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

[Motokid]

Sergo, I did not ignore anything you said. I read every word.

As for recorded proof that torture can be productive....probably never going to have anything like that. Why would anybody admit to gaining something valuable through horrific means?

On the other hand, if there's nothing to gain through torture, then why is it still practiced all over the world?

If you think that there might be any government, military, and/or legal system that is 100% free from sin when it comes to "gaining" information under extremely stressful situations, then I think you might have a blind eye turned to the world.

 

[Sergo]

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.

That's a good point too, as there is only a certain quantity of victims of any terrorist act (yes, I am aware how cruel it could be looking, but yes) and if the human rights are ignored - then all the country is suffering. And when we speak about USA - all the world could suffer.

By the way, I have personally known some kids of one of the bombed house - we frequently visited our friends, who lived in a neighbour house. So... We had our share.

 

[Sergo]

Sergo, I did not ignore anything you said. I read every word.

As for recorded proof that torture can be productive....probably never going to have anything like that. Why would anybody admit to gaining something valuable through horrific means?

On the other hand, if there's nothing to gain through torture, then why is it still practiced all over the world?

If you think that there might be any government, military, and/or legal system that is 100% free from sin when it comes to "gaining" information under extremely stressful situations, then I think you might have a blind eye turned to the world.

Dear Motokid:
I long to answer your questions (at least some of them ), but I have to go now - my wife's mother's sister from the Urals is arriving to visit us...

 

[Zolipara]

On the other hand, if there's nothing to gain through torture, then why is it still practiced all over the world?

And this makes it ok?

There has recently been a lot of reports on chinese police torturing suspects to get a "confession". They managed to get a lot of convictions but then news reports like this appear:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/17/content_452336.htm

If you think that there might be any government, military, and/or legal system that is 100% free from sin when it comes to "gaining" information under extremely stressful situations, then I think you might have a blind eye turned to the world.

You cannot justify anything with "someone else does it so why cant we".

 

[Motokid]

It sure would be nice if we could all, jointly decide to get along and love each other, and to end all crime and suffering.

A perfect world would be nice.

I don't think that's going to happen. I don't see people getting along.

We are human. We all make mistakes. When passion is whipped up in a frenzy things will get out of control. Passion fueled by hatred will breed passion fueled by hatred. It's a never-ending circle I fear.

Some of those people who are bending the rules of human conduct and decency where normal, everyday people until war was forced upon them.

 

[Renee]

In determining what is torture for one side, one must weigh it against they would feel tortured by something equal. Would a hetrosexual male feel tortured if a naked man sat on him in attempt to get information? Would you feel tortured if someone burned and destroyed your countries flag to try and get you to talk?

In my experienced opinion mental abuse is worse than physical abuse.

 

[mehastings]

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

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

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

Yes.

In my opinion it's a human rights issue. We're really not talking about comfort here, we're talking about torture. Comfort is having a nice mattress and AC. Torture is stacking prisoner's naked bodies on top of each other and exposing them to extreme temperatures. They are very different.

I also agree that torture doesn't necessarily produce accurate information. Look at the inquisition. Look at how many people admitted to having orgys with the devil, killing babies, ruining crops, causing illnesses and flying then finished it up by involving a dozen of their neighbors and friends on top of it. How likely was it that these events actually happened?

As far as the allusions to 9/11 go, I'm totally with Novella. As firefighter I have my own feelings about that day. I wish it was something that could have been stopped. However, I don't think torturing people would have made that possible.

I'm not going to get any further into the whole "war on terror" and the prisoner abuse scandal, because once I start I just won't stop. We'll just say that this

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.

pretty much says it perfectly.

 

[clueless]

Why is torture still practised? Because it can give short-term results. Yes, maybe the interrogator can obtain information about a person's accomplices or their next coup. Although terrorists are also preprared for that and they operate in very small groups whose members don't know who is in other groups or what they are up to.

But it doesn't work in the long run. For a terrorist arrested by using torture, 20 others join their ranks. Nice results, eh?

Maybe the reactions of some people in America and Australia come from not being used to terrorist attacks. In most European countries terrorist groups of different sorts have existed since mid-XIX Century and they have usually originated when there is a lack of civil rights. Some people decides that it is OK to use violence in those circumstances and, what is worse, many people who would normally be against the use of violence, supports them because they think they might have a point. For what I've seen the most effective means against terrorism is peaceful public opposition. When lost of people, including those where the terrorists would expect to find their future members and base of support, are against them, that has a much greater effect than any army, police force or intelligence agency.

About the supposed nuclear or whatever attack, apart from what other people have already said, have you considered that the terrorist have already got the result they wanted? Create panic and disruption, make life worse in target countries and so on.

 

[Motokid]

Terrorism once meant things like car bombs and kidnappings. Occasionally fanatics would strap bombs on their bodies and commit suicide/murder bombings in public markets and such. The climate changed a bit with things like hijacked airplanes and demands for release of political prisoners, and even a few planes being blown up in flight.

America has been the target of many acts of terrorism. Most of these attacks were carried out against military targets in foreign lands. Marine Barracks, ships, and helicopters... (not to mention Ok. City and Timothy McVey.)

