shade]

Sorry Motokid, your response appeared while I was typing mine.

I think we've answered your basic question throughout this thread (did you get a chance to read the Power of Nightmares links yet?), but in summary I would say that any technique is acceptable so long as

(a) it is effective
(b) it does not cause physical or mental harm to the prisoner
(c) it does not have a counterproductive effect, ie what's the benefit of stopping terrorists (if it does) if the knowledge of what you've done to prisoners creates a whole new wave of terrorists.

As to what the remaining acceptable techniques are, I've no idea: ask an interrogation specialist. Good cop, bad cop, perhaps?

May we ask now what you think is acceptable and what is not?

 

[Zolipara]

How many times have you heard that the "mental" torture of an abusive relationship was worse than the physical abuse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2795545.stm

The teenager said one of his cruellest tricks was to lead her to believe that her parents knew of her whereabouts but had simply abandoned her.

I would say that any technique is acceptable so long as

(a) it is effective
(b) it does not cause physical or mental harm to the prisoner
(c) it does not have a counterproductive effect, ie what's the benefit of stopping terrorists (if it does) if the knowledge of what you've done to prisoners creates a whole new wave of terrorists.

Good summary.

 

[Sergo]

I agree with Shade that the discussion gets rather circular.

I am not much interested really in defining what exactly could be considered torture, and I am ready to believe that if a person says it is torture - then it is torture for him. By the way, if it was not so, why these good military people would come to all that trouble - CERTAIN BOOKS FLUSHED down the toilets, girls & Muslims stripped etc? If they meant no torture, so they did it for fun, and that is MUCH WORSE. So they believed it had been torture.

It is much more interesting what these people want to accomplish by torture: to prevent, or to get together some picture, which will give reason to make war with Iran, Pakistan... Russia maybe?

By the way, to install a democratic government has been only one of the reasons behind the war. Another one had been the mass destruction arms. So it seems both reasons were not accomplished... What to follow?

 

[Zolipara]

I'm more afraid of seeing my country ignoring human rights in the name of the "war on terror" than i am of beeing the victim of a terrorist act.