Torture

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if i admit, which i think is reasonable, that the answer to this problem is hard to ascertain. we have to act given our current state of moral awareness.

i posit that torturing one person to prevent millions of people dying, suffering, being tortured by the enemy etc, is the practical and realistic solution, if we are not morally sure which is the right answer.

"the ends doesn't justify the means" is just a simplistic statement, that is evidence by the fact that most who say it cannot give very good responses as to why it's the case all the time, even in extremem situations. just reverting back to repeating "the ends dont justify" is not sound advice when faced with war and extreme problems.

[S][N]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1411494' date='Oct 30 2007, 10:00 AM']you stated how they are techincally different.

you did not state teh philosophical difference for how they are effectively different as to why one is acceptable and one is not.[/quote]

..Like hitting my head against a wall..

[S][N]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1411499' date='Oct 30 2007, 10:10 AM']i find it sickening you'd rather millions of people die and suffer, than to torture one terrorist who is the cause or perpetrator of all that.[/quote]

I see drama classes are paying off.

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1411514' date='Oct 30 2007, 11:56 AM']
..Like hitting my head against a wall..[/quote]
In other (honest) words, you aren't capable of explaining it.

Being unable to explain a deep seated belief is a legitimate part of ethics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it is acceptable that at a certain point, you can say "that is just my opinion" by it has to be backed philosophical reasons why. pointing to how torture is technically different than killing is not saying how they are philosophically different.

that said, i will not reply to SN, but will reply to others who are more articulate, unless SN becomes more articulate himself.

Edited October 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[i]On Torture, 2 Messages and a High Political Cost

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 30, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 — Six years after the Bush administration embraced harsh physical tactics for interrogating terrorism suspects, and two years after it reportedly dropped the most extreme of those techniques, the taint of torture clings to American counterterrorism efforts.

Maher Arar testified on Oct. 18 via video conference before a House hearing on rendition, particularly his own case.

The administration has a standard answer to queries about its interrogation practices: 1) We do not torture, and 2) we will not say what we do, for fear of tipping off future prisoners. In effect, officials want Al Qaeda to believe that the United States does torture, while convincing the rest of the world that it does not.

But that contradictory catechism is not holding up well under the battering that American interrogation policies have received from human rights organizations, European allies and increasingly skeptical members of Congress.

The administration does not acknowledge scaling back the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret detention program, perhaps to avoid implying that earlier methods were immoral or illegal. President Bush has repeatedly defended what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation methods, saying they have produced invaluable information on Al Qaeda. But the administration’s strategy has exacted an extraordinary political cost.

The nomination of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, once expected to sail through the Senate, has run into trouble as a result of his equivocation about waterboarding, or simulated drowning. Mr. Mukasey has refused to characterize the technique as torture, which would put him at odds with secret Justice Department legal opinions and could put intelligence officers in legal jeopardy.

At a House hearing last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States had mishandled the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was seized in New York in 2002 on suspicion of terrorism and shipped to Syria, where he was imprisoned and severely beaten.

But Ms. Rice refused to acknowledge the torture or to apologize to Mr. Arar, perhaps to avoid exposing to attack the policy of extraordinary rendition, in which the United States delivers suspects to other countries, including some that routinely use torture.

C.I.A. officers have been criminally charged in Italy and Germany in connection with rendition cases. The torture issue has complicated Americans’ standing in criticizing other countries.

[b]At a House hearing on the crackdown on dissent in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, where protest leaders have reportedly endured waterboarding, Jeremy Woodrum, a director of the United States Campaign for Burma, said American conduct was thrown back at him, testifying: “People say, ‘Why are you guys talking to us about this when you have the mess in your own backyard?’ ”[/b]

Even inside the government, there are tensions. At the C.I.A., the director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has come under fire from Congress for ordering a review of the agency’s own inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of secret detention programs have raised hackles.

The moral debate over torture has seeped deeply into popular culture, from the black comedy of “The Daily Show” and its “senior interrogation correspondent” to the new movie “Rendition,” based loosely on Mr. Arar’s case. Candidates for president have repeatedly faced questions and exchanged barbs on the proper limits of interrogation.