Given the worst of the worst, the death tolls were usually measured in handfulls with car bombs and suicide bombers, and occasionally in the hundreds with blowing up airplanes, barracks, and a government building.

All that changed with 9/11. Now it is evident that a small, but well organized, well funded group of radical extremests can pretty easily cause the deaths of thousands, and can rattle the very core of the worlds super powers. There are plenty of people, with plenty of knowledge about future plans. There is no reason to doubt the possibility of a Bin Laden type being able to obtain a small nuclear devise. Applying some amount of pressure on known terrorists to gain whatever information possible to prevent the next 9/11 is a small price to pay isn't it?

You can't change 1000's of years of what's now history. Many of these radicals are brainwashed into believing they are fighting for just causes. They know no more about "us" than we know about "them". Yet they are willing to die for what they are told is justifiable and honorable.

Sure, there's plenty of people waiting in the wings to fill the spots of arrested and killed terrorists. Those spots will be filled regardless of whether the guy arrested is tortured or not.

The question is does the "free" world actively pursue, and aggressively attack the very core of terrorism, or does the "free" world sit back and only react after another attack has happened?

By getting any and all information from those already captured, isn't it quite possible to uncover the next potential 9/11? I'm not saying electrocute, mame, disfigure, and mutilate....but some mental discomfort, along with some harsh living conditions is not too much worse than what we put regular prisoners through in typical prisons around the world is it?

Now, I've been pinged, and warned on the nature of this thread....so I must ask for cooperation in posting thoughts and opinions. I'm sure the next infraction will result in the closing/locking of the thread. Hopefully it won't happen, but if it does...we'll all know why.

 

[Geenh]

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

Novella,

I am sorry for your loss! My brother not only helped clean the mess up at the Pentagon, lierally (I can send you a link to his involvement if you wish) he went over to fight in Iraq (and survived!). My grandfather dies in WWII and both my parents were doing time Vietnam-wise (how they met).

I probably do not have any idea what 9/11 means to someone like you because I am not you. I believe that there needs to be some measure to compensate.

Take the Bali incident over here. The dude received 30 months jail time. Wonderful! After killing all those people.

Tell me, what does it mean to you and maybe I can understand.

 

[Sergo]

Sergo, I did not ignore anything you said. I read every word.

As for recorded proof that torture can be productive....probably never going to have anything like that. Why would anybody admit to gaining something valuable through horrific means?

On the other hand, if there's nothing to gain through torture, then why is it still practiced all over the world?

If you think that there might be any government, military, and/or legal system that is 100% free from sin when it comes to "gaining" information under extremely stressful situations, then I think you might have a blind eye turned to the world.

First of all, I agree with most what Novella, Mehastings, Zolipara, Shade and Clueless say.

Second: I admit that some special techniques are useful with the police etc. For example, our militia sometimes interrogate suspects at night, tell them lies just to check their responses etc. I think that good information could be received in roughly of 75% such cases: when the interrogators work with first-timers, "not hardened" criminals or mentally unstable persons, information can be gained without real torture. I do not think this good, and I wouldn't have done that (because of that I am not in any govt agency), but that is acceptable, as it really helps in many cases. But of course this MUST BE CONTROLLED by some people in these govt agencies, as otherwise very nasty things could be done because of these techniques. And it is often the case here in Russia (and I suspect everywhere, as all people are essentially the same).

Third: as to professional criminals or fanatics-terrorists, I do not believe it is possible to get any useful information from them in order to prevent anything. Of course, if you keep a person in jail and repeatedly work on him - it is possible to convert a criminal into a good citizen (or just crack him and have him telling the truth) over a period of years, but that is not realistic to expect any fast results, suitable to prevent some disaster planned for the near future... Torture or no torture.

Fourth: if we look at the case at hand... I had not seen any answer on this question of mine:
The military people seem to have been thinking they used torture by stripping men and having naked women sit on them. Yes or No? And if they didn't mean to torture people of the certain faith in order to get some information, so they did it just for fun?
I think that answer on this question will cover the problem of deciding whether to consider the above actions as torture or not.
Because otherwise we would have to face much nastier problem, which I choose not to name now.

And, finally,
Fifth: Is applying of unlawful methods by the govt agencies acceptable? Is the whole society more dear than an individual or a small group?
My answers would be NO to both of questions. I have explained myself several times in this thread already, so I do not see any need repeating my arguments here.

BTW, as to force starting force in responce to original force: to end this circle the more wise, or the more powerful have to use brains, rather then fists. Of course in human history that very rarely had been the case, but as we have now the Most Civilized Country in the world looking after justice & order all over the world, it is natural to expect some better methods used, than those used by Stalin, Hitler and other cute persons.

 

[novella]

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

Geenh, you seem to equate personal loss with some priveleged entitlement to righteousness and revenge and also think that an enlightened view of world justice and democratic principles indicates that a person has no understanding of personal loss. That's a close-minded, primitive view.

As I said earlier, I believe that if a society does not extend the same human rights and democratic principles to everyone it deals with, not just its own citizens, then those principles are arbitrary and meaningless.

