Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Torture:

Torture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "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 ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Waterboarding, subjection to freezing temperatures, prolonged periods without food, the (occasional, and not officially promoted) stripping down of detainees. These are a few techniques that have been declared as having been used in getting information from detainees, many times in combination with one another. The entire list of techniques has not been disclosed.

Is it right that the President steadfastly claims, time and time again, that the "U.S. Does not torture," and that, whenever speaking about it publicly, he will never mention the techniques, even though some of them are public information (which the public must read about, themselves), simply referring to it as the "questioning and interrogation" of detainees? Do you see this as misleading the public?

[Edit: This is not really to raise the discussion on whether or not torturing detainees is justified - simply on whether or not telling the public that torture is not being used is ethical.]

I think those techniques are more about creating the fear of what's coming next than they are about creating actual pain. Waterboarding makes detainees think they are going to drown if they don't give up information about terrorist attacks in the making. Prolonged periods without food makes them think they will never eat again if they don't give up necessary information. It's about deterring silence by causing worry about what's around the corner. I don't think it falls under the definition of torture. However, if the government is using torture against terrorists and keeping it a secret to minimize backlash, I understand.

I see arguments for and against the use of torture, but the terrorists will never have my sympathy, no matter what terrible things are done to them. Caring about how terrorists feel will never be a deciding factor for me on the issue.

UM, please re-read the definitions of torture that I posted in my OP. Torture is a much broader term than one exclusive to physical pain. That is a very large part of my point. Saying someone is not being tortured, while only referring to a part of the definition of the term, while making no distinction apparent, is a misrepresentation.

And, as I said, this has nothing to do with sympathy or hatred for the terrorists. That is a non-issue, on this one. It is about the throwing around of the simplified statement "The US does not torture." Nothing more.

By the accepted definition, the US tortures. There is no other way to interpret the information.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

UM, please re-read the definitions of torture that I posted in my OP. Torture is a much broader term than one exclusive to physical pain. That is a very large part of my point. Saying someone is not being tortured, while only referring to a part of the definition of the term, while making no distinction apparent, is a misrepresentation.

I read the definition, and I already knew it. The word "severe" is part of it, and that word is severely subjective. It does not say that the inducement of physical or mental pain at all qualifies as torture. I am saying that the terrorist detainees are given just enough physical or mental pain to speak because they fear what is around the corner. Preventing what could happen in the mysterious turn of events is what is used to induce the giving of information, not the avoidance of the mental or physical pain at a present moment. Being subjected to cold temperatures, for example, is not so bad right at first. It gets worse and worse the longer you are exposed to it. What gets the terrorists talking is the fear that they are going to be left in the cold. That example illustrates what I am talking about. It is not severe pain that is getting them to talk. It is the avoidance of future severe pain that does the trick.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And, as I said, this has nothing to do with sympathy or hatred for the terrorists. That is a non-issue, on this one.

I was just adding side commentary when I addressed that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I read the definition, and I already knew it. The word "severe" is part of it, and that word is severely subjective. It does not say that the inducement of physical or mental pain at all qualifies as torture. I am saying that the terrorist detainees are given just enough physical or mental pain to speak because they fear what is around the corner. Preventing what could happen in the mysterious turn of events is what is used to induce the giving of information, not the avoidance of the mental or physical pain at a present moment. Being subjected to cold temperatures, for example, is not so bad right at first. It gets worse and worse the longer you are exposed to it. What gets the terrorists talking is the fear that they are going to be left in the cold. That example illustrates what I am talking about.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're giving an arbitrary pardon on just how bad those situations can be, one that also has not been clarified in the declaration that "We do not torture." In short, I think that's a stretch of faith for you to assume that the techniques are somehow stopped before the detainee feels (at the very least) severe mental suffering.

If I'm being interrogated by someone, and they employ techniques to make me feel like I am going to be left in a freezer until I get hypothermia and/or die, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering. Likewise, if they dunk my head over and over, for long periods of time, and make me feel the possibility that if I don't say something, anything, they are going to drown me, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was just adding side commentary when I addressed that.

Fair enough.

But, to add to that, how many of the wrongly accused do you think they put through these techniques, trying to get information that the detainee just doesn't have? Do you have sympathy for them, when they 'crack' and admit to being an Al Qaeda operative, when it's not true, to avoid any more "intense interrogation," or do you think it's just a justified liability, in the name of the war on terror?

Well the government has pretty much admited to using torture, and they have done so more than a few times. The real question is have they gone to far in the torturing of people or are they doing just enough to get their answers and not enough to do a lot of harm to the person.

For that question I would say, yes they have gone to far. Making someone feel like they are going to die is horrible. Not only that but its a long drawn out process. Making someone think they will drown is cruel. Infact things like that are far worse than simply beating them up.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're giving an arbitrary pardon on just how bad those situations can be, one that also has not been clarified in the declaration that "We do not torture." In short, I think that's a stretch of faith for you to assume that the techniques are somehow stopped before the detainee feels (at the very least) severe mental suffering.