Meanwhile, key members of Congress are raising questions about the future of the C.I.A.’s detention operation. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in response to a question from The New York Times that it “has produced valuable intelligence, but the question is at what cost?”

Mr. Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, whose committee has recently heard classified testimony about the noncoercive interrogation methods of the F.B.I. and the military, said he was not sure the C.I.A’s harsher approach was justified.
[b]
“Unfortunately, the intelligence community has not yet made a convincing argument that a separate, secret program is indeed necessary,”[/b] he said. “The committee is engaged in answering these fundamental questions and fully intends to take action on the future of this program.”

Even as the administration has maintained in secret Justice Department legal opinions that its harshest methods are legal, it has quietly but steadily backed away from them in practice.

Since last year, military interrogators have been bound by the new Army Field Manual, which prohibits all physical coercion.

The C.I.A. stopped using waterboarding by the end of 2005, former agency officials have said. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in July that prisoners were also now “not exposed to heat and cold,” another technique previously used at the C.I.A.’s secret jails.

But administration officials seem loath to let potential prisoners know they have softened their interrogations. In his July remarks, Mr. McConnell suggested that Qaeda operatives had talked in part “because they believe these techniques might involve torture.” At the same time, “the United States does not engage in torture,” he said. “The president has been very clear about that.”

In a PBS interview with Charlie Rose last week, General Hayden, the C.I.A. director, complained about negative press coverage of the agency’s interrogation practices. “What puzzles me is to why there seems to be this temptation, almost irresistible temptation, to take any story about us and move it into the darkest corner of the room,” General Hayden said.

Yet, illustrating the administration’s predicament, General Hayden did nothing to dispel the mystery about the agency’s “enhanced” interrogation tactics.

“What is ‘enhanced technique’?” Mr. Rose asked. “Is it something close to torture?”

The C.I.A. director said, “No,” adding, “I’m not going to talk about any specific techniques.”

Whether Congress will act remains uncertain. Congressional Democrats have cited interrogation policies in blocking the confirmations of John A. Rizzo as general counsel of the C.I.A. and Steven G. Bradbury, author of secret legal opinions on interrogation, as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Now Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation hangs in the balance.

Both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have held closed hearings on the program. The only public glimpse — unclassified testimony recently released from a Sept. 25 Senate hearing — was a series of fierce attacks by human rights advocates, legal experts and a veteran interrogator on the effectiveness and morality of harsh interrogation.

Most Republicans, for now, are offering the administration conditional support. Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said that he was concerned about the international reputation of the United States and that Congress “should continue to look at what other methods are effective.”

But Mr. Bond said conversations with C.I.A. interrogators had convinced him that some legal but tough tactics could work on recalcitrant suspects. “Coercion has opened the dialogue,” he said.[/i]

[emphasis added]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/washington/30torture.html"]On Torture, 2 Messages and a High Political Cost[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

one saying they are against torture, i would guess, is often jsut a shroud of PCness. if faced, more than just with a theoretical proposition, with death suffereing etc of millions, i'm sure many of thos who are against it would suddenly not be. it's not PC to be protorture.
i say, who cares about being PC?

[Winchester]

Yeah, it's better to be MAC.

[Winchester]

Yeah, it's better to be MAC.

[dairygirl4u2c]

but with that said, i agree we can consider when torture is proper. maybe weigh how much we think they know, the type of war, the conditions etc etc.
i think this is where the debate should lie. not whether it's ever okay. i think most clearly it is some time, not thati think it's unreasonable to say otherwise.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1411032' date='Oct 29 2007, 01:57 PM']If loud music is torture, then I want the Amnesty International pinkos to go after all the kids in thump-thump cars and my neighbor on the next street.[/quote]

There is a difference between a kid who drives down the street playing uncomfortably loud music, exposing you to it for all of twenty seconds, and forcing someone to sit in a cell with a painfully loud sound system (which would usually require ear defenders) for hours at a time.

