SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (6468)5/18/2007 4:46:12 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10087
 
Part of the problem with the torture issue, is what you define as torture. Some actions are clearly torture. Others, while possibly unpleasant, clearly aren't.

To an extent both sides of the issue have an incentive to fudge the definitions. Those who support pushing the envelope, will only call the most extreme actions torture (at least if they are unprepared to explicitly support torture). Those who want to reign in interrogations would seek to define torture very broadly. The problem with the broadest possible definitions is that some acts are less objectionable then others, and giving them all the same label can imply an equivalence that doesn't exist. The problem with very narrow definitions is that, at least if you assume anything not labeled as torture is ok, that they seek to quickly dismiss serious practical and moral objections to some forms of interrogation. Torture could be defined so narrowly as to allow many things that most people would see as objectionable (and perhaps as torture).

Offhand I can't think of a good, clear, simple, and short, term for "aggressive interrogation, that might possibly be objectionable, but which falls short of torture". I think a fair amount of what is actually happening falls in to that category, but no one seems to be trying to define the category. Instead you get "its not torture so its ok" from one side and "its all torture" from the other.

Re: "IMO we have a problem starting with how we define our terms of surrender."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.



To: one_less who wrote (6468)5/18/2007 5:01:21 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
What is torture? Anything apparently, including cheap unscented soap.

Message 23549947



To: one_less who wrote (6468)5/22/2007 4:07:26 PM
From: Kevin Rose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
My thoughts?

No. Torture. Ever.

No 'stress positions', 'waterboarding', or 'sleep deprivation'. No euphemisms for torture at all.

No mind games, no drugs, no Manchurian Candidate stuff.

Why? Two reasons:

1) It don't pay.

2) It ain't American.

It don't pay at both the tactical and strategic level.

Tactically, experts agree that torture is one of the least effective means of gathering reliable information. Better to spend our energy and resources in building relations, and sympathizers, than in destroying our image and driving would-be collaborators into the other camp.

Strategically, the small amount of useful information gained is more than offset by losing our strategic position on top of Moral Hill. Not only does it endanger our own personnel and civilians by creating justification for torture, but it also disallows us from effectively combating other human rights violators. How can we ever keep straight faces in the audience as we accuse China and other countries of these violations while practising the same at home (or, at our 'home away from home' homes at Gitmo, Egypt, Eastern Europe, etc)?

America has developed certain laws and practices with the idea of protecting individual citizens from overzealous government agencies because, well, that's what democracy is - a restraint on government. Though our past is not spotless, and we are less than perfect even today, our citizens still enjoy the best compromise between individual freedom and societal functional necessity. In fact, we have better laws protecting against animal cruelty than many nations have protecting their own citizens. We have taken the ban on 'cruel and unusual punishment' down to the Fido level.

Why compromise our moral position for negligible return? It seems to me that people today are too influenced by unreal Hollywood images of torture and its effect - a la '24' - and not mindful of the actual minimal gain and longer term impact. This unrealistic view of the 'benefit' of torture - without the downside - is a dangerous influence on public opinion.

Also, I don't think people are mindful of how little space there is between crossing and recrossing a moral line. If you have an affair with another woman, it is really crossing a different line to an affair with your wife's sister?

Ineffective and unAmerican, with long term negative consequences.



To: one_less who wrote (6468)5/23/2007 9:17:40 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10087
 
Hide it behind any name you want, surge is still escalation, and aggressive interrogation is still torture. There are international rules for the military and there are rules for the civilian police.

How is torture defined by international law?
Torture, as defined by Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, is the “cruel, inhumane, or degrading” infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime. The United States ratified the treaty in 1994 but took a reservation to the convention’s addendum on the definition of torture, deferring to the U.S. Bill of Rights’ Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. However, the 1980 court case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, in which a Paraguayan citizen won a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ Second Circuit against a former Paraguayan police officer, established that torture falls under the realm of customary international law—thus, all countries, whether party to the Torture Convention or not, must abide. Further, the suit found that torturers become, “like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of mankind.” Other agreements that outline similar definitions of torture include the Geneva Conventions and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Do U.S. interrogation techniques qualify as torture?
A leaked 2004 report by CIA inspector general John Helgerson found that several of the interrogation techniques approved by the agency may violate some of the provisions of the Convention on Torture. Human-rights groups charge the United States has tried to narrow the definition of torture to include only those interrogation techniques that result in severe harm to a bodily organ. Thus, they argue that the use of “waterboarding”—when a detainee is strapped down, forced underwater, and made to believe he is drowning—or the use of sleep deprivation would not legally fall under the definition of torture. What the Bush administration essentially did was “rip up the rulebook as far as military interrogators were concerned, telling them that the decades-old rules of the Army interrogation manual didn’t apply,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, in an April 14 Council event on the laws of war.

What are “extraordinary renditions”?
The policy of deporting terrorist suspects to countries, typically in the Middle East, with records of using torture. More than 100 detainees have reportedly been subject to renditions by the United States in recent years. The most widely known example was the case of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, apprehended by U.S. officials for having alleged connections to al-Qaeda and deported via Jordan to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured. He is currently suing the U.S attorney general’s office. U.S. officials deny deliberately engaging in the practice of renditions and maintain they receive pledges from recipient governments the detainees will be treated justly.

Another aspect of this practice is what’s known as “reverse renditions,” when foreign officials apprehend terrorist suspects abroad in non-combat settings and hand them over to U.S. custody. The most famous case is that of the “ghost prisoner” Abdul Salam Ali al-Hila, a Yemeni businessman and alleged intelligence officer arrested in September 2002 in Egypt and then sent via Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, where he was held incommunicado for a year and a half.
cfr.org

It might still be a good idea if it worked, which, by most claims, it doesn't. Might be OK if we only used it on foreign soldiers, and nobody took it as license to do it to ours.

As an earliest memory thing, I grew up with stories of what the Germans and Japanese did during WW2. While, of course we wore a white hat.(More or less; at least as a matter of national policy). Then came Korea, and the evil torturing Koreans, Red Chinese, and the KGB. Washing brains, even. Then Nam. "They" did evil things to us, while we had a few minor, lapses like My Lai, and the fact we had to look the other way when the South threw Cong out of helicopters.
But now, in the eyes of the world, we have become what we have feared and fought. Torture ain't for America.
Period.