News Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[TheStatutoryApe]

Under certain dire circumstances it is warranted (talking non-lethal, non-maiming, practices). I am not condoning routine torture of anyone, anytime. If the circumstances are as such that we need the intel ASAP to prevent an attack and we have a "terrorist" in custody that we know has the information, should we hold off, let an impending attack(s) be carried out, because we don't want them to use how we prevented the attack as a recruiting tool?

I must admit that under certain circumstances I may well find it hard to hold to idealist ethics in the face of the consequences for taking the moral high ground. But what do those ethics really mean if they are to be shucked when they become inconvenient?
Its a hard question that we will likely wrestle with for the rest of humanities existence. This isn't really the point of debate though. The practice you describe is not the practice in reality. Terrorists are/were being subjected to 'torture' in circumstances of non-imminent danger (so far as we know anyway).

BTW, the recruiting tool argument is not very convincing. If anything, it is a deterrent. We show the enemy at what lengths we will go to save lifes.

Has the enemys determination in showing us what lengths to which they will go for their cause detered the US in anyway?




Edit: Oops.. misquoted Drankin (as Mehslep). Sorry about that.

 

[drankin]

Has the enemys determination in showing us what lengths to which they will go for their cause detered the US in anyway?

I think it has. This whole argument is proof of that. You are talking about limiting our ability to access information that can save our own citizens so that our enemies don't have a "recruiting tool".

A looks a lot like appeasement so as not to make them mad at us. Fear of retribution at the cost of our own peoples lives. Historically, appeasement doesn't work so well anyhow.

 

[BobG]

Under certain dire circumstances it is warranted (talking non-lethal, non-maiming, practices). I am not condoning routine torture of anyone, anytime. If the circumstances are as such that we need the intel ASAP to prevent an attack and we have a "terrorist" in custody that we know has the information, should we hold off, let an impending attack(s) be carried out, because we don't want them to use how we prevented the attack as a recruiting tool?

This needs a little clarification. There are those who recognize that there might be a situation where someone would inflict torture for a good reason even though they know it's illegal (such as John McCain, for example). That's different than legalizing torture based on the remote chance that that situation will come up in our lifetimes. You base your laws and regulations on situations that are likely to occur - not on rare exceptions that will never occur in most interrogators' lifetimes.

 

[drankin]

This needs a little clarification. There are those who recognize that there might be a situation where someone would inflict torture for a good reason even though they know it's illegal (such as John McCain, for example). That's different than legalizing torture based on the remote chance that that situation will come up in our lifetimes. You base your laws and regulations on situations that are likely to occur - not on rare exceptions that will never occur in most interrogators' lifetimes.

I believe we should have laws that allow this under strict circumstances. It should not be a general policy with the detainees.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it has. This whole argument is proof of that.

Sorry. I don't see the idea of holding to a 'higher standard' of ethics as a capitulation to terrorists. Terrorists still attack nations and nations still seek to stop and undermine terrorists. No one seems to have gotten any message across with regard to "how far they are willing to go".

You are talking about limiting our ability to access information that can save our own citizens so that our enemies don't have a "recruiting tool".

Seems like a catch 22. We torture to stop terrorist attacks but by torturing we fuel more terrorist attacks (so long as you accept that this actually does fuel more terrorist attacks of course).

A looks a lot like appeasement so as not to make them mad at us. Fear of retribution at the cost of our own peoples lives. Historically, appeasement doesn't work so well anyhow.

Depends on what you call 'appeasement'. To reiterate I don't see how not torturing terrorist suspects is any sort of capitulation (or appeasement).

 

[DaveC426913]

by torturing we fuel more terrorist attacks

Actually, I think this is the bigger issue.

Torturing doesn't fuel terrorist attacks. What fuels terrorist attacks is meddling in the affairs of their countries/cultures/nations in the first place.

Torture is a symptom of a nation that is stuck on the school playground trying to be the biggest bully, promoting, participating in and validating hatred and violence. It never occurs to the nation that, if they spent 1% of their war budget on peace and communication, the whole world would be a better place.

