On C-span this morning they were taking calls in response to a newspaper article concerning torture. The premise was, if you had a terrorist in custody and were certain that they had reliable information about an upcoming terrorist attack, should we use some forms of torture to extract that information and possibly save hundreds or thousands of lives?

They had calls from the left and the right, and even low earth orbit in my opinion

Just wondering what everyone thinks, what is the cost of securing our populace?

To me i support the use of torture in this type of case. They have the infomation you need, to stop another attack. I support torture because it can help prevent another attack by these so called islamic jihad-ish
. If we use a form of torture it can prove to terrorist that america wont stand their lying and hatred.

Absolutely not. While there are admittedly unpleasant things that must be done in the course of governance and warfare, deliberately choosing to use torture on a human being is a base and frightening prospect. Imagine for a moment the person who is given the job of torturing. What are these actions doing to him, to his conscience, to his senses? Could anyone here find it in themselves to torture someone in your power in order to obtain information, even if that information could save lives?

Does the means justify the ends? To me the act of torture is so inimical to being human. What if we could obtain the information by raping a woman? What if the person witholding the information is a child?

I recognize that security is important, but I still cannot endorse torture, because torture will and can never be an abstract "means" to the end of information. It is always a simply brutal physical act which has to be perpetrated by a human being onto another.

Well quarkhead, you might want to sit down, I'm closer to your line of thought than you might think

BUT, I think the argument remains, does is the pain of one person, especially if that person is certifiably a terrorist, worth the lives of possibly thousands?
What if loved ones or family were among the victims of an act that we may have been able to gather intelligence on by means of torture?

I don't believe in torture for tortures sake as many countries do. But neither do I believe in reading him his miranda rights and hoping for the best.

I see your point. But regardless WE need an EFFECTIVE way to get this type information out. Say a bomber is about to hit the white house, but a stupid terrorist in Cuba knew about the atatck. If their is no way to get it out of him,then 50-60 people could die in the white house, causing the people of america to suddenly go into anarchy.. (Although that wont happen cause we have a VP }. Yes this torture will be hard to do because of the moral aspects of this Point Of View. But if their is another way...Im all EARS

My question is: Is torture truly an effective means of obtaining accurate information?

To me yes. Although i know some terrorist may withhold the information to death i believe it will be very effective. Most terrorist want to "live" their lives, not suffer and for that they will give the information

Amnesty International and other groups like it will say that it is not, but they are not in the military intelligence business.

My sources thru the grapevine tell me that it is about 70% effective, but not consistent. Any intel gathered by means of torture has to be corroborated with other sources to make it valid in the eyes of analysts.

When people think of torture they picture drill bits in the thighs or needles under finger nails. Modern toture is more like chaining someone into a very uncofortable position and leaving them there. Denying them sleep is a popular one.

I think that if we were to support torture our government would abuse it like everything else. You throw this possibility into the mix with holding Americans without trial and the TIA and that's a scary brew.

Plus, I'm sure the torture methods would be part of GWB's "super top secret for my eye's only" files. That's not acceptable.

We can't let terrorism force us to be less civilized.

Truth drugs

They don't work worth a d#@*

So, there is no permanent damage? How can we insure that the people assigned to administer the torture don't get carried away with their emotions? It just doesn't seem like a good idea.

'Interrogation' is always carried out by teams of 2 to 3 people, and are observed by additional intelligence people. Think police station rooms with the two way mirror, etc....
There's even the good cop, bad cop routine.

There are measures in place to make sure things aren't pushed beyond the level that's required, but as with anything, they are human, so anything theoretically is possible.

There's never going to be what we call a 100% solution with this type of activity. But I just wonder if it is worth the risk in some cases.............

Absolutely not.

First of all, we are dealing with people who probably would find glory in being tortured for their cause and more glory for keeping the beans.

I also think this is a thing that could get out of hand. When we get used to the idea of using it on terrorists, when we are desensitized to it, what will keep that from spanning to other crimes? Horrible ones at first, sure, like murder, rape and such... but eventually the practice is not "taboo" and there will be NO reason not to use it for other stuff.

Another thing to ask is what would be "torture"? Sleep deprivation doesn't seem to evil... but what else? If that doesn't work, chaining in an uncomfortable position doesn't work, then what? Razor blades and glass tubes? Nails and needles? Regular beatings?

I think this is a road best not gone down. Sure, it may save some lives... but so would a lot of things that the American Public wouldn't stand for. (I'll end that there so as not to go off on a tangent.)

This is scary having even been brought up. If we are hearing about this, what else is going on or wanting to go on that we don't know about?

This is exactly how I feel about it too. I think the path that this is taking is a dangerous one. Not just for enemy combatants but eventually for ourselves. If the government can get away with it in this case I'm sure there will be other scenerios that they will feel justified in using torture. And since we have already set a precedent of allowing it we will have a much harder time stopping it from occuring when we think it's gone too far.

