Yesterday night I saw a very interesting but disturbant documentary about a secret U.S. policy of "outscourcing torture". Today I searched on the internet and I found the whole story.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/arti.../050214fa_fact6

The question for debate is the question asked by Maher Arar in the article:

The question for debate is the question asked by Maher Arar in the article:




It's for the same reason as to why we invaded and bombed another country that posed no threat to us. Retrobution is a EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER and there are no rules. Germany experienced that in the 40s. But the main reason is the same as to why we don't assassinate other country leaders. We would not approve the same in return for our leader. It is the same reason as to why we don't approve of supporting terrorism. Even though we may never forget [9-11] it does not mean we have learned anything from it. Torture acomplishes nothing but torture. You don't need truth when all you desire is a victim. Apparently, according to the poll, some people disagree.

This topic was discussed at length on at least two previous threads in this forum:

How much "torture" should a POW be able to receive

and

Torture, We are not above it..., why we need more oversight

Is there a unique aspect of this topic, not previously covered, that is up for debate?

Thanks for pointing out that there already have been discussions about torture on AD in the past.

You asked me if there is a unique aspect of this topic that is up for debate. Of course there is! The past threads were in general discussing the use of torture as an aspect of the war in Iraq. Although torture should always be forbidden, one has to acknowledge the fact that things like torture do occur under the prevailing circumstances of wartime.
This thread is discussing a completely different aspect: the torture of completely innocent and law abiding citizens of different countries. Look at the story of Arar. On what grounds was he deported to Syria for 'questioning'? The answer: the U.S. officials thought that he had possible links with terrorism, because he knew a man whose brother is a possible suspect in terroristic activities. He was never formally charged, was against his will deported to Syria and was tortured to give information that he just didn't have! After one year Arar was released witout charges, no apologies no real explanation. He was just a victim of a secretive program known as "extraordinary rendition", his suffering was based on wrong intelligence.

Torturing innocent people is a despicable act against the basic principles of human rights. The fact that the U.S. plays an active part in this crime, should be cause for major concern and serious questioning.

Why does the U.S. government use torture? Why don't they question possible suspects within the boundary of the law? Does the U.S. have any right to arrest citizens from other countries and deport them to countries were they are being tortured for information? How does the U.S. government use this wrongfully obtained information? When will the American stand up against this dispicable act? Should somebody be held accountable?

These above mentioned questions are only a small selection, and it is clear that this is a really serious issue. At this point I only wanted to focus on the question that was made by the Canadian victim Arar.

When it comes to fighting terrorism, I believe that normal legal ways are inefficient. But looking back to McCarthy and his witch-hunts, I am not sure how any oversight on practices of torture will make our world any safer. I can find many similarities between our time and the McCarthy era and I don't want same things to occur ever again. As of now, I have no trust in the integrity of the US officals and seriously doubt how many people tortured will actually will be terrorists.

Torture is never justified with the possible exception of the ticking time bomb situation. Its prohibition should be a bright line in the legal treatment of detained persons. This administration's willingness to blur that line and play fast and loose with definitions of torture illustrates their own fundamental disregard for human rights. Furthermore, it has been extremely counterproductive. It has helped enrage the Muslim World and has dismayed western peoples. For me this is one of the fundamental indictments of President of the Republican Congress for not investigating the many instances that have been exposed.

I have to preface my answer with a few things. One, I condone physical torture and mental torture in VERY rare cases. And those cases I can clearly delineate. If the torture is of a KNOWN terrorist, who has already caused the death of fellow humans, and the information needed is thought to be known by the terrorist, and this information is required to save lives, then yes, I condone torture. In answer to the above question, sometimes the laws that were designed to protect people from harm, allow that harm to happen because they become a obstacle instead of a path.

Being in the law enforcement field and also a national instructor in several areas of law enforcement, I have heard from many Federal, State and local officers that they feel powerless at times when it comes to questioning some suspects, and I can say I know how they feel. But that is questioning of your common criminal and in no way approaches the level of severity that we are talking about here I hope. And at that level never would I allow or suggest torture. If my son (who is THE most important thing in my life) was being held hostage somewhere, and the man in custody knew where he was, but just refused to tell, I would of course condone torture in that instance. In fact I would volunteer to be the one to do it so no one else had to live with the mental toll it would take on the person doing the torturing. Would you if it was your child? What if the person knew where a nuclear bomb was hidden, and you could save hundereds of thousands by torturing him/her to get the location?

In the realm of Terrorism, remember who you are dealing with. Men and women who are not afraid to die for their cause. They will gladly blow themselves up and take others with them. If we had a terrorist in custody that we KNEW had information on an attack that was scheduled to happen in 24 hours, and was to kill 10,000 Americans, would torture be acceptable? I think so. Because contrary to many I feel that the lives of the many do outweigh the lives of the one or the few. Especially if that life is that of someone who has already shown a total disregard for his fellow man.

What this topic and some others related to it, powers to give law enforcement, equipment they are allowed to use and how and when, and many others that will be other topics of discussion in the time to come, is that if you feel human lives are precious and valuable, are they not precious enough and valuable enough to do whatever you have to in order to save them? Even if that means causing pain or mental anguish to another human? I think it does. What bothers most about torture is not the actual torture itself, but who makes that decision that its OK and to whom? Who do we want to give that kind of power too? Thats the part I think most people have a hard time with, if they are honest with themselves.