And we the people enable this by picking at the small issues: "Don't torture" and missing the big issues: "Don't war."

 

[wbrad320]

I disagree with the idea that it's the voluntary aspect of waterboarding that determines whether it's torture. An analogy I would use is the idea that our millitary would not allow soldiers to volunter to have a finger cut off and re-sown because that would be considerd torture. If a person's voluntary consent is required for it to not be torture than what about other involuntary forms of punishment? By the standard of voluntary consent could prison time also be considerd torture?

 

[NeoDevin]

I disagree with the idea that it's the voluntary aspect of waterboarding that determines whether it's torture. An analogy I would use is the idea that our millitary would not allow soldiers to volunter to have a finger cut off and re-sown because that would be considerd torture. If a person's voluntary consent is required for it to not be torture than what about other involuntary forms of punishment? By the standard of voluntary consent could prison time also be considerd torture?

Nice straw man you've erected. No one has claimed that the only criteria be that it's involuntary.

 

[wbrad320]

Because the soldiers are volunteers in the procedure and the terrorists are not. This seems too obvious to need stating.

Here is where the voluntary consent argument originated

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is where the voluntary consent argument originated

I posted the argument some time ago. And its not about what defines torture but what defines the legality of the practice.

 

[wbrad320]

The legality of the practice is dependent on whether or not it's torture. Which comes back to the question what is defined as torture. My point was that the torture status of a technique used on both our soldiers and 3 terrorists is not dependent upon whether one volunteers when they are a terrorist, just as going to prison is not dependent upon whether the criminal volunteers.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The legality of the practice is dependent on whether or not it's torture.

No it isn't. There are any number of things that are illegal to do to a person against their will but not illegal if you are doing it with their consent. There is nothing that says 'torturing' a person is illegal regardless of consent.

 

[wbrad320]

You are correct that legality of a practice imposed on one is often dependent on that person's consent but that is for those who are innocent. Obviously it would be an illegal act to arrest and jail someone for no reason, but for a criminal their consent to prison time is not needed. This is why I used an analogy of a criminal and not an innocent person.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Torture is a symptom of a nation that is stuck on the school playground trying to be the biggest bully, promoting, participating in and validating hatred and violence. It never occurs to the nation that, if they spent 1% of their war budget on peace and communication, the whole world would be a better place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2009

Ok, the military budget for the US was 515 billion dollars. 1% is 5 billion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development

The request under the FY2009 Foreign Operations budget, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies is:

* $2.4 billion to improve responsiveness to humanitarian crises, including food emergencies and disasters, and the needs of refugees
* $938 million to strengthen USAID’s operational capacity
* $2.3 billion to help Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and West Bank/Gaza achieve economic, democratic, security and political stabilization and to advance their overall development
* $2.1 billion for State Department and USAID programs in Africa to address non-HIV/AIDS health, economic growth and democratic governance needs and to help promote stability in Sudan, Liberia, Zimbabwe and Somalia in support of the President's 2005 commitment to double aid to Africa by 2010
* $4.8 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, which directly supports the first year of the President’s new five-year, $30 billion plan to treat 2.5 million people, prevent 12 million new infections, and care for 12 million afflicted people
* $550 million to support the Mérida Initiative to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational crime, and terrorism in Mexico and Central America
* $1.7 billion to promote democracy around the world, including support for the President’s Freedom Agenda
* $385 million to support the President’s Malaria Initiative to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 target African countries by 2010
* $94 million for the President’s International Education Initiative to provide an additional 4 million students with access to quality basic education through 2012
* $64 million for the State Department and USAID to support the President's Climate Change Initiative to promote the adoption of clean energy technology, help countries adapt to climate change, and encourage sustainable forest management
* $4.8 billion for foreign military financing to the Middle East, Latin America, Europe and Eurasia, including $2.6 billion for Israel
* $2.2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation to improve agricultural productivity, modernize infrastructure, expand private land ownership, improve health systems, and improve access to credit for small business and farmers[6]

As can be seen from the list, the US spends well over 1% of its military budget on making the world a better place

I think it has. This whole argument is proof of that. You are talking about limiting our ability to access information that can save our own citizens so that our enemies don't have a "recruiting tool".