[quote]If running water over one's face is torture, then every parent who bathed a wiggling baby and splashed the kiddo in the eyes needs to be arrested.[/quote]

There is a difference between accidentally splashing a wriggling baby a handful of times in the bath and forcing somebody to lie under running water for hours at a time.

[quote]If withholding potty privileges is torture, then my elementary school teachers have some 'splainin' to do.[/quote]

There is a difference between making a child wait until the next break or the end of a class period to use the toilet (which is never more than an hour away) and refusing to let someone relieve themselves for hours and hours at a time. Did your elementary teacher ever stop you from using the toilet for over fourteen hours? Did your bladder nearly rupture?

[quote]All I ask is to quit labeling everything as 'torture' based on what the Godless leftist media shovels at you. I do NOT condone torture at all. Not one bit. But let us first be very clear about what is and is not torture.[/quote]

You seem to define torture as anything that leaves a physical mark on the body. Not all intense pain results in blood. I define as torture anything that meets the following criteria:

1.) An act that threatens the physical or psychological wellbeing of prisoners.
2.) An act that dehumanises or degrades them.

Your attitude seems to be, "Let's make a rigid definition of 'torture' and then see how close to the line we can get with prisoners without crossing it." It's not possible to create a checklist of taboo 'interrogation techniques' and then feel free to cheerfully employ anything that's not on the list. We have to use compassion when we set ethical boundaries. The question I would ask regarding torture is this: "Would I be willing to put my mother or my best friend through this if I suspected that they were guilty of a crime?"

Because Jesus asks us to love our enemies. Now, we could get into a discussion about what 'love' means and whether Jesus meant the same 'love' you have for your family or whether he was referring to a certain, more deserving subset of enemy (which must be explicitly categorised by a Vatican official and released in a document in order to be accepted). But that game won't work here. Jesus' statement is every bit as provocative as it sounds. We have to love our enemies. That includes the prisoners in Guantanamo, both the ones who deserve to be there and the many who are there without trial or charge. This is not a 'pinko' or 'commie' sentiment. It doesn't belong anywhere on the political spectrum, because it comes straight out of God. It involves plunging yourself into complete upheaval and uncertainty by looking at a man who may be plotting the most evil acts, and thinking, "No matter what you might want to do, you are a person."

The middle-aged man who repeatedly raped one of my closest friend over the course of two years and got her pregnant - I have fantasised about torturing him. Because of him she ended up pregnant at thirteen. (He punched her to make her miscarry.) Because of him she ended up in a psychiatric unit at fourteen. She was there for nearly two years. She's sixteen now and she's still not well. There wasn't enough evidence to take him to court, and he was too much of a coward to own up. Sometimes I feel that I would love to torture him until he screamed out that he did it. But then God brings me up short. "Love your enemies" is not an abstract concept. It means loving people like this, the authors of private and national tragedies. This means that I can't hurt them.

The Saudi intelligence services got information out of a prisoner who knew about the planned 7/7 bombings via dubious interrogation techniques. Staggeringly, their British counterparts failed to act on the information. If they had acted, saving all those lives, would that have justified the pain that one prisoner went through? No. That utilitarian ethic has no place in Catholicism.

To win, we have to make people see that our victory would be a good thing. Incidents at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib played right into the extremists' hands by giving them ready-made propaganda to use in recruitment and in fomenting hate. Jesus won not because he fought back, but because he was goodness itself. That's the only kind of victory worth having. What sort of triumph would it be if we won 'the war on terror' by stooping to the same level as the people whose ideology we're supposed to be opposing?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1411576' date='Oct 30 2007, 03:12 PM']To win, we have to make people see that our victory would be a good thing. Incidents at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib played right into the extremists' hands by giving them ready-made propaganda to use in recruitment and in fomenting hate. Jesus won not because he fought back, but because he was goodness itself. That's the only kind of victory worth having. What sort of triumph would it be if we won 'the war on terror' by stooping to the same level as the people whose ideology we're supposed to be opposing?[/quote]
You go, girlfriend!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1411576' date='Oct 30 2007, 04:12 PM']To win, we have to make people see that our victory would be a good thing. Incidents at Guantanamo[/quote]
What incidents at GITMO? The koran down the toilet? FALSE.