If interogators are beyond reasonable certainty that a subject possesses useful knowledge that might mitigate the death(s) of one of our "infidels"..then I say torture the monkey!

If there is even the slightest reasonable doubt, then I say lay off!

However, as we can never be certain of someone's guilt (only have varying degrees of doubt), then sooner or later, someone who is innocent would end up being tortured.

Aside from the general lack of humanity inherent in the practice of torture, there is a very real chance that the innocent end up being tortured, especially in a situation where the need for information is urgent.

(Okay, so it's a premise that turned up in '24' recently.....but it's still valid! )

Well I'll be the morality police and say that I (like international and US law) condemn torture in all its forms unequivocally.

We should never be involved in it simply because it's wrong and unnecessary.

There are thing we as a society should simply condemn as unacceptable.

Terrorism is one and torture is another.

We decry the use of torture when it's not our country doing it; we should expect the same, if not higher standard, from ourselves. I have never understood certain conventions of war; for example, it is okay to shoot to kill our enemies when they are on the ground (whether injured or not) but it's bad form to open fire on an enemy hospital. Torturing enemies seems the same--you can do it and you may profit from it, but it crosses the line in the sand of "human decency."

Because they are hoping to find critical information which suspects might not otherwise be willing to give. A person who is willing to kill himself and take a whole lot of innocent people with them might not respond to questioning under the threat of imprisonment.

On that note, I disapprove of the use of torture and also the rendering of suspects for interrogation. I disapprove because I don't think the marginal gains (if there are any) are worth the cost in moral and political capital. Sun Tzu suggested that the acme of martial skill is to subdue an enemy without fighting him. To do so we need to invest in the mental and moral aspects of war as well as the physical. Employing such tactics as rendering or legal loopholes like Guantanamo place us in a gray area of international law. The further we step into that gray area, the more we cede the moral high ground to our adversaries. It isn't a pragmatic thing to do. You don't win hearts and minds with the slogan, "We don't torture as much as they do!"

Isn't this an intuitive answer? Because people won't respond to "Please tell us where the bombs are hidden." Torture's point is to get confessions. I don't think it will be viable though.

Amnesty USA



So basically, torture is pointless.

Plan B: Question nicely. Will this work for terrorists? Probably no. Terrorists are dumb and devoted to their radical group.

Plan C: Use something harsh enough that isn't torture, something that is just annoying. Like this.

Plan D: Extinguish all of the terrorists before they can do anything.

My favorite? Probably D. No, definetely D.

I'm the guy who voted "Other" so I guess I gotta explain
It all depends on how you define "torture." If it's this ...
... I'm against it.
If it's this ... or this ...
... then I think it may be worth trying, if we really think they're NOT telling us anything we want to hear to get their clothes back.

I think that the second two examples are rather good ideas in terms of interrogation. I think that a good way to interrogate someone is threaten them with torture as a bluff. Also, there are stress situations that may just make someone mentally weak so they will confess. Things like forced standing, no sleep, the simulation of suffocation (link in my post above), etc.

I'm sorry, I can find no justification here for the methods which have been suggested as acceptable by the last two posters.

Threatening to do physical harm to someone (even if you don't really intend to do it) is psychological torture. Stripping a prisoner naked is a classic form of dehumanization used by brutal regimes everywhere. I do not want the government of the nation where I live to be associated with such practices.

Some have suggested scenarios where torture could be used on persons who are known to have information of vital and timely importance. I suggest to you that such situations are much more likely to occur in popular fiction than in real life. Even in such extraordinarily rare situations, the use of torture is at least as likely to result in false information as true information.

I think Victoria Silverwolf is rightfully questioning the information obtained through torture. I dare to state that by far in most cases torture techniques do not result in credible information. Where is the line between telling secret information and just telling everything even lies, to stop the torture practise? The line between information and lies? These questions have direct effects on the way a security agency is fighting international terrorism. It is not hard to suppose that, because of the use of torture, some speculations, made by the intelligence agency, are in fact based on pure fiction. People and other resources are invested to follow a certain lead that is in fact a fabrication. There is a big chance that more innocent people end up in the hands of cruel and calculated intelligence officers.

This whole practise of using other countries to do the dirty work for the U.S. intelligence agencies has to stop immediately. It is a horrible act against human rights and its information obtained is far from being useful or realistic.
Torture is wrong and ineffective, so there is no need to use it in these difficult times.

Then you subject the prisoner to increasingly harsh torture until he provides correct information. If they remain uncooperative, you increase the level of severity until the desired outcome is reached. If the captive remains uncooperative, you make an example of him.



If the methods yield desirable information that could potentially save American lives then I fail to see the problem.



I don't want our government supporting abortion "rights" because I find that practice particularly disdain, too. Your point?

Let's ignore the ethical aspects of this for a moment. Does it seem likely to you that increasing the level of torture somehow increases the accuracy of the information obtained? Some years ago, in a little town called Salem, torture resulted in many people confessing to being guilty of witchcraft. They also provided the "necessary and timely" information that other people in the town were witches. This information was not of a high level of accuracy.

One man was brave enough to endure being pressed to death by heavy stones rather than provide any such information. As you say, they made an example of him. An example of the evil which results when deliberately subjecting our fellow human beings to extreme suffering is considered to be justified by an emergency.