A looks a lot like appeasement so as not to make them mad at us. Fear of retribution at the cost of our own peoples lives. Historically, appeasement doesn't work so well anyhow.

No, you're looking at it wrong. Our objective is to stop being attacked. If not torturing people halts recruitment for terrorist organizations, then we've moved closer to that objective. The enemy's objective is less clear, but probably 'get them to stop torturing prisoners' is fairly low on their list. This means it's not appeasement, but good strategy. You're confusing potential future recruits for the enemy, which they aren't yet

 

[wittgenstein]

Imagine that I love fighting and arrange a boxing match with Muhammed Ali. I know that he will pummel me. However, I love boxing that much. Now suppose that Muhammed Ali finds me alone and attacks me. I think that there is a huge difference between voluntary and forced pain. Even legaly so. In the first instance Ali would not be prosecuted but in the second he would.

 

[wittgenstein]

Of course, one may argue that the in the context of a crime ( terrorism) the situation is different. However, this gives us the absurd tautology," it is legal because it is legal." Remember, that in the US we are protected from cruel and unusual punishment* by the eighth amendment.
* Well at least theoretically

 

[wittgenstein]

"As can be seen from the list, the US spends well over 1% of its military budget on making the world a better place"
Office Shredder

"The United States "Agency for International Development (USAID) is the United States federal government organization responsible for most NON-MILITARY foreign aid."
From the site given by Office Shredder

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are correct that legality of a practice imposed on one is often dependent on that person's consent but that is for those who are innocent. Obviously it would be an illegal act to arrest and jail someone for no reason, but for a criminal their consent to prison time is not needed. This is why I used an analogy of a criminal and not an innocent person.

Criminals/Prisoners can not be tortured either.
And this point started in regard to whether or not there is a difference between torturing a person who has volunteered and one who hasn't. There is an obvious difference but we can still call it torture either way and it will still be legal, and possibly even ethical depending on your point of view, to practice it on soldiers as part of their training regardless of whether or not you call it torture because they will still have volunteered.

 

[wittgenstein]

Or have I misunderstood your ( office shredder) post? You seem to be saying that over 1% of the military's budget is given to aids research, global warming etc.
Even then, some of the contributions you listed are military in nature.

 

[mheslep]

...As can be seen from the list, the US spends well over 1% of its military budget on making the world a better place

A good reference but you did not have to even leave the military budget to illustrate it. The US DoD itself spends more than 1% directly on peaceful aid, some of it on things nobody else in the world can do: relief for the Sunami in S. Asia; building schools, building housing, and restoring power in dangerous places where NGOs won't/can't operate, etc, etc. And, I'll add, regarding making the world a better place, so have most of the US's (violent) military actions.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Or have I misunderstood your ( office shredder) post? You seem to be saying that over 1% of the military's budget is given to aids research, global warming etc.
Even then, some of the contributions you listed are military in nature.

We spend 500 billion dollars on military stuff. 1% of that is 5 billion. The claim was if we spend 1% of 5 billion dollars, we would make the world a better place. We spend far greater than 5 billion dollars making the world a better place as illustrated in my post.

If the claim is that we could cut the military budget by 1% to make the world a better place, then fine, but the money we spend has to come from somewhere anyway, so it's a fairly disingenuous argument

Only one item on that list as far as I can tell is militarily related, and I felt it was better to just quote the whole thing verbatim rather than risk the "YOU'RE CHERRY PICKING STATS" argument that had about a 40% chance of occurring :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, I can see how my ambiguity lead to a slight misinterpretation.

Corrected:

It never occurs to the nation that, if they spent 1% of their war budget on peace and communication with the nations they are at war with, the whole world would be a better place.

I didn't mean to suggest that US does not contribute to a better world, just that they don't seem to see peace as something to strive for even when the opposing side continues to try to war. (To be overly-simplistic: Fight fire with fire and you both get burned. Fight fire with water...)

