Should Our Society Endorse Torture?

I hope not. But Getmo had no torture in any case.

from JoeUser Forums

(Update Version 2.0 : Wanderer's take on this can be found here and I think I finally got that last pesky misspelled instance of "toture" out of this article)    

(Update : Torture is insanely difficult to type correctly. I think I got them all now but if not, tough.)

     There is going to be a lot of political hay made about the torture occuring at Getmo for months to come and rightly so as the nation has a need to decide on what our torture policy really is. I for one oppose torture under any circumstances. Period. That being said let me finish with this : What happened at Getmo is not torture. It isn't even close to torture. I do not exaggerate when I say that my Boy Scout Initiation Hazing was more rigorous than the treatment TIME outlines here.

     I would love to write a pithy commentary on this but I don't have the time or money for the net right now (AAFES can kiss my ass) so I will simply link to Lileks incredible excoriative Fisking of the wretchedly written TIME "piece" here.

     Go read them both and then let me know if you think that the treatment in the TIME article constitutes "torture" and also whether you favor torture use in intelligence gathering and if so under what circumstances. 

My answers would be :

No. (not even close to torture... go read some real Gulag stories for context)

No. Sinking to torture is unamerican (IMHO) and is an even more slippery slope than censorship.

and None. Ever. Not as a governmentally sponsored activity.

       Personally? If I as JoeCitizen had the opportunity to torture a pedofile or rapist in order to save a life (or simply for revenge) I would happily show them just how useful a vivid imagination can be for the creative application of pain. Doing so would make me a criminal of course but Society can not afford to start condoning institutionalized torture (down that path lies madness) so I accept that criminalization.

 

P.S. Apparently Wanderer is on The Hard Road tour of America's Seediest Truckstops once more. If he makes it three posts in a row I might even re-blogroll him :)

Site Meter
politics
19,293 views 48 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Greywar, I agree with you completely. In fighting this "war on terror", we've developed somewhat of a reputation as terrorists ourselves (I know, we're not like the insurgents, etc.), and only given more strength of conviction to those who wish to kill Americans. We've fed into the war on terror in a way, by what happened at Abu Graib and what is happening at Gitmo. They look for excuses, and we give it to them, only compounding the problem.

Besides, if we sink to their levels, even if only a little bit, how can we claim any kind of moral superiority? It's rather audacious and arrogant, I think. And, it's inhumane, which is the overriding factor. We just should not ever, ever, ever resort to torture. Never. Period.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
We can win and still maintain moral integrity.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
We can win and still maintain moral integrity


At what cost? I would rather sacrifice a little of my morality than ANY of my children. How bout you? Is your morality more precious than your family? Your friends? Your fellow citizens?

A lot of people talk about the high ground, but I would be willing to bet that if they were in a room with a terrorist that had information that could prevent the deaths of loved ones, not just stuff you watch on the news, but loved ones, then I bet their morality would go on a downward spiral very quickly.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said we couldnt, I just feel that our victory could be achieved more expeditiously (and with less loss of American life) if we quit trying to convince the rest of the world that "we mean well."

Thanks LW. That's the first time (unless I missed it somewhere) that you've acknowledged the fact that would could actually win without sacrificng our moral integrity. I'll stop beating the hell out of that dead horse now. :LOL

I wonder though. Are we really trying to convince "the rest of the world"? Or ourselves? I personally believe that we, as a nation, take the higher moral road in these situations more for ourselves than for others. If our elected leaders began operating in a manner than caused an upswelling of moral outrage among the majority in this country, the repercussions for them would be pretty severe and they know it.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

#6 by ericseba
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





We can win and still maintain moral integrity


At what cost? I would rather sacrifice a little of my morality than ANY of my children. How bout you? Is your morality more precious than your family? Your friends? Your fellow citizens?

A lot of people talk about the high ground, but I would be willing to bet that if they were in a room with a terrorist that had information that could prevent the deaths of loved ones, not just stuff you watch on the news, but loved ones, then I bet their morality would go on a downward spiral very quickly.


I'm sorry but I have to go along with eric on this. If it was me in that room with John Q Terrorist and my kids lives were on the line....morality would go into a black hole REAL quick like!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moral high ground? PHOOEY!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is a difference when speaking of the individual and the nation. We are talking about the actions of a nation here. If, as a nation, we wanted to take the complete and total "high road" we wouldn't be at war at all. But there are rules of war and as a nation we are obligated to follow them. If we really wanted to, we could just nuke the entire Middle East and be done with it. We have the power to do so. But it would be wrong to do so. Believe it or not there are some people in the country and in the world at large that still believe in antiquated ideas like honor and principle.

As someone who is both former military and has close relatives in combat, yes I hope and pray that they return home safely. I also hope that as a nation we can defeat our enemy without becoming the enemy we want to defeat.

As for the so-called torture, well that's a load of garbage. Making someone stand up can hardly be equated with real torture which quite often involves copious amounts of blood, extreme pain, etc.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are going to discuss torture, don’t you think first you need to define what torture is and what interrogation is? Is placing woman’s panties on someone’s head torture or is the hacking of one’s neck with a sword until decapitation occurs?
Try getting below the surface.

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Should Our Society Endorse Torture?


One more thought and I might be accused of arguing semantics here, but I think begrudgingly accepting the fact that we are fighting a unique war and a unique enemy that may call for us to resort to some form of torture is not necessarily an endorsement of torture.

When whip and drmiler agree with me that they would resort to torture, I do not think that any of us would relish the idea, only that we would be willing to do it.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your right! I didn't say I'd "like" doing it, only that if necessary that I'd do it.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
When whip and drmiler agree with me that they would resort to torture, I do not think that any of us would relish the idea, only that we would be willing to do it.