Is subjecting a non-American to extreme suffering worth the chance that it might save the life of an American, when it has been shown that this chance is extremely small? I don't value the interests of my fellow Americans that much more than I do the interests of non-Americans.



My point is simply that I wish to express my opinion on the use of torture by the American government. I certainly support your right to express your opinion on the ethics of abortion as strongly as possible, and to do whatever you can to change the policy of the American government on that issue.

Then, you clearly accept as well the right of foreign powers to torture US citizens, as long as they have a reasonable expectation that such torture could potentially save the lives of their citizens?

One of the primary reasons the West has not condoned any form of torture, is that once you declare that certain forms of torture are acceptable if in the national interest, you allow other nations to make exactly the same argument.


That is entirely putting aside the actual effectiveness of torture, as if you are seeking unverifiable information, there is by definition no way to verify it. A simple rule of thumb with torture is you can always, through torture, eventually force a person to supply an answer, but torture is not at all effective at forcing people to provide a true answer.

Irrelevant. Once the prisoner releases information on a target, we act on the premise of that knowledge being true. If it turns out to be incorrect, than we increase the level of severity or make an example of that prisonner to others who might think about doing the same thing. If the information turns up being correct, then the situation changes.

The situation you're trying to describe has no relevance to the battlefield. In contrast to Salem, we have the ability to verify the accuracy of the information by acting on it. If prisoners want to compromise American lives by proving inaccurate information, they're free to do it and be subjected to the daunting consequences that that will entail, potentially including a painful death.

In other words, if these terrorists are so eager to die for their cause, we should be ready to grant their wishes.



I have no sympathy for the people being subjected to that degree pf punishment because they have no respect for human life in the first place. Anyways, your premise is wrong because it relies on the notion that torture yields minute value, which is not necessarily the case.

My benefits are directly related to the success of the U.S. to pursue her interests effectively, and I'm also a bit of a patriot. People like you who enjoys the freedoms and interests of this country and are not willing to support or fight for them are poor Americans.



If they want to torture our soldiers than they should be willing to accept the perilous consequences that come along with that, saturated bombings and such.



If they want to give up their lives for the pious creeps they serve, so be it. Putting in place strong incentives to give accurate information is sure to yield positive results in not only acquiring information, but in justifying the execution of uncooperative terrorists who seek to undermine the power of the U.S.



Rightfully made an example of him. These terrorists have no respect for the lives of Americans, so why should we have any respect for their lives? Because we're so much better than they are? Please. Fight terror with terror. That's my motto.

You seem pretty quick to condemn Americans actions, and seemingly eager to sympathize with the terrorist cause.

Terrorists actually don't have any rights so i think we're being nice enough.

I'm perfectly fine with torturing terrorists, its either them or fellow americans. I don't want another 9/11, nor any terrorist acts here.

By the way, why haven't I heard any outcries against the "insurgents" beheading their captives?

BUD, you are pretty damn bloodthirsty sitting there typing away in your armchair. You have zero comprehension of the context of interrogation, and a similar complete lack of understanding of the repercussions of torture in a counter-insurgency enviroment, let alone at the level of strategic public diplomacy.

I have said this before, and I even linked to the earlier threads, but given the degree of ignorance displayed, I feel I must repeat myself. I make these statements as a US Army MI professional, with nearly two decades of experience in interview and interrogation.

US militaryinterrogators are NOT torturers - that particular reprehensible art is NOT part of the skill set. Torture is a crime, under both military and international law. If a prisoner dies during the torture, then it becomes murder, with all the potential legal penalties that such a crime deserves.

A professional interrogator - in the US military - not only possesses the language and local knowledge required to begin on a solid basis of cross-cultural understanding, but he also brings into play the skills of psychology and human communication - the cognitive and kinesic forms especially - applied in fusion with detailed current intel on the operational area and ongoing ops as it applies to the source and his suspected affiliations. A professional interrogator is able to manipulate the setting and the conversation to elicit the sought-after information. Not every time - but often enough to matter. This works whether you are dealing with enemy soldiers, insurgents or terrorists. The key variables are the experience of the interrogator and the resilience of the source, but that is a given.

Unfortunately, we do have a critical shortage of people who are proficient in such skills - so that first variable is a problem. But are we to make up for the lack of trained professionals by having amateurs torture prisoners into talking? Should we push our newly minted inexperienced interrogators to commit these acts in the name of expediency, thus twisting their foundation of learning and mentoring them in criminal behavior instead of professional methodology? Such expedient measures threaten to have long-term negative effects - not only upon our standing in the eyes of the world, but upon our ability to collect intelligence in that manner, by diluting the skill sets and twisting the abilities of what is already a greatly shrunken core of professional interrogators. Torture is not an effective method of intelligence collection.

We are Americans. We run the risk of greatly damaging not only our intelligence collection capabilities, but our society, if we begin to accept interrogation methods more representative of the Gestapo or the Cheka.

And lets not bypass the fact that splitting hairs as to the black and white definition of who is eligible to be treated in accordance with the Laws of War is demeaning to us, as a nation. Either we treat prisoners humanely, or we do not. It does not matter what they did or how they did it – they are now our prisoners and we will keep them in custody, and try to obtain the maximum information from them in the minimum possible time. Within the guidelines of the Laws of War. Are the police permitted to abuse or torture child molesters or mass murderers? No. Even though those bottom-feeders of the criminal world certainly deserve brutal treatment just as much as any terrorist. However, we, as a nation, are supposed to represent the highest standards of conduct – this looking for loopholes in prisoner treatment, to me, is repugnant.