 

[Office_Shredder]

I didn't mean to suggest that US does not contribute to a better world, just that they don't seem to see peace as something to strive for even when the opposing side continues to try to war. (To be overly-simplistic: Fight fire with fire and you both get burned. Fight fire with water...)

Fight fire with water and your opponent replaces all your water with rubbing alcohol in an overnight raid. Fool!

It's actually fairly difficult to spend money on 'peace and communications' with a nation you are actively at war with (for the record, we currently aren't at war with any nations that I know of, which makes this even more difficult). Can you give specific examples? The list includes 2+ billion dollars towards stabilizing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the West Bank/Gaza already

 

[kyleb]

It's actually fairly difficult to spend money on 'peace and communications' with a nation you are actively at war with (for the record, we currently aren't at war with any nations that I know of, which makes this even more difficult).

Was that poorly phrased, or more difficult how?

Can you give specific examples? The list includes 2+ billion dollars towards stabilizing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the West Bank/Gaza already

I am pretty sure his argument is that another 5 billion there, taken from military budget, would be a more effective use of the funds were our primary focus on promoting peace and stability. I figure is much anyone on the "hearts & minds premise, and suspect it would allow us to further lower our military budget in following years. Granted, the fat-cats running our military industrial complex have no interest in anything of the sort, and a lot more money to throw at lobbing Washington too.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's actually fairly difficult to spend money on 'peace and communications' with a nation you are actively at war with...

yeeeeeeeaaaah funny thing that. I'm pretty sure that was what Bush told himself too.

 

[wbrad320]

Criminals/Prisoners can not be tortured either.
And this point started in regard to whether or not there is a difference between torturing a person who has volunteered and one who hasn't. There is an obvious difference but we can still call it torture either way and it will still be legal, and possibly even ethical depending on your point of view, to practice it on soldiers as part of their training regardless of whether or not you call it torture because they will still have volunteered.

Now your saying that torture is done to our soldiers and to the 3 terrorists, but that it might be ok to do to our soldiers because they volunteered. One of my earler posts addresses that, I said that the millitary wouldn't allow soldiers to volunteer to have a finger cut off and re-sown because they would consider that to be torture. In other words our millitary is not in the business of allowing our soldiers to volunteer for torture.

 

[DaveC426913]

I said that the millitary wouldn't allow soldiers to volunteer to have a finger cut off and re-sown because they would consider that to be torture. In other words our millitary is not in the business of allowing our soldiers to volunteer for torture.

I read that, yes. I just didn't see much value in it. Your conclusion just doesn't really follow from your premises.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Now your saying that torture is done to our soldiers and to the 3 terrorists, but that it might be ok to do to our soldiers because they volunteered. One of my earler posts addresses that, I said that the millitary wouldn't allow soldiers to volunteer to have a finger cut off and re-sown because they would consider that to be torture. In other words our millitary is not in the business of allowing our soldiers to volunteer for torture.

It wouldn't be because it is considered torture. Its a risky and potentially damaging operation that could leave nerve damage in their finger. They would also be unable to train during the time they are recovering. There is no potential benefit to doing anything to an otherwise valuable asset that could severely effect their ability to preform their duties or complete their training. Your example just doesn't make sense.
The military does subject soldiers in training to degradation, brainwashing, sleep deprivation, and a gas chamber among other things. Such a regimen would be deemed by any US criminal court as torture if done to someone involuntarily.

 

[Office_Shredder]

yeeeeeeeaaaah funny thing that. I'm pretty sure that was what Bush told himself too.

Good use of elongated syllables, but you still haven't given me an example. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of Generalized Godwin's Law that says I've won this argument also.

Was that poorly phrased, or more difficult how?