Personally, I would rather be the good guys.

These are really good points Madmax.

Also, we don't believe that it is okay to torture our own criminals, and any evidence that is extracted that way, as I understand it, isn't valid in a court of law. Why is this suddenly okay when the prisoner is not American? Do our ethics not extend beyond our own people?

Good point Cyan.

Someone brought up "Truth drugs". Our government has persued this since the 40's or so. I think it was William "Wild Bill" Donovan (a founder of the Army's Special Forces) was tasked with finding something like this.

The MK Ultra program with LSD-25 was their biggest hope but that got out of hand. They tested unsuspecting civillians, mental patients and soldiers as wellas eachother. AND there's no documented end to the program.

I think it was called "Project Artichoke". The US Army and Wild Bill found that running an IV into each arm was best. One would drip sleep inducing drugs and the other would pump in amphetemines. By keeping the suspect on the brink of sleep for days on end... well.

The problem with torture is that the legitimacy of testimony given by one who has been tortured becomes disputable. Torture is an excruciating form of coercion that demands a desired response from the suspect who is in no position to respond otherwise without the consequence of experiencing pain. We have no assurance if the person being tortured is telling the truth or if they are merely giving an answer to satisfy the torturer.

Sleep deprivation also has its faults. Those who are lacking sleep experience hallucinations, are disorientated with their surroundings and are highly susceptible to suggestions. By putting someone in a half-conscience trance you can easily extract any statement out of them with out them being fully aware of what they are saying.

Torture is stylized form of unusual punishment for the purpose of making someone guilty with out any substantial evidence or facts that link the accused to the crime. In other words, the accused is forced to link themself to the evidence. For those who think torture is a valid option I ask you, is it truth you are after or is it just retribution?

with enough deprivation of sleep I can get you to swear up and down, left and right on your mother's life that you shot JFK, and make you insist anything else is an absolute lie.

confessions extracted under torture are not very reliable, as LoraX has pointed out, they are often given to end the torture.

I'd use torture in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, specifically Truth Drugs because since Pakistan had to blab out his name at the arrest, the people connected to him are scattering like ants to get as far from the U.S. reach as possible, so TRUTH DRUGS will get the info quicker so arrests can be made before Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's contacts scatter

[QUOTE]

Are you saying that we already use this tactic?

Your post definitely reads that way, although I'm not sure that's what you meant.

A retired military guy was on TV last night discussing this issue. He was adamant that the US does not use torture and that we would not permit the torture by others of someone we had in custody. He also said there were no semantics in play about who's custody someone was in.

I was surprised about how adamant he was at first, to the point where I thought 'he doth protest too much'. But then it became clear. During his military career he was both an 'interogator' AND a POW. Without ever having to say it you knew his fervor was because he did not want our own prisoners tortured.

Yes, see the link in my signature about violating human rights? It's from the story that relates to this thread.

I find that last sentence particularly disturbing. We can't protect our people by just hoping that a terrorist is telling the truth. The gov't needs to do anything to make sure another Sept. 11th doesn't happen again, even if it means torturing homicidal maniacs.

CP

How do you define anything? What happens if the government apprehends someone that DOESN'T have that sort of knowledge? More importantly, if a conflict has a good side and a bad side, what does it mean when both begin employing the same tactics?

These are people that commit suicide bombings. They have no fear of dying...as was pointed out before they will most likely tell their captors what they think they want to know and not the truth...that's if they tell them anything at all.

I agree that it's probably just for retribution that we even consider doing it.

To answer your first question, we would only use torture as a measure for people we know are terrorists, second, our service men and women already get tortured , it won't be anything new if we start doing it.

CP

We probably won't kill them, unless nessesary. but we will inflict enough pain to umm, persuade them to talk. The problem with this is, I see no downside to it, even though I am Catholic, and it does seem cruel and unusual, these are terrorist, we are not dealing with innocent people.

CP

And how would you know they were terrorists for sure. We can call anyone a terrorist but it doesn't make it true. It isn't like these guys get fair trials or anything.

I wonder if you have ever read our Constitution? Are you sure you're an American? I'm starting to wonder.

You almost sound like you would be anticipating it with joy. And don't worry about being Catholic. The President is religious too...Don't you love how Christianity is the religion of peace and love...not to mention morality.

Okay, I'll start with the relevant question, which is a good one. With our gov't and intelligence, we can tell who is who. Also, as I said, we just aren't going to go torture everyone we think is a terrorist. Now to the other question, have I read the Constitution, yes, I have, also I am very American, born an bred, that is why I believe in protecting my country by any means nessesary.

CP

That's why you need to use Truth Drugs.

Danya Posted: Mar 4 2003, 05:34 PM


Obvisously this Khalid Shaikh Mohammed guys is a terrorist because he works for Al-Queda & he planned the attacks on 9/11

As has been stated earlier torture is not an effective method of extracting reliable information. So I ask you again, why? And I want to repeat my earlier question:

More importantly, if a conflict has a good side and a bad side, what does it mean when both begin employing the same tactics?