There is no appropriate degree of torture. Such practices are utterly and completely wrong; they defile our national reputation and degrade our standing and legitimacy as the representatives of freedom and democracy in the world.

Here's some recommended reading on interrogation:

The Interrogator, by Raymond F. Tolliver. The story of a German Luftwaffe interrogator who interrogated US pilots during WWII. Although there are a few minor instances where methods used go beyond the Laws of War, in general it is an outstanding story of how professional military interrogations are conducted. The importance of intelligence support to the interrogation effort is clearly shown - as the interrogator needs information to get information.

Talking with Victor Charlie, by Sedgwick D. Tourison. A US Army interrogator and Vietnamese linguist, Tourison did multiple tours in Vietnam and describes interrogation at all levels - from battlefield interrogation with infantry units, to theater level interrogations and debriefings at the theater detention facility. Again, the importance of intelligence support is clearly shown - with an emphasis on timely document exploitation to support interrogation operations.

The Spycatcher Omnibus, by Oreste Pinto. Another perspective on interrogation during WWII. LTC Pinto was a counterintelligence officer responsible for conducting interviews and interrogations of refugees from continental Europe as they arrived in England. LTC Pinto dwells in detail on the qualities required of an effective interrogator. As well as providing case studies of individual interrogations, the book also describes in detail an aspect of the war that few consider today.

Mustang:

How would you class those in the British government/military who interrogate alleged or known PIRA suspects [assuming you feel you have a basis for making that call]? Are they as professional as you believe interrogators should be? And what do we do when someone has read and adheres to the Green Book [both I and II]? I ask that in reponse to this:

"A professional interrogator - in the US military - not only possesses the language and local knowledge required to begin on a solid basis of cross-cultural understanding, but he also brings into play the skills of psychology and human communication - the cognitive and kinesic forms especially - applied in fusion with detailed current intel on the operational area and ongoing ops as it applies to the source and his suspected affiliations. A professional interrogator is able to manipulate the setting and the conversation to elicit the sought-after information. Not every time - but often enough to matter. This works whether you are dealing with enemy soldiers, insurgents or terrorists. The key variables are the experience of the interrogator and the resilience of the source, but that is a given."

Not asking that you give away any trade secrets [as it were] or otherwise enlighten some enemy of ours re counter-interrogation techniques, but what do you do when I simply refuse to talk? And by not talking I mean acting as if you and friends are not even in the room. To take the easy example, that of Gerry Adams, maybe I sit there looking at the desk or the chair or whatever, and wonder were it was made, how it was made, what life is like for those who made it, what are their values, what do they eat, how do they raise their children, etc. And, then, of course, if I've been properly trained, my emotional core is that all the right in the world is on my side and none on yours, i.e., my cause is wholly legitimate and yours is wholly illegitimate. And then I also know that if I so much as speak a word, hundreds, thousands, of my mates may wind up like me.

Lastly, can you name any successful counter-insurgency effort that did not include the use of torture? I can't. And on a related note, did they teach that torture is only limited to the gathering of information and cannot serve some other purpose, such as discouraging others from becoming part of the insurgency? I ask that because some seem to think that all this hostility in the Arab and/or Muslim world re Abu Ghraib was solely about torture. It wasn't. It was more about the reality that those doing the torture were white and not Muslim [call them "Crusaders", and as I am sure you can imagine, the use of that word is wholly intentional on the part of some, as it brings to mind certain beliefs and emotions]. Every Muslim government on earth practices torture, but I have yet to see any reaction in the Muslim world that even begins to rival that following the revelations re Abu Ghraib.

Sorry, one more. While we seem to be able to get a veritable plethora of information now, what happens when Osama & Co learn the same lesson as the PIRA and start spending the required time and effort on counter-interrogation techniques? So while we may be having problems with your "first variable" now, it would seem to me that if Osama & Co learn the lesson [and they are not stupid], you will shortly have a greater problem with your "second variable." As you can imagine, I attribute much of the current success in interrogation not to success with respect to the first variable, but to the insurgents' woeful lack of the necessary and oh so critical attention to the second variable.

One more. Talking to the VC? Does the work have a comparison between interrogating your peasant VC farmer and interrogating your hardcore NVA regular?

Kivrot,


You imply that torture was necessary to the successful resolution of the COIN effort. Faulty logic.

In fact, your entire diatribe seems to boil down to a simple statement that torture is necessary.

I will simply state - again - that torture does not result in the collection of reliable intelligence information. Period.

A source untrained in counter-interrogation techniques will say whatever you want when you reach a certain pain threshold - physical, psychological, or a combination. Not a reliable source. A source trained in counter-interrogation techniques (to include those who refuse to spout so much as a monosyllable under normal questioning methods) will state what he wants to when a believable pain threshold is reached. Disinformation or misdirection delivered in a believable manner, under significant duress is far more dangerous when integrated into current ops than than the information from the untrained source simply spitting out what you want to hear.

Not to mention the fact that the use of torture detracts significantly from the legitimacy of the COIN/CT effort. The strategic effects of that cannot be overstated.

Effective interrogation supporting COIN/CT is far more complex and difficult than PW interrogation in a conventional conflict/war of maneuver. To repeat myself yet again, torture does absolutely nothing to facilitate the effective collection of intelligence information in support of that effort. In the long-term, it is counterproductive.

