Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

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.

In terms of the definitions accepted by most civil societies and explicitly stated in the Geneva Conventions, I think the act of torture has been used by the administration.

It is very difficult, however, to argue that the U.S. does not torture. As has been mentioned, most of the interrogation methods used are secret, and by Executive Privilege(as nebulous a legal principle as any), are completely shielded from congressional or judicial review.

One can only argue that the common definitions of torture are too strict, and there isn't a lot of room to argue on that point without getting into meaningless hypothetical cases.

I think torture should be strictly defined for just this reason. It is far better to quench the temptation to use violent or abusive interrogation techniques than to deal with the grave consequences of not doing so.

Like you said torture is clearly defined. The only people argueing that the common definitions of torture is to strict, are the ones who wish to use torture. Even if it may only just be a bit, and for good reason.

Even if you have no plans on killing someone, if you abuse them to the point where they think you will kill them, that is torture. If you yell at someone and say, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That might be a grey area. If you stick a gun into their mouth and yell, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That is torture, even if the gun is not loaded and you have no plans on killing them.

Originally Posted by Alric

Like you said torture is clearly defined. The only people argueing that the common definitions of torture is to strict, are the ones who wish to use torture. Even if it may only just be a bit, and for good reason.

That is not true. Many people support the current techniques but are against smashing their testicles with hammers and putting their faces in fire ant beds.

Originally Posted by Alric

Even if you have no plans on killing someone, if you abuse them to the point where they think you will kill them, that is torture. If you yell at someone and say, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That might be a grey area. If you stick a gun into their mouth and yell, "Tell us what you know or we will kill you!" That is torture, even if the gun is not loaded and you have no plans on killing them.

As I said, that would be torturous for a person that has no way out of it. It is not torture for somebody who only has to stop being evil for a moment and reveal the very important information he has no right to hide. If he refuses to stop being evil and deals with horror, he is responsible for it. What we do is legitimate. From there, it is a matter of what he does to himself. It is not like he has no choice but to withhold the information about mass killings.

Thats when people start lying just to have it stop. Which doesn't really help anyone and a big reason some people don't support torture even though they have no problems with harming others. Of course the other way of thinking is that no matter what they did they are still human and do to that stuff to any human is wrong.

Either way torture is torture. Which is what this topic is about. There is no trying to spin it, that they are doing it to themself or they deserve it. Its about what we do and they should be upfront with it. If they think they are right, they have nothing to hide.