Here are the main points:
1) If you're going to spend money on keeping yourself safe, you can do it in one of two ways: By bolstering your defenses or by making everyone at least impartial to your existence (if there are other options, they're ignored for the purposes of this conversation anyway)

2) In order to keep people from wanting to attack you, you have to be able to identify who might attack you, and how you can change their opinion. This is HARD. I recall one example specifically that helps point this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/

The point is you can't just buy someone's friendship

3) It's easy to spend money on national defense. You buy planes, tanks and guns and you kinow you're getting what you paid for

Just to pipe in on the torture debate, making someone run for an extended period of time could be considered torture, so obviously the voluntary/involuntary line is a bad way of measuring whether something is torture

 

[wittgenstein]

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=2694

"2) In order to keep people from wanting to attack you, you have to be able to identify who might attack you,..."
Office Shredder
I agree. That is why we should not have diverted resources from the war on terrorism and sent it to Iraq.


Also, economic support is not a direct military aid grant, but are frequently overtly used to free up a recipient's finances so that military programs can be purchased.
Also, I am not anti-US. All governments are not altruistic. Government action is always for selfish reasons, usually for the elite that run a particular country. All the altruistic talk is only a way to sell their program to the public. Note that I am not against altruistic spending. I am only saying that it never dictates policy.

 

[wittgenstein]

Even the holocaust was not the motivating reason for our entry into WW2. Nor was slavery the motivating reason for the Civil War.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=2694

"2) In order to keep people from wanting to attack you, you have to be able to identify who might attack you,..."
Office Shredder
I agree. That is why we should not have diverted resources from the war on terrorism and sent it to Iraq.

What does the war in Iraq have to do with this? I've issued no statement of support for the invasion, and see nothing that I've written that implies this.

Also, economic support is not a direct military aid grant, but are frequently overtly used to free up a recipient's finances so that military programs can be purchased.
Also, I am not anti-US. All governments are not altruistic. Government action is always for selfish reasons, usually for the elite that run a particular country. All the altruistic talk is only a way to sell their program to the public. Note that I am not against altruistic spending. I am only saying that it never dictates policy.

Ok, then how can we spend money on peace and communications in a way that doesn't allow the enemy to redirect funds to their own military?

Even the holocaust was not the motivating reason for our entry into WW2. Nor was slavery the motivating reason for the Civil War.

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good use of elongated syllables, but you still haven't given me an example. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of Generalized Godwin's Law that says I've won this argument also.

Don't know if there is, but I suppose there should be. It felt all wrong resorting a knee-jerk Bush hate-on, and I am self-flaming.

 

[BobG]

Good use of elongated syllables, but you still haven't given me an example. I'm pretty sure there's some sort of Generalized Godwin's Law that says I've won this argument also.

Don't know if there is, but I suppose there should be. It felt all wrong resorting a knee-jerk Bush hate-on, and I am self-flaming.

So Bush's legacy is that he will be incorporated into some type of Godwin's Law?! First person to compare someone to Bush automatically loses the argument?

By the way, Godwin's Law simply addresses the probability of any discussion referencing Hitler or the Nazis; not the appropriateness of the reference nor who wins the argument.

Likewise, I guess the probability of any thread about torture mentioning Bush will also approach 1 as the number of posts in the thread increase. (In fact, doesn't the probability of mentioning Kevin Bacon approach 1 as the thread grows longer?)

 

[Office_Shredder]

By the way, Godwin's Law simply addresses the probability of any discussion referencing Hitler or the Nazis; not the appropriateness of the reference nor who wins the argument.

Yes, but it's been adapted to the internet community to determine thread losers (specifically, anyone still posting in the thread loses :) )

Likewise, I guess the probability of any thread about torture mentioning Bush will also approach 1 as the number of posts in the thread increase. (In fact, doesn't the probability of mentioning Kevin Bacon approach 1 as the thread grows longer?)

Euler actually worked this one out. The odds are 1/pi^e

 

[DaveC426913]

So Bush's legacy is that he will be incorporated into some type of Godwin's Law?! First person to compare someone to Bush automatically loses the argument?

I was thinking simply first person to bash Bush, usually for his war policy.

By the way, Godwin's Law simply addresses the probability of any discussion referencing Hitler or the Nazis; not the appropriateness of the reference nor who wins the argument.

Yes, the 'winning' thing is a corollary, as mentioned in Wiki reference.

 

[Al68]

No. I mean do you really believe this? You believe that believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it?