Torture is both morally wrong and operationally ineffective. It is also a war crime and prohibited under international law. I have no respect for anyone who uses or supports the use of such methods.

I find it extremely distressing to find people posting here that actually support the use of torture. Granted if you look at the poll results those who approve are less than 6% of those who answered the poll, but that is only minimal comfort. On the other hand, I find it difficult to accept the argument of those that proclaim that the professional doctrine of the military and the CIA forbids torture. There is too much evidence to the contrary, including training manuals from the School of the Americas (since renamed because of its reputation) which led to these techniques being used by militaries throughout Latin America. This Newsday Article states my case fairly plainly.

I have already answered this type of question in one of the previous topics, but I will go ahead and restate my opinion.

Torture is merely a device of frustration. It is used as an alternative to methods that would actually yield factual results. When the implication of torture is inflicted upon any person, they are forever changed and forever scarred, but the real problem with torture comes with the information gathered via torture. Psychologists, analysts and nearly everyone else agrees that torture leads to nothing but lies, as a person is willing to say anything to prevent/diminish pain.

So, something so useless as torture I cannot condone. It reaps nothing but further tripe for our intelligence community to sift through (if in fact America does used torture in some cases) and leaves the victim a former shell either mentally or physically in even the smallest measurement.

This article backs up what VDemosthenes says.

Link.


Why, if they (see opening post for who) have suspicions, don’t they question people within the boundary of the law?

I think it basically boils down to wickedness, incompetence and a lack of professionalism on behalf of the torturers. The US military has shown itself to be incapable of dealing with the post combat threat of Iraq. The troops in theatre simply don't have the abilities to deal with the mission at hand. They are aggressive, scared and apt to use violence against defenceless prisoners apparently without remorse.

Every so often a soldier (like Fishback) stands up and says something, but these people are the exception to the general rule and are rare. The majority of US troops in Iraq, (and the British also it seems) simply don't understand how to deal with the job they've been given.

They appear to be waging a war against the people of Iraq.

The reason why they don't use methods within the law, is because the US government/military does not have a clear understanding of what the law is. The distinction between illegal and legal torture has been deliberately blurred...

...in order to allow the torture to continue.


editted to add:

The British also appear to have a problem with a lack of leadership and one wonders if this is why the British troops have also been plagued with charges of mistreating prisoners....?

Link.

Is it important for us to, on matter of principle, refrain from performing acts on enemies that we find heinous when those enemies perform the same acts on our people? I believe so.

If it isn't important for us to differentiate our behaviors from those of our enemies, then we should drop the facade of being somehow more honorable, more proper, than those who are fighting us.

Maybe we as a society of television viewers have watched too many "professional wrestling" matches, where the so-called good guys resort to the same types of nasty fighting that the reputed villains do. Maybe we've all gotten a little confused.

But for a country that was allegedly founded on Judeo-Christian values and that gets all hot and bothered about not having the Ten Commandments in courthouses nor the Pledge of Allegiance in the schools, what is so alien about the concept, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Treating our fellow human beings deplorably not only hurts them, it debases us. In addition, it has been amply pointed out that the information extracted during torture is highly unreliable, thereby taking away the most important reason for undertaking torture. What remains is an outlet for mean spiritedness for those who have plenty of spite and hatred.

Proverbs 16:8 (New International Version)

"Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice."

About the lack of outcry for the beheadings? Are you honestly telling me you havent heard an outcry?? Maybe you are talking about certain branches of the media who may have thought it redundant? I know for a fact that there was an outcry amongst conservatives (which is the majority).Try googling it (michael savage, rush limbaugh, etc) .. There is no credibility in your statement. Obviously the beheadings were a deplorable abomination, and many people have said that. I honestly can't understand how you may have missed it. Clearly this displays how little research you have done.

Torture is often seeking information you dont have, which means that the information might not even exit or be known to the person being tortured. Remember often times the person has not had a trial or given the chance to confront the evidence against them in a proper manner and are beign treated with an assumption of guilt.
To me it's of no consequence whether torture is effective or not (although the facts are quite clear that it is ineffective).

Obviously, terrorists do not deserve "rights", but without fair trials, how do you know someone is a terrorist? You can't arbitrarily declare that foreigners shouldn't be tried because you will end up locking up innocent people. Do we know what the standard is for someone to be in Gitmo? Is it on suspicion? Circumstantial evidence? Is it possible that some of the people held there were framed?
For me, going to basic human decency there is no reason to torture anyone. Surely freedom and liberty is powerful enough to endure without having to inflict torture. Only those who are unpatriotic and do not believe in the values of the founders would believe otherwise. The founding fathers even had the vision in the bill of rights to say that cruel and unusual punishments would not be inflicted by the government. So building upon their wisdom, I have enough faith in God that we're secure without torturing anyone.


Leviticus 19:33
" 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him."

Malachi 3:5
"So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty."

Considering the efficiency (or lack there of) of the US justice system, I believe that Military/CIA/NSC intelligence is probably more objective and well investigated than most trials that go to court in the United States. We pick up men/women for suspicion of criminal activity simply based upon eye witness statments, etc in which case many are freed due to their innocence. At least the NSC/CIA know where terrorist camps actually are, our military catches terrorist cells in the act (bomb making, in possession of weapons, etc), or we round up known funders of terrorist activity (i.e. Holy land foundation, etc).