Simply putting someone into solitary is torture. If you confine someone enough and befriend them, you can convince them of anything, eventually. This is a protracted torture, isn't it? It's not in our interest to get false intelligence. Any techniques used are used to that end, not to obtaining false confessions.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1411590' date='Oct 30 2007, 03:30 PM']What incidents at GITMO? The koran down the toilet? FALSE.[/quote]
No. Stress positions, extremes of heat and cold, sleep deprivation, being exposed to loud music for extended periods of time. And, in the case of Gitmo, that's assuming that we're even talking about real Bad Guys [i]and not somebody sold out by a clan rival for a bounty[/i].

[quote name='Winchester' post='1411590' date='Oct 30 2007, 03:30 PM']Simply putting someone into solitary is torture. If you confine someone enough and befriend them, you can convince them of anything, eventually. This is a protracted torture, isn't it? It's not in our interest to get false intelligence. Any techniques used are used to that end, not to obtaining false confessions.[/quote]
Again, you can perform all the mental and linguistic gymnastics you want but that won't square the circle that "enhanced interrogation" techniques are at variance with Church teaching, period, end of story.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]To win, we have to make people see that our victory would be a good thing. Incidents at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib played right into the extremists' hands by giving them ready-made propaganda to use in recruitment and in fomenting hate. Jesus won not because he fought back, but because he was goodness itself. That's the only kind of victory worth having. What sort of triumph would it be if we won 'the war on terror' by stooping to the same level as the people whose ideology we're supposed to be opposing?[/quote]

One could equally say that we shouldn't kill others, even though just war implies that, because he do not want to stoop to the terrorists level.

People can't imagine Jesus would torture his enemies, but could you see Jesus killing his enemies? Neither are easy to see. Both are what the truth, to me, seems to allow.

I have yet to hear anyone address why we can kill, but cannot torture in a just war.

[dairygirl4u2c]

where is it against Church teaching?
I don't want to be debating others if they will not follow suit if not for anything else tehn only because they have to adhere to church teaching.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1411603' date='Oct 30 2007, 03:49 PM']where is it against Church teaching?[/quote]
See posts 7 and 65 in this thread.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1411601' date='Oct 30 2007, 04:47 PM']No. Stress positions, extremes of heat and cold, sleep deprivation, being exposed to loud music for extended periods of time. And, in the case of Gitmo, that's assuming that we're even talking about real Bad Guys [i]and not somebody sold out by a clan rival for a bounty[/i].[/quote]
[quote]Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on �individual phobias� (such as dogs) and �mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing[/quote]
[url="http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1071230,00.html"]More here[/url] A Time article. I have no reason to doubt it right now.
[quote]Again, you can perform all the mental and linguistic gymnastics you want but that won't square the circle that "enhanced interrogation" techniques are at variance with Church teaching, period, end of story.[/quote]
It's not any sort of gymnastics. These are also forms of torture. Draw the line where you will, but realize you can't avoid torture if you're going to imprison and interrogate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. ...In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2297-2298[/quote]

Note, it does not say torture is wrong get info from pertetrators. It does say "frienten opponents" but one wonders if it's only frientening for teh sake of freightening that is wrong when they didn't say to get info, or jsut say torture is wrong, period.

Edited October 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1411620' date='Oct 30 2007, 04:23 PM'][url="http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1071230,00.html"]More here[/url] A Time article. I have no reason to doubt it right now.

It's not any sort of gymnastics. These are also forms of torture. Draw the line where you will, but realize you can't avoid torture if you're going to imprison and interrogate.[/quote]
Not true. Indeed, all the use of torture reveals about the torturer is a dearth of intelligence and creativity.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1411685' date='Oct 30 2007, 06:23 PM']Note, it does not say torture is wrong get info from pertetrators. It does say "frienten opponents" but one wonders if it's only frientening for teh sake of freightening that is wrong when they didn't say to get info, or jsut say torture is wrong, period.[/quote]
With respect, whatever helps you sleep at night.