No, I don't believe it's OK. I was merely observing that many do think it's OK, now a majority of the population. They not only think it's OK, they actively favor it, rationalize it, have a moral code that glorifies it, spew hatred at those that disagree, labeling them as "on the side of the rich", "uncaring", or worse.

And they seem to honestly believe that using force to take from those who "can afford it" in order to give it to "those who need it" isn't really theft. That's a complete mystery to me, as I have never heard any explanation for that belief.

 

[Huckleberry]

Good point.

Is being forced to watch someone else receive pain torture?

For instance, is it torture to force a father to watch his kids be raped via a TV signal? (The TV signal being necessary since you could fake the physical abuse to the kids and never inflict any physical pain on anyone. For that matter, wouldn't it be possible to actually rape the kids without leaving any permanent physical damage?)

How about drilling a hole in someone's tooth, as long as you filled it back in after the interrogation was done? Thousands of people, even everyday civilians, voluntarily submit to that procedure (although most would prefer novocaine first).

I don't think you can rely solely on the physical consequences of the action when defining torture. I think you have to consider the psychological affects, as well.



Because your argument relies solely on the physical part of torture.

Torture isn't defined by the action itself, but by the intent that is used to carry it out. Anything that intentionally causes anguish in a subject is torture. What methods and under what conditions this behaviour is acceptable is what is in question.

What I don't understand about the US position is that the advocates of waterboarding focus on the physical aspect of turture. Waterboarding is deemed acceptable because it doesn't cause physical damage. What is ignored is it's effectiveness as a technique and, most importantly, the principle of the thing. It's wrong to use anguish to coerce someone. Any information extracted in such a way will be whatever the torturers wish to be told.

 

[mheslep]

Torture isn't defined by the action itself, but by the intent that is used to carry it out. Anything that intentionally causes anguish in a subject is torture. What methods and under what conditions this behaviour is acceptable is what is in question...

No, people are intentionally sent to jail everyday and this certainly causes anguish, but it is not torture.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, people are intentionally sent to jail everyday and this certainly causes anguish, but it is not torture.

It is not intentional anguish. Inmates are treated as well as reasonable.

 

[wittgenstein]

Office Shredder
My apologies if I have misrepresented your position. Perhaps I falsely assumed that you were defending the Bush legacy. Or are you merely saying that the US spends more than 1% of its entire budget on non-military items. Of course I would agree with that.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't believe that is true for US SERE training. It is closely supervised by professionals, but I seriously doubt it ends on the first whim of the individual, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.
The question posed up thread first by Russ and https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228882&postcount=168", is not whether there is any difference, but whether or not it is acceptable to water board some US military personnel as part of their training.

What is the purpose of the exercise?

I disagree with your first point. The purpose of the exercise is not to torture a soldier. That is the method used to achieve a purpose. Once the purpose of the exercise has been fulfilled there is no reason to continue. I'm not familiar with SERE training, but I would guess that if the soldier feels an urgent need to stop the waterboarding he only needs to tell the supervisors what they want to hear.

As to the second point, just like any military training, the purpose is to condition discipline for an environment the soldier may encounter. It could be argued that killing is immoral, yet we train soldiers to use weapons with the intention of killing other human beings. They will need those skills to carry out their orders with any chance of survival. (Hopefully those orders are in the interest of peace, but that's another argument.) The possibility of torture and death are a part of the life of military personnel. It would be irresponsible to intentionally endanger a person without preparing them.

It would be nice if we lived in a world with no torture or murder, but we don't. We need a military to resist these things, so the military should be trained for it. It doesn't mean we should resist depravity by adopting those same behaviours whenever it suits our interest, and calling it acceptable because it could be worse.

This is besides the point, but some have claimed that, moral concerns not withstanding, torture is a viable method for extracting (edit- truthful) information. I'm not so sure that it is, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that claim. I think it's a good way to get a confession of whatever it is the torturer wants to hear. It instantly raises doubts as to the validity of any information extracted with those methods. If a person can be held without trial, tortured, and then have their forced confessions used as evidence against them, I think it goes against every principle this country was founded on. When we dehumanize others, citizen or not, we dehumanize ourselves. If it is acceptable to torture dubious information out of terrorists then it should also be acceptable to convict and torture suspected criminals to confess against themselves. Who needs courts anyway? Law becomes a tool to subjugate the weak. It's pure prejudice.