That surely beats rounding up people on the street who "fit a profile"...

Terrorists kept in Guantanamo Bay were found among, cohorting with, or in the act of terrorist actions. If it walks like a duck....

Simply put, these men are trained to not divulge information, and interrogation without some form of depravation is far less effective. During USMC OCS (as I'm sure during all OCS's), we're taught how to handle captivity and interrogation, in which case I'm positive nothing short of torture would be effective.

Is it the most auspicious way to work? Of course not. The problem is that we're not dealing with the 13 year old paper boy down the street. These are men whom have the clear intent on attacking America and Americans, and have done so effectively on numerous occasions in the past decade.

If a little torture garners information that saves American lives, I'm for it. As I've said before, men like me have to exist so that people can type on boards in the comfort of their homes/offices, as the world isn't all peaches and rose petals.

This statement defies any sort of logic. The one (potentially unjust US justice system) does not provide any reason why the other (military justice system) would be any better. Of course, you're welcome to believe this, but you certainly haven't provided any logical reasoning for your belief.



We also picked up people who were given to the US by warlords looking for favor. Many of the prisoners in Gitmo were only released after a year or more; during that time they were subjected to the same deprivations and illegal treatment as people who might be guilty.



Ooooh, yes, men like you! You may have gone through OCS, but you are armchairing this like most of us. I think you ought to read mustang's input on this subject. Unlike you or me, this is his area of expertise, and he has worked it in the field. HumInt seems to be his specialty, yet he disagrees with you, and shows that proper MI doctrine disagrees with you as well.

I can understand someone who believes that last paragraph as it applies to defending our nation from attacks, but it makes no sense to say that it takes men who believe in torturing people to insure my freedoms. No, thanks.

Let me quote Mustang here for your perusal:

Again, QH, it seems as if you're falling off the horse here. Your objectivity is completely non-existent as calling names neither proves nor negates any points.

However, yes, being a Marine (and this is solidly verifiable, as opposed to many claims that people make on these boards! I've given my name/rank/unit to numerous people on this board), I have at least been trained on the opposite end of interrogation and captivity.

There hasn't been one verifiable source that shows that interrogation and physical torture cannot be effective. Yes, we're arm chairing this, and as I said, there hasn't even been one verifiable source negating the idea that torture wouldn't be effective. All we have to use is logic here...

If it is really happening, I ask you, why would the world's most powerful and capable (or nearly) intelligence community employ ineffective tactics? This is ludicrous. I don't really know that torture is necessary, but was trained what to expect and how to deal w/ it. Frankly, I can deduce that sincere prolonged pain or depravation (as stated) could change conviction. If a medicine didn't work, would a doctor continuously prescribe it? If it isn't happening, why are we discussing it and calling the people in Guantanamo Bay names? Neither makes much sense.

Isn't that at least logical? QH, I'm sorry, but war isn't about the ACLU and helping the "unpretty people" of the world in a manner pleasing to Rev Sharpton. Al Qaeda has proven that without force, they will attack American interests repeatedly. (Do we need links?..USS Cole, the Embassy Bombings, the Barracks in Saudi, WTC bombing, and of course 9/11)

Leaving your idea that we get our prisoners from warlords and at random alone (as it's unproven and non-objective), I believe that if these men and women prove that they have nothing to hide and are of no use/threat to us, the expense and hassle alone would give us no reason to keep them, right? That makes sense, doesn't it?

However... people that actually do work in the field, as opposed to speaking about it on AD have chosen to keep people in Gitmo, and if they're being tortured it's because I'm sure it's effective. You wouldn't argue which wrench a plumber should use on your plumbing, would you?

As for your reference to men torturing people to ensure your freedom... the reality is that men do things that most Americans often would never deem possible or civil to ensure that we call can sit and type on the computer in our heated/ac offices and homes. It's true. Just a fact...Being in the military while also carrying on a civilian career gives me a vantage point that most do not enjoy. I understand that you believe that there should be a sense of decency that people employ, but the fact is that there are people like Milosevic or Bin Laden on the planet whom have little regard for human life; in which case sometimes the protocol needs to be changed.

A man named Robert Morrison once said "to do what ought to be done, but would not have been done unless I did it, I thought to be my duty"... some men actually live by this rule.

Aevans, you are not the only person here who has had some military service; so contrary to what you may or may not believe, you are NOT singularly qualified to pontificate. Our opinions do actually carry some weight because trained or not, we all use the same process to arrive at our own conclusions, reason. Well, most of us do...



Now this is an interesting observation? What makes Quarkhead unobjective, besides his opinion? Am I unobjective? Howabout Mustang, or anyone else that disagrees with you? Are you operating on the determination that anyone who comes to different conclusions than yourself lacks objectivity, or that we're just plain wrong so that there must be something wrong with our thought-process? Just what is it that fueled this particular insight?



Logic in the utter absense of facts is not logic. One cannot deduce from sheer speculation. What you have is a belief, and if there are no FACTS supporting it then it is one based on faith, not logic. That is not to say that it is irrational, but a belief can be rational and at the same time completely wrong.

Of course, the above is moot if there are facts that we can consider.