If I'm being interrogated by someone, and they employ techniques to make me feel like I am going to be left in a freezer until I get hypothermia and/or die, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering. Likewise, if they dunk my head over and over, for long periods of time, and make me feel the possibility that if I don't say something, anything, they are going to drown me, I would be in a state of severe mental suffering.

The level of severe mental suffering resulting from worry about what is about to happen would be within their grasp to control, so it could not get more extreme than they allow it. If they are capable of allowing it to happen, it cannot be too severe. I don't think the worry of what is coming next when they can call off what would be coming next qualifies as severe mental pain. If it were, then all police interrogations could be considered torture, and so could all criminal trials.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But, to add to that, how many of the wrongly accused do you think they put through these techniques, trying to get information that the detainee just doesn't have? Do you have sympathy for them, when they 'crack' and admit to being an Al Qaeda operative, when it's not true, to avoid any more "intense interrogation," or do you think it's just a justified liability, in the name of the war on terror?

You really have a point on that. What I am saying is based on the assumption that the government is only using its interrogation resources on people whom they really have great reason to interrogate, such as people who shot at them and people who were found in Al Qaeda training camps and groups of fighters, as well as people that sufficient intelligence says are members of Al Qaeda or other enemy combatants. The other extreme, which I am not saying you think is the case, would be picking random people off the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan and scaring the Bejesus out of them to find out what they know. That would be torture, and it would be an atrocity. There is a grey area between the two extremes, and in that grey area is what I would consider recklessness with the possibility with severe pain. The law considers recklessness to be as serious as actual intent, and so do I. I would consider that torture.

This issue reminds me of the scene in Pulp Fiction when Marseilles says, "We don't want to think. We want to know. Get the dogs on his ass and find out exactly what he knows." Doing that based on what ifs and probably's would be torture. But using strong intelligence to find enemy combatants and then putting controllable fear in them so they will avoid the perceived coming of torture does not qualify as torture, in my opinion. If a person is falsely detained once in a while and has "the dogs on his ass" and he has no idea what to say and is therefore horrified, that is absolutely terrible, but it would still be the case that the government was not trying to induce that state and was not using torture as a policy. The government would, to the best of its knowledge, not even be using torture accidentally. But the issue of how strong the intelligence on those detainees is does create a fuzzy area.

My whole view on the subject is that America does use some forms of torture to get information, but I think that what we need to know (if there is anything to know) justifies the punishment, as long as it's not TOO extreme like a lot of it IS. If they need to rough the guy up to learn where the weapons of... cloaking weapons are... you get the point.

Voting "No" in this poll means not thinking this is torture:

Spoiler for :

Spoiler for :

Spoiler for :

Spoiler for :

Spoiler for :

Yes, shocking photographs, that do not prove that this kind of behaviour is either common or reluctantly prevented in the US army, but they are still pictures of real people, in real pain. Claiming this is a 'rare occurrence' or something similar will not change what took place in Abu Ghraib.

The only reason people voted "No" on this poll, and I am glad to see only a few did, was because somehow they are biased. Or can those that do not think US soldiers have tortured assure me that if they had no knowledge of these photos, and thus did not know the people being subjected to these things are suspected terrorists, they would have said: "No, this doesn't look like torture."?

I highly doubt that anyone would not find this to be torture if he or she had no knowledge and bias before saying these photos (or hearing the stories from some released innocent people that undergone similar treatment).

You can not but admit that US soldiers have, at least in the past, seeing these photos, tortured people. Anyone who denies this, either has a very strange definition of torture, or is not thinking rationally but is acting on blind hate for anything their government has labelled "terrorist".

If I am mistaken, and the above does not depict torture, feel free to explain what the definition of torture is, exactly.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Warning, shocking pictures.

---------------

Yes, shocking photographs, that do prove that this kind of behaviour is common or is reluctantly prevented in the US army, but they are still pictures of real people, in real pain. Claiming this is a 'rare occurrence' or something similar will not change what took place in Abu Ghraib.

I hope (and I think) you meant "...that do NOT prove..." because the offenders have already been punished for treating those people that way.

I call bullsh!t on that post because that only shows that some assholes are out there. It doesn't at all support your apparent implication that it's somehow a "method" that's sanctioned or supported by the US government. And yes, I know what you said but, the fact that you're trying to present that as evidence tells me you're trying to imply that it "obviously" means "the US does torture people".

So a some people are dickheads. That doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean that "the US tortures people". You might as well say "ugly people are murderers", just because a few have stepped over the line and have done things that aren't allowed or accepted.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I hope (and I think) you meant "...that do NOT prove..." because the offenders have already been punished for treating those people that way.

Awh gosh dangit. I always check for this kind of HUGE mistakes that TOTALLY ruin the entire post, but sometimes they slip through, causing some huge contradictions . Of course I meant that it does Not prove it is found normal. (It just proved that it happened at least with a couple of prisoners).