 

[Huckleberry]

No, people are intentionally sent to jail everyday and this certainly causes anguish, but it is not torture.

The purpose of sending people to prison isn't to create anguish in the criminals. They also get a trial and aren't forced to testify against themselves.

 

[mheslep]

The purpose of sending people to prison isn't to create anguish in the criminals.

So what? It does.

They also get a trial and aren't forced to testify against themselves.

This has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

There ought to be no doubt about the definition of torture beyond the connotations of specific words used below.

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– UN Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1​

​

This is the legal definition that the US is required to operate under, having signed and ratified this treaty over a decade ago.

And it is clear from the above that the intent is relevant, as is the purpose (such as to extract a testimony or confession).

Ref: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

There ought to be no doubt about the definition of torture beyond the connotations of specific words used below.

Awesome. Now we have something.

Incidentally, it also disqualifies the U.S. waterboarding its own troops from being labeled as torture, since the intent does not match any listed.

 

[Huckleberry]

It also inherently disqualifies legal criminal prosecution from being labeled as torture, since the only other option would be to have no ability to enforce the law.

 

[BobG]

The purpose of sending people to prison isn't to create anguish in the criminals. They also get a trial and aren't forced to testify against themselves.

Actually, in 1983, a sheriff and his deputies wound up serving 4 years for using waterboarding to coerce prisoners into confessions.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some convictions stemming from Guantanamo. The reason the Bush administration was so adamant about exempting CIA officers from prosecution was that there's a previous history of the US prosecuting its own troops for waterboarding.

US General Jacob Smith of the Spanish American War (Philippines ~1900) was court martialed for allowing his troops to engage in waterboarding. He wound up being given a slap on the wrist conviction for acting with excessive zeal, but Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and tossed him out of the Army anyway. Smith was just the highest ranking person court martialed. Other lower ranking military personnel were also convicted, with all receiving fairly minor punishments (one month suspension and $50 fine for Maj Edwin Glenn, for example).

At least one US soldier wound up being court martialed in the Viet Nam War when a picture of him and two other troops (one a South Vietnamese troop) waterboarding a prisoner wound up on the front page of the Washington Post.

With the punishments of Abu Graib guards as the precedence, I'd expect punishment for waterboarding to be more severe than just a $50 fine. Japanese troops that waterboarded American prisoners during World War II received punishments up to 15 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

 

[mheslep]

...

With the punishments of Abu Graib guards as the precedence, I'd expect punishment for waterboarding to be more severe than just a $50 fine. Japanese troops that waterboarded American prisoners during World War II received punishments up to 15 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

These stories are not clear on the exact match between the Japanese and the the sentences. (I read the WaPo stories). I've seen elsewhere that in these particular cases a) the imperial Japanese troops went far beyond water boarding as it has been described by the Red Cross for KSM, stuffing rags down the throat, etc, and b) the J. troops committed other abuses than water boarding, that c) the sentences were handed out collectively for a wide range of abuse, water boarding happened to be part of it. Therefore it is inaccurate, or at least incomplete, to say the troops 'received 15 years for water boarding'.

 

[seycyrus]

The definition given by the UN convention on torture (few posts up) seems to be a bit ambiguous in the word "severe". Is "severe" defined elsewhere in the convention?

I also note that "punishment" is indeed listed in the definition. Therefore it can be argued that the US(and every other govt.) does indeed routinely torture some of its criminals.

I also note that SERE training uses waterboarding to "intentionally" "intimidate" or "coerce" the military personnel in question. Those words seem to match up quite nicely with UN convention's definition.

I also note that at the very least, using the UN definition, you need someone acting in an "official capacity". A psycho parent burning his kid time and time isn't torturing him.

And finally in summary, I note that that definition isn't as useful as some had hoped.