Now these are not academic studies, and they are not publicly disclosed accounts. Such accounts don't exist in the nebulous world of military intervention. However, the fact is that in THIS discussion there is not one person who has actually demonstrated or witnessed the efficacy of torture. At the same time, you have not provided a single source or witness claiming that torture is effective based on their own experiences, either as interrogater or commander. You have not managed to find anyone who can make a strong case for torture, or who has used torture effectively, nor a single example of torture being used in a way that saved American lives.

All you seem to be operating on is your own self-informed view of human nature. That's logic? All you have done is defer to authority. And as DaVinci tells us, Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

Oh... for your consideration. You know that whole bomb-scare thing in New York over the weekend? Turns out it was a hoax. Now, was the informant in question tortured? Of course we'll never know; but one thing is clear: there are definite flaws in the intelligence apparatus of the United States. The repeated failures (WMD, Bin Laden, the recent NYC hoax, the frequent terror alerts, etc.,) demonstrate that there are flaws in the process, and in all likelihood the people involved. So I can't help but wonder why you place such unwavering faith in the opinions of some of those people?

I don't recall any name-calling. Which horse am I falling off of? I am completely unobjective? That's a pretty strong statement. You may question whether Mustang is actually a military intelligence specialist. His various posts on this forum have certainly convinced most of us. Yet unlike you, he must be lying?

Perhaps you should ask former POW John McCain's view of the efficacy of torture. Here's part of his letter to the president concerning his recent amendment:


Here's some information gathered by Anne Applebaum, columnist with the Washington Post:


Even if torture were effective, it would still be illegal and immoral. That is my unobjective opinion, one backed up by a firm majority of people and governments.



Speaking of ludicrous, your logic with this argument makes no sense. I can think of any number of reasons why. Can't you? Let's see... civilians in charge of military regulations... civilians who are swayed by arguments like yours... there's plenty more.



Wait, I thought all war was about "helping the "unpretty people" of the world in a manner pleasing to Rev Sharpton!" Is this really what you make of my argument? Your next sentence reminds me of the old joke - a guy is drawing chalk lines on a London sidewalk. Someone asks him what he's doing. "I'm keeping the lions out of Britain," the man replies. "You idiot! There are no lions in Britain!" The man smiles and says, "see? It's working."



Yes, teacher, teach me! No suprise, I disagree. Your statement assumes that our military engagements have always been about defending our homeland. That is demonstrably untrue.

[begin irony]Being a Zen Buddhist while carrying on a civilian career also gives me a vantage point most do not enjoy. I don't expect you to understand, but I know the cause of suffering, and its answer does not lie in your 'big stick' philosophy.[end irony]

I leave you with the words of General Smedley Butler of your own Marine Corps - a man who was the most decorated soldier in an American uniform at the time, who was the commander of the Marine Corps school:

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months In active service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from a second lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical of everyone in the military service.

Thus I, helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 191G. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

And you think much has really changed? Sorry. Maybe my Zen practice allows me to see the big picture you are missing.

When I started this thread I wasn't aiming at the treatment of prisoners of War in Abu Graib, justification of torture or anything else related to war. (Although I must admit I have read some really interesting posts about these subejcts.)

I think I maybe didn't express myself in the right way (maybe that poll I put up there did confuse some people ) I was focussing on another part of the WoT, not the War in Iraq. I was focussing on the fact that the U.S. government take suspects of terrorism into custody and than transports them to countries with brutal regimes like Syria to have them interrogated/tortured for information. What is your opinion on that fact? I am curious

Here is the story again:

It is a means of passing the buck so that enemy combatants or suspected terrorists can be tortured without the United States looking like the bad guy. It's like a kid at school who gets his brother to fight his battles and doesn't much care about the way his brother does it.

I don't like it. It may appear that our hands are clean when our government does that, but it is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to practices that even our President is on record for condemning. It is hypocrisy.

I personally think that these practises are a clear example of moral decay of U.S. politics. Where are the outcries in the media? Where are the outcries here on this board? This is kidnapping totally innocent people from different nationalities and subjecting them to horrible practises. How can it be that the U.S. people are not worried sick about these oppressive practises that are performed in your name? If the Dutch government would do things like this, you can bet all your money on the fact that they will be impeached!!!! This is an unbelievable act against humanity and I for one would like to see Bush Jr. explain his role in this case before an international or national commitee.

P.S. Am I not talking about torture in Iraq. Although I abhor those acts performed in Abu Graib, I do view the use of torture or other form of degradation, when erformed in times of war, in a slightly different light than the abduction and torture of complete innocent travelers, when they have arrived in the U.S!

Who is being kidnapped? Who is innocent? Who is being tortured?

The problem you have (among others) is that none of this can be backed up by any reputable source. So your outcries fall on mostly deaf ears. The only proof we have of anything of the like is Abu Graib, but this behavior while completely out of line and inappropriate, was not torture. Yet there was a large outcry over these acts in the U.S.

We've heard false reports after false reports throughout this war. No one is going to get worked up over more suspect reports. Evidence is necessary.

I was under the impression that this topic concerned the theoretical use of torture. I do not believe the United States is using, condoning, or in any way aiding in torturing terrorist suspects. If you wish to prove me wrong, please do so with credible evidence.

Goldblum


You have to be kidding! These incidents are now well documented and they do amount to torture by any reasonable definition. Here are few readily available examples: Human Rights Watch Report on Fishback Testimony, NYT Article on Bagram, and Human Rights Watch Report on Renditions to Egypt. A number of carefully researched books have been written on the subject. I have two of them on my desk: Chain of Command by the preeminent investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh and Torture and Truth by Mark Danner 3/4th of which consists of source material.