I feel obligated to say here that so would I, as an individual if left without a viable alternative. I know I didn't make that clear in previous posts. I simply do not think that we should sanction it as a nation. But I also don't call what was described in the Time article as torture either.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top

I feel obligated to say here that so would I, as an individual if left without a viable alternative. I know I didn't make that clear in previous posts. I simply do not think that we should sanction it as a nation. But I also don't call what was described in the Time article as torture either.


Well said Mason.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the real questions to answer is what do you consider torture.

Liberals think talking loudly to a terrorist is torture.

If you have solid evidence that a terrorist grouped sneaked in a nuclear weapon to the major city, and you had a terrorist in custody that you were sure knew the "plan". Would you torture him to save millions of people?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I oppose what the Time article incorrectly calls 'torture' because it's just, well, uncivilised. It's unnecessary and inefficient. If you have the resources to treat someone properly you may as well do so. Who knows what effect that will have? And if they don't cough up the info then, well, taking them downstairs and threatening to shove red-hot pokers into them might work too.

I'd still rather they were simply pumped full of whatever drug works best and then questioned if they get recalcitrant. Means no-one has to hose out the cell or spend hours scrubbing the carpet for those unsightly stains.

But if answers are needed quickly and you don't have enough time to fly someone to Egypt (and you don't consider reputation or consistent morality worthwhile in and of themselves) then I guess I'd support the US violently torturing people. After all, I have no intention of ever going there.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Real torture is useless to extract information.  There are other ways that are much more effective and useful.  Torture is used for 2 purposes only.  Sadistic pleasure, and breaking a man's spirit.

Therefore, it is not necessary to use it in this war or any war.  Just use drugs.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
At what cost? I would rather sacrifice a little of my morality than ANY of my children. How bout you? Is your morality more precious than your family? Your friends? Your fellow citizens?A lot of people talk about the high ground, but I would be willing to bet that if they were in a room with a terrorist that had information that could prevent the deaths of loved ones, not just stuff you watch on the news, but loved ones, then I bet their morality would go on a downward spiral very quickly.


Part of the problem would not be whether you, or any other civilian, would be willing to sacrifice the high ground. You may be able to live with the thought of our Soldiers using torture to gain information. What about the Soldier? "Do it for your country!" Does it make you a bad Soldier if you're not willing to live with it? Either individually or as a nation?

The military is a noble institution that holds its service members to very high standards. It has become easy to pull out the mistakes and show them to the public, but the fact is, the Army's training programs for many areas, to include EO, prevention of sexual harassment, and consideration for others to list just a few, are being copied by some of the largest companies in the country. They work. And that is a selling point when recruiting. You will be treated as a human being, just as you are expected to treat others that way.

What would we be telling the youth of our country? Make no mistake, human intelligence gathering is being done at the lowest (youngest) level, very often out of necessity. Do we really want to appeal to our high school and college students with thoughts of taking out their hostilities on another human being in such a personal and physical manner? There is a big difference between fighting a close combat war and torturing a bound prisoner.

We signed the Geneva Convention. We are bound to it. I am not comfortable with the idea of pulling out of it. Regardless of our enemies actions. Period.

I do not support the use of torture. I am a Soldier.

Having said that, there is a difference between interrogation techniques and torture. I think that is the point greywar may be trying to show with his links.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is a big difference between fighting a close combat war and torturing a bound prisoner.

We signed the Geneva Convention. We are bound to it. I am not comfortable with the idea of pulling out of it. Regardless of our enemies actions. Period.

I do not support the use of torture. I am a Soldier.

Having said that, there is a difference between interrogation techniques and torture.


I agree 100% and thanks for making those points.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
chip: I'd give you a million insightfuls for that if I could.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've never really liked Rap music, but this is the first time I ever heard liberals calling it "Torture"! ;~D

Sen. Dick Turban (D, IL) needs to remember who is protecting him... and who just might not when the bullets fly.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
It itsn't just about torture, its about not charging people and holding them indefinitely. Thats why its called a Gulag.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
It itsn't just about torture, its about not charging people and holding them indefinitely. Thats why its called a Gulag.


No, actually it was about torture. Did you not read his "speech"?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

It itsn't just about torture

True but it is mostly about torture. Jurisprudence doesn't get that same zing with the readership

I'd still rather they were simply pumped full of whatever drug works best and then questioned if they get recalcitrant.

I agree cacto but Amnesty International considers the use of any drugs to be "torture" as well.

 

LW - Good points all around as the devils advocate but my blanket response to most of them and also to the posters who side with me as to the use of torture by individuals is this:

     Once the government takes the first steps down the road to torturing foreigners they are that much closer to turning it on their own citizens as well. It is this slippery slope which must be defended for the sake of our children and it is why I oppose torture even when it's use could prevent another 9/11. Read that carefully. If I had the chance to prevent 9/11 by allowing the US government an official torture policy I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't want my kids to be subjected to that sort of society.

     Coolaqua has a great addition to this with the dismissal of jurisprudence. Torture and no due process are a viscious one-two punch to the gut of any free society. That is why we have to maintain the moral high ground. Enlightened self interest. Insightfuls all round.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Without using the Amnesty International BS, show me where we're using torture on detainees in Gitmo.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Without using the Amnesty International BS, show me where we're using torture on detainees in Gitmo.

if that is addressed to me perhaps you should re-read the article? Also note the "scare" quotes I used around torture in my previous reply. There was no torture in Getmo from what I read. That being said the whole article is about whether real torture should be endorsed by America as a society. Not sure what you are driving at there Dr.?

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

I wonder why the use of drugs such as sodium pentothal would be considered torture by AI? What reasons do they give?

I know why it is against the Geneva Convention, but I am curious as to why it is considered torture as well.  Greywar, do you have any idea?