I call bullsh!t on that post because that only shows that some assholes are out there. It doesn't at all support your apparent implication that it's somehow a "method" that's sanctioned or supported by the US government. And yes, I know what you said but, the fact that you're trying to present that as evidence tells me you're trying to imply that it "obviously" means "the US does torture people".

lol. You "call bullshit" on my post?

Also, didn't I made clear enough that all I was doing was answering the question "Do You Feel the U.S. Tortures Enemy Combatants?". To that, I explained, the answer would have to be yes, since it has happened at least one time. (see pictures)

So a some people are dickheads. That doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean that "the US tortures people". You might as well say "ugly people are murderers", just because a few have stepped over the line and have done things that aren't allowed or accepted.

Oh gosh, I didn't know people stopped being US citizens if they torture people. Or does the entire country need to do something before you can say: "the US torture people"?

Probably you meant to say the US government's policy doesn't approve of torture just because a few US individuals have tortured people. Well, even that can be debated. Some methods that go way to far, such as water boarding, haven't been forbidden or even criticized -to my knowledge- by the US government. And that certainly makes it look like they have ideas about torture that are not in line with the Geneva-agreements on human rights.

Originally Posted by Neruo

To that, I explained, the answer would have to be yes, since it has happened at least one time. (see pictures)

Then what a shitty way to over-generalise.
------------------------------------------
New poll:

Do you feel that redheads murder children?

X - Yes

... - No
---------------------------------------------

I saw a news story once where some red-haired lady killed her own child. Now that I understand your logic I can confidently choose "Yes, I feel that redheads murder children" because obviously red-haired people DO murder children.

Oh wait, that would be stupid of me because obviously one minute, rogue exception to the rule doesn't prove - or even begin to support - a damn thing.

Remember, one asshole doesn't represent the country. Just because some jerk does something doesn't mean "the country" does it.

The government has already admited to being allowed to use torture, and have said it can be useful. And they are always trying to change the definition od torture. So even though they say they dont really torture anyone its just a word game to them, and its pretty easy to see through.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Spoiler for Warning, shocking pictures.:

Voting "No" in this poll means not thinking this is torture:












Yes, shocking photographs, that do prove that this kind of behaviour is common or is reluctantly prevented in the US army, but they are still pictures of real people, in real pain. Claiming this is a 'rare occurrence' or something similar will not change what took place in Abu Ghraib.

The only reason people voted "No" on this poll, and I am glad to see only a few did, was because somehow they are biased. Or can those that do not think US soldiers have tortured assure me that if they had no knowledge of these photos, and thus did not know the people being subjected to these things are suspected terrorists, they would have said: "No, this doesn't look like torture."?

I highly doubt that anyone would not find this to be torture if he or she had no knowledge and bias before saying these photos (or hearing the stories from some released innocent people that undergone similar treatment).

You can not but admit that US soldiers have, at least in the past, seeing these photos, tortured people. Anyone who denies this, either has a very strange definition of torture, or is not thinking rationally but is acting on blind hate for anything their government has labelled "terrorist".

If I am mistaken, and the above does not depict torture, feel free to explain what the definition of torture is, exactly.

Those should at least be within spoiler brackets, by the forum's rules.

Though, i personally couldn't care less.

It is inevitable to have not just extreme interrogation methods, but actually torture people, as it seems, purely for 'fun'? Ironically, it indeed was extremely predictable. If you give people control like that, as in Abu Graibh, they are bound to torture(, as in that famous university experiment that shows people go power-crazy quite quickly). However, doesn't it being predictable make it even more bad? Wasn't there someone that thought this through? Isn't there some council for human rights in the US army that warns and prevents such situations where people are extremely likely to torture and abuse other people?

Actually, you're right. It isn't the fault of those few rotten apples, it is the fault of their superiors placing them in situations -an uncontrolled dominant position over people they learned to hate ("terrorists")- that, according to modern psychology will make almost all apples go bad.

I would have to conclude the US army is responsible for torture by fault.

Originally Posted by Neruo

It is inevitable to have not just extreme interrogation methods, but actually torture people, as it seems, purely for 'fun'? Ironically, it indeed was extremely predictable. If you give people control like that, as in Abu Graibh, they are bound to torture(, as in that famous university experiment that shows people go power-crazy quite quickly). However, doesn't it being predictable make it even more bad? Wasn't there someone that thought this through? Isn't there some council for human rights in the US army that warns and prevents such situations where people are extremely likely to torture and abuse other people?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. So you know about this phenomenon, but the high-ranking officers in charge evidently never heard of it. I don't know the answer to that question, but evidently not. That's bad enough, but what's worse is the torture that is planned and approved of.

Just like any jail you have a boss who watches over everyone else. Seeing as how this is the military I find it hard to believe he didn't know. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if everyone there knew. The question is, is it the offically policy or was it the 'unoffical' policy to torture people. Of course the answer doesn't really matter since its exactly the same thing, and only said one way to cover the butts of higher ranking people when they get caught.