The latest information came from Captain Fishback of the 82nd Airborne documented above in the HRW report and told in his own words in this letter to Senator McCain. See
Fishback Letter to McCain.



The Fishback information prompted the McCain Amendment that passed the Senate by a vote of 90-8 but which in threatened in the conference committee with the House.

I, too, thought the debate was about the theoretical use of torure but "by the United States". I already knew about the exported prisoners to less moral regimes and, of course, detest it.

I selected the fourth option "other, please explain" or whatever.

I was aware of a FBI study about the ineffectiveness of torture but cannot find it at the moment. Clearly the CIA, being in another world, hadn't gotten that memo.

I agree with John McCain in every detail and would like to highlight what, to me, is the most important. When our government tortures prisoners or condones torture it puts our future soldiers at risk of horrible violence. There is a long history of retribution during wartime for perceived atrocities and not always at the hands of the original victims. In WWII our soldiers were none-too-kind to German soldiers after the Bulge mainly because of the stories of the German's many unkindnesses.

However, I think that there must be a modern method of "torture" that combines deprivation (the onle real torturous part), questioning and data gathering of biological functions in order to find the truth in the haystack.

Did you, by any chance, read the link I provided in my original post?

Just to quote a few things in case you missed it:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/arti.../050214fa_fact6


* Syria one of the most evil states in the world, according to Bush? Probably the next target in the WoT? If this isn't hypocracy I don't know what is! Why would Syria want to help the U.S.? What deals have been made? Questions, questions that will lead probably to more dirty secrets.

It is the shadow side of the war. Cheney warned you about it years ago.



The question is not to proove that the U.S. is using, condoning, or in any way aiding in torturing terrorist suspects. There a plenty of sources (thanks TedN5 ) that link the U.S. with torture practises.

The real question is, when will the people in U.S. stand up against these crimes committed in their name? What could you do to prevent this from happening?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Tacitus

( Translation for people who don't know Latin: "They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." )

I defintely do not outright support the idea of torture but in some specific cases i think if it is necesary then do what is needed. I know that sounds harsh but if there is some specific information that is needed to save lives and protect people from terrorists then i think it should happen. Honestly, I think it happens more than we care to recognize or acknowledge.

True enough, security is important. But if you think the "War on Terror" can be won with intelligance agencies and their secret facilities, I would say that you watch too much Hollywood. This war, like any in history, is caused by economic reasons and economic reasons only. If the third world was not in such poverty, there would not be these terrorist activities.

All this aside, this policy is horrifying anyway. It is against all law and justice stand for.

I do not condone of it, if for no other reason because it simply unethical. Harsh questioning? Yes. Sleep deprivation? Sure. Outright physical torture? No. We are not a nation of barbarians and recidivists. We should take care to tread the narrow path of the Ethical Man, if only to show that it can be done, and that We are not Them.

I would expand on this, but am under unfortunate time constraints today. My apologies.

I voted "other"

my views:

Unacceptable:

sleep deprivation, food/water deprivation, forced ingestion of toxic chemicals, forced physical exertion to exhaustion, induced pain, sexual humiliation....


With the possible exception of deep-cover CIA operatives whose lives are at stake unless they torture a terrorist who betrayed the cause in front of the other members of the cell.

Things which are acceptable, after a military tribunal or other such legal method is used to approve them:

Using physical force to intimidate or move a prisoner: I.E Kicking his legs away while he's sitting in a chair, slapping his face, forcing him to sit and stand a few times to gain mental advantage over him.

Shining really bright lights in his face
Walking him past actors pretending to be tortured or to have been tortured
Playing with his sleep and meals schedule, as long as a baseline measurement is still met.
Truth Drugs.
Threatening him with torture.
denying him outside contact, with the possible expection of written-only, one-way, monitored contact with an attorney. (The prisoner can send, but he can't recieve)
Solitary Confinement.

Extraditing him to a country known to use torture, if that country has a valid claim on that person.

Executing him in very humilitating manners. (once an order of execution has legally been given)

I voted for in some cases I could agree with the use of torture. I feel its paramount to gain information on terrorism, information and its application are the lifeblood of how a covert entity like terrorism survives. Learning on how they communicate or even structure could be of awesome benefit. Plus, if you do find a person that is without a doubt connected, and agrees with what terrorists do, I think you at that point surrender your rights as a “human being” basically.

Be it an issue of ignorance of humans and there environment, or my Darwinist thinking if you will, the bottom line is people that are terrorists of this time want to cause much death and destruction. Even with the U.S pouring money into Afghanistan or any other related issue to aid in civil matters I feel many of there people have grown beyond reason and simply care to only conduct there manifest destiny if you will.

If people say Osama Bin Laden tomorrow on T.V captured, and you learned that the person had been tortured, would it truly bother you to some great extent, being the rest of the mans natural life will be one of confinement and basically a form of torture.

So that is my stance. I do not advocate torture simply just because you can, but in some cases, more so when the target is truthfully identified as a terrorist, and will not cooperate, I do not disagree with means of gaining intelligence, be it low intensity or high intensity. Even if it only works sometimes, being if it did not work period it would never receive use, it could be instrumental in so many ways, and I will stop from giving examples, but just think of another attack and the lives it will ruin, did those people care about that?