I'm assuming this is your response:



Are you honestly suggesting that since they do it we should as well? Should we start attacking civilian populations to terrorize them? THAT's nothing new. Please reconsider my question.

That isn't at all what I said, I said that our servicemen and women get tortured to respond to Danya's statement before.

CP

Conservpat - please clarify something here. The original premise of this thread was torture of any suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists.

Do you advocate the torture of potential terrorists and convicted terrorists or only convicted terrorists?

goamerica- you keep advocating the use of "truth drugs." Did you happen to read Roy's post from January 13, 2003?

I would be interested to hear your response to this.

Ah, personal religion attacks. Maybe if you would like, you can open a thread about that.

To answer Jaime's question, I am in favor of torture on people that our intelligence agencies can prove are terrorists, however, this does not mean try them.

CP

Ok, there are two things I don't understand about your position conservpat, please explain.

WHY torture suspects? As has been said earlier it is not necessarily effective at extracting information.

SUSPECTS or CONVICTED terrorists. You say that you'd support torturing people "proven" by intelligence (again ignoring the issue of why) yet you fail to specify a system for proving. Intelligence can be wrong. It must be interrogated and challenged... kind of like a trial explores and challenges evidence.

As to why, why not, we have tried traditional interrogations, and to my knowledge haven't had much success. As for a method for gathering intelligence, we already have one! Let the one we have work, and try to get info from highly suspected terrorists by any means nessesary. Why don't you think that is what we should do?

CP

Just about every part of that post seems illogical to me...



I didn't realize you were a member of the intelligence community.



This again completely fails to adress the point I made. You said that the US should

Yet you don't adress the process for proving this. Gathering intelligence and PROVING something are ENTIRELY different. That is what a trial is for. The evidence (or intelligence) is gone over and evaluated to see if it PROVES that a crime was committed.



Ok, if torture doesn't work, and you risk torturing people who are innocent, then WHY NOT is a grossly insufficient justification. Since torture is an affirmative position the burden rests on you to provide a justification.

First off, I said "TO MY KNOWLEDGE!". Also, saying that we already have a method of intelligence gathering, and to use completely answers the question of how to gather evidence. Third, a trial would only prolong the oppertunity for terrorists linked to the one being tried to carry out an attack. Now that I have answered all of your questions, answer mine please. Why are you against doing all means to stop terrorists from killing people.

CP

I finally get it. Might makes right- always. I am so glad we don't live in a world where everyone feels this way because it would be a miserable place.

The kind of country you seem to want to make America into already existed in Afghanistan under the Taliban. I'm sure there are quite a few more places just like it sprinkled around the globe if you are really for that kind of thing...but please stop trying to ruin America for the rest of us...I happen to like my human rights and they seem to be shrinking fast enough with out this kind of ranting and raving about torturing people and killing them on the blind trust that our government would never ever abuse all that power. Some of you guys are like talking to a brick wall.

Danya, don't ever tell me I believe in what the Taliban believes in. And other than making blanket statements what exactly did your last statement add to the discussion. My point is simple, protect AMericans by any mean nessesary. And as for ruining America for the rest of us, I'm flattered, to say that I have that much influence is laughable.

CP

You really need to stop mischaracterizing my arguments and just ADRESS what I am saying. Here, I am going to provide one sentence summarizing PART of my reason. Lets see if you can respond to it:

torturing people is a bad idea because it isn't a reliable way of extracting information.

My feeling is that we need to, as I've said protect the AMerican people by all means nessesary, with that said, in responce to your arguement, you never know, we might stop the next OBL by torturing him until he talks, you just never know.

CP

If torture is a bad method of extracting information how does it help to protect Americans?

All I'm saying is that we may be able to torture some info out of some body, maybe not a lot, but hey, it'll save Americans. I also am not saying that the other methods don't work, but if they don't torture is the way to go.

CP

You don't seem at all concerned about the quality of information extracted through torture. So as long as something is beat out of them to satisfy the inqusitioner. It is an unscientific method that only stimulates a response out of despair. Obtaining a confession from someone who is trying to plead their way out of torment gives no merit to validate a statement as being true. By your argument, CP, if no other method delivers then torture becomes a legitimate exercise. If it is not for retribution due to investigative failure, perhaps then it is for pleasure? Because then it is not truth, fact or proof you are after.

Forgive me if this is a repeat. Iposted similar in another thread and I think it was closed.

A retired military guy was interviewed over the weekend and was adamant that we do not use torture tactics. At first I was surprised by his ardor. I even thought that maybe he 'doth protest too much'. He also insisted this was true even if another country was assisting in the questioning.

I finally understood his passionate denial. He had been both an interrogator and a POW in his military career. Without ever saying so, he was hoping to insure that our own POWs never faced torture.

Now, how you define torture is another issue altogether.