If anyone is to have an expectation of fair trial and innocence before guilt, then everyone has to have the same privilege. Just read what you wrote above. It's not just those who've lost family and friends who suffer, and it's certainly not an experience that conveys any kind of moral certitude. This notion that due process and considered justice is the territory of 'bleeding heart liberals' tells me that you are operating on the same moral and intellectual level as the terrorists.

 

[Sergo]

All that changed with 9/11. Now it is evident that a small, but well organized, well funded group of radical extremests can pretty easily cause the deaths of thousands, and can rattle the very core of the worlds super powers. There are plenty of people, with plenty of knowledge about future plans. There is no reason to doubt the possibility of a Bin Laden type being able to obtain a small nuclear devise. Applying some amount of pressure on known terrorists to gain whatever information possible to prevent the next 9/11 is a small price to pay isn't it?

Yes, you are right that a small group can do immeasurable damage. May be doing it this very minute. Whom do you propose to press for information? There are certain rules for terrorist organisations preventing many people from knowing the whole picture, this has been already mentioned here. So - even if you caught Bin Laden and even if you made him tell the truth (which seems to me to be one improbability multiplyed by another improbability), what he would be able to tell you? If I had been him, I would have ordered a certain wise person to think up all the details, and never to come near me in the process, so even if caught, I wouldn't be able to betray him. On this principle all the terrorist societies are built, so to get to the core you have to be extremely lucky, or to catch every third person in a terrorist society.

You can't change 1000's of years of what's now history. Many of these radicals are brainwashed into believing they are fighting for just causes. They know no more about "us" than we know about "them". Yet they are willing to die for what they are told is justifiable and honorable.

So, what is their reason? What are their causes? What techniques you deem to be better than their brainwashing?

The question is does the "free" world actively pursue, and aggressively attack the very core of terrorism, or does the "free" world sit back and only react after another attack has happened?

If the free world takes on methods of terrorists, it stops being the free world. There wouldn't be a good figure and a bad one there any more...

 

[Sergo]

It's not just those who've lost family and friends who suffer, and it's certainly not an experience that conveys any kind of moral certitude.

Yep. Even in Russia, were there are enough people who think America is an evil and arrogant country, 9/11 had been an awful shock for all of us: that was a sense of stability and security that had been demolished, not only these two buildings. Many people couldn't have left their houses for some time because of the shock...

 

[Motokid]

Great read on prisoners and captors....

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/S/St/Stanford_prison_experiment.htm

also: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/mi/milgram_experiment.htm

 

[Sergo]

So what?
I agree that the "experiment" wasn't scientific. I've heard about it earlier, though not in such detail. The "Scientist" influenced the "Gurds", being with them, and behaved in exactly the same fashion.

 

[Motokid]

It shows what happens when people are put into positions of ultimate power.

None of the prisoners or guards was any different than any other person before the experiment. So what if the guy running the experiment helped the situation along. The fact is things got so out of control the experiment was ended after only 6 days.

Imagine what the outcome would have been had the passion of a 9/11 scenario was present in the guards, and the prisoners were suspected of causing, or aiding in the catastrophy.

How do you propose a military person should react when the chain of command tells them to "humiliate" the prisoners? Following orders is the law. The law says you do as you are commanded without question.

Who is ultimately to blaim for the actions of the military, and the individuals in it? Who is to blaim for the abuses at Abu Gharab and Guantanemo Bay?

 

[Shade]

Who is ultimately to blaim for the actions of the military, and the individuals in it? Who is to blaim for the abuses at Abu Gharab and Guantanemo Bay?

I agree with you there Motokid. Bush is ultimately to blame. The buck stops with the commander in chief. But this is getting dangerously close to the political side of things again...

Anyway we're all in agreement I think that abuse, torture and mistreatment of prisoners is wrong. That goes without saying among civilised people.

 

[Motokid]

Anyway we're all in agreement I think that abuse, torture and mistreatment of prisoners is wrong. That goes without saying among civilised people.

Yes. In theory it is wrong. And in practice it is wrong.

But war is not civilized, and neither is terrorism, murder, or attacks on innocent people.

In a real life situation, with real life emotion, hatred, death, and pain....who's got the right to pass judgement on what's right and what's wrong in any given situation. If a guard is physically pounding on an captive inmate for no other reason than the fun of it, that guard should be punished by every law available.

However, if there is a reasonable speculation that a prisoner has advanced knowledge of a desirable nature, I don't see the problem with using some of the techniques that have been written about in the press. I don't believe in physical beatings, and I don't believe in electrocutions or some of the other barbaric forms of torture most associate with the word "torture".

Much of the current prisoner problems, I believe, are due to a volunteer/civilian force that's not been properly trained in how to deal with such harsh situations. An accountant with a family back home should not be thrust into a situation like an Abu Gharab.

I also thnks it's easy to use hindsight, and point fingers at some situations, but it's much, much harder to put yourself in the position that some of our people are in.

The desire to prevent another 9/11 is the goal. How to do that is anyone's guess, and if it can be prevented at all, is something only time can tell.

 

[Shade]

Yes. In theory it is wrong. And in practice it is wrong.

Thanks, like I said, we're in agreement.