Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Military coup in Thailand.

Bummer.

:shock:

eta: more -- T.S.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by nononono
An exception is policy. Or did I miss the argument that we should make torture routine for everyone we would like to give us information, as a first resort?

How much "torture" do we do, anyway? And is that "torture" defined as any physical contact, or only less debatable and debated conduct? Screw the sensationalized examples of people who were hurt, or the lawsuits from those who can feel the pea beneath the cell mattress. Other than for moral/legal debate/resolution, how big of a problem is this?

There is legislation pending. The administration apparently feels this is enough of a problem that it wants to legalize torture and exempt interrogators from threat of prosecution.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that if any of these things were to happen to one of our soldiers, we would consider it torture: [list=1][*] The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.[*] Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.[*] The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.[*] Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions. (this was a favortire of the Soviets. All one has to do is give in, and the pain stops. After about 48 hours crippling injuries occur. Somewhere in the 72-98 hour range the subject dies.) [*] The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.[*] Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.[/list=1]

There's an interesting discussion over at Making Light. Terry Karney in the comments is the army interrogator guy I know.

To some extent, of course, it depends on the context.

I'd say that Nos. 1 and 2 aren't torture, in isolation. (e.g. I don't think my parents ever "tortured" me.)

No. 3, in moderation, is not torture -- a mere beating is not, technically, torture.

Nos. 4 and 5 become torture after indeterminate periods of time.

No. 6 is torture.

S_A_M

[nononono]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There is legislation pending. The administration apparently feels this is enough of a problem that it wants to legalize torture and exempt interrogators from threat of prosecution.

There are all kinds of reasons to pass legislation, not the least of which may be an attempt to preempt legislation running the other direction. I'm trying to understand whether this is all about 5 people caught in the crossfire + media, or whether we're running out of control, torturing innocents willy-nilly.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm attacking your other point- that it doesn't work. Arguments are often best attacked from the side. Once we all agree it works, then we can discuss your other concerns.

I never said it doesn't work, only that it's savage and depraved. Although I will point out that it's amazing how many of the conversos still practiced behind closed doors. I'm pretty sure the false confession scenario so common on Death Row is also a fairly good example of how even modest coercion produces not so much truth, as what the interrogator wants to hear.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hamdan said Geneva applies. The President wants clarity to comply with the judiciary.

However, if the President didn't seek to comply with Hamdan, all of you would be in a uproar about how the Executive is ignoring an express direction from the judiciary.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. You guys sound utterly ridiculous.

And you sound like an apologist. (Though my view is admittedly shaped by my knowledge of your pro-torture stance.)

There is a thick, detailed Army Manual telling interrogators how to comply with the Geneva Conventions. How is it unclear?

In the context of a situation in which -- unless my memory is mistaken -- one of the Administration's initial positions was to seek a simple "carve-out"/exemption for CIA/civilian interrogators, their motivation is pretty obvious.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hamdan said Geneva applies. The President wants clarity to comply with the judiciary.

However, if the President didn't seek to comply with Hamdan, all of you would be in a uproar about how the Executive is ignoring an express direction from the judiciary.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. You guys sound utterly ridiculous.

You're trying to read between the lines. There isn't anything between the lines. We're just saying that torture is stupid, vicious, and debasing to all Americans.

If that sounds utterly ridiculous, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
-- but not very effective in elliciting specific information, such as names, dates, and places. I challenge you to provide information that indicates that torture produces reliable interrogation results.

Every book I have read about underground movements during the Nazi occupation implied that if the SS caught you, it was guranteed you gave up names.

There was a Dutch resister, whose name escapes me, who didn't give up any names to the SS and he was considered unbelievably strong. The basic rule was that if you knew someone who was captured, time to disappear.

When my father was stationed in Berlin during the fifties, the KGB would stick western agents feet into the smelting kiln at the local steel works in East Berlin. My father said it worked every time. Any information the agent had was considered in the KGBs hands after that.

I think the refrain about torture not working is just wishful thinking. It would be nice if it didn't work, then there would be no temptation to do it and it wouldn't be an issue. But unfortunately the real world does not work that way.

In the real world, the tough decision = no torture (or rough interrogations)then it is harder to find other secret operativess. If we employ torture then we find out more secret operatives and foil more terrorist plots.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How hard can a slap be? Take a pro football lineman. Let him slap away. There's a player getting that every sunday, 60+ times.

If chain a fellow to the ceiling and have at him with open hands for a while, singly or in shifts, it could rise to the level of torture.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
To some extent, of course, it depends on the context.

I'd say that Nos. 1 and 2 aren't torture, in isolation. (e.g. I don't think my parents ever "tortured" me.)

No. 3, in moderation, is not torture -- a mere beating is not, technically, torture.

Nos. 4 and 5 become torture after indeterminate periods of time.

No. 6 is torture.

S_A_M

To me 2-6 are torture. Any time you physically abuse the prisoner= torture.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Rich Lowry

You're going with "but they do it, too," as your best argument? I don't buy it from my 10 year old, either.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
torturing innocents willy-nilly.

I do this everday on the board. Much more effectively now that I have found smilies. Lucky for me, the moderators seem to tolerate torture. :bounce:

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the head chop off? the prisioner is filmed having his head chopped off.

I guess there are a lot of people emploing the same debate technique as my son today.

You should all be very proud.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
We're just saying that torture is stupid, vicious, and debasing to all Americans.

I agree with this except for the stupid part. But is it worth being vicious and debasing to all Americans if it will save innocent lives?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the issue of torture, I think we are getting sidetracked. The debate comes down to this.

1) I think it is obvious that our use of torture, and the fact that it has been made public, is hurting our image and our struggle for hearts and minds around the world. How many hearts ands minds have been won by the terrorists because of our use of torture is debatable.

2) There is just two plausible justifications for using torture. One is that it will discourage terrorists because their desire not to be in US custody will increase if they know we are torturing people. I do not think there is much evidence to support this idea. The second is that through torture we can extract information that will save American lives.

3) If you think that it is wrong to torture even if it will save American lives, then then the debate is over why american interrogators commting acts of torture is a greater evil than innocent Americans getting killed.

4) If you think that it is OK to torture terrorists suspects if it will save human lives, then the question is, how likely is it that torture will extract information that will save American lives. If it can't, then we shouldn't, and if it can, then we should.

BTW: The argument that our use of torture will increase the use of torture on our troops, in my mind, does not hold any water. In this war, the enemy will torture our troops regardless of whether or not we torture our prisoners.

It's wrong and it disgraces all of us.