So. Torture.

[gorfias]

we have an obligation to fight to see to it that the intelligence community knows they should stand by us.

I think that is a big part of their mission and they know it. But when I hear of soldiers facing tribunals for shooing someone that they reasonably think is out to kill them, I worry they have a right to think we do not stand by them and that is wrong.

it ["torture" of non signatory, non conforming to Geneva conventions] will cost the US both in war and peace.

Those who do not conduct themselves, nor are signatories of the Geneva conventions don't really follow them. I'm not sure what you mean that not treating such people will have consequences. Your added thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you.

No, it definitely would have more weight if I stumbled through some sort of contrived excuse instead of straight-up accounting for what you said.

Then, with apologizes, I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Fox12]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

I know you already provided an edit, but because this discussion is of a VERY serious matter, I feel that it's necessary for me to make several things very clear before I respond to the hypothetical. Torture doesn't work. We typically use it on people who haven't been found 100% guilty of being terrorists. Even if they are, there's no guarantee that they actually know anything. They'll say anything to make the pain stop, even if they don't know anything, which will yield inaccurate information, which could then harm American soldiers. Plenty of communists tried this, particularly in China. As a result innocent people died. This led to a nation wide witch hunt involving MILLIONS. You could falsely accuse people you didn't like and ruin their lives, or sell out friends and family, even though both of the individuals were innocent. Furthermore, even if someone knows intel, there's no guarantee that they will tell you the truth. Simply put, not only is torture monstrous, it doesn't work, making it completely worthless. Even that war hawk nut job John McCain agrees with that (he would know, he's been tortured).

OT: But, under your hypothetical, would I support it? Hell no. Because you've just given the government the right to torture without a trial by jury. Who gets tortured in this scenario? Is it just some foreigner? Well that makes it okay then, right? It's a foreign combatant. It's only monstrous if they do it to us. But what if the terrorist is an American citizen? Is it still okay? Do they get a trial? Have they been proven guilty? But what if there isn't enough time for a trial, and we need that intel NOW, even though we don't know if they're a terrorist. Is it okay to go ahead and torture them anyway, even though citizens are guaranteed legal protection under the constitution? Is it okay to torture other threats to the state? What constitutes a terrorist, and what constitutes a threat to the state? We've just tortured these other guys, without trial, who are American citizens. So there's a legal precedent. Can we do this to anyone who displeases the government, and who doesn't have popular support? Snowdens a traitor, right? Some people have called him a terrorist, can we torture him?

If you think this I'm being to dramatic, or that the law will save you, then Lindsey Graham would like to have a word with you:


(He's talking about American citizens)

American citizens generally have these rights. Military combatants do not. Snowden would be tried for treason.

But let's carry your comments to their inevitable conclusion. Let's say a man kidnapped a 4 year-old girl and locked her in a cabin where she has limited http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=C5KIb6rROVPHeLsejlQe8-4HoCeqF4NgHAAAQASAAUNmJ6d_8_____wFgyb65h-CjtBCCARdjYS1wdWItMDQ3MDU0MDI5MTk3OTU3N8gBAuACAKgDAaoEhgFP0Ol_xwl94fde503TTlI2CgO-IwoFA_vx3autKzy2BnNCRpwav9SoKzXW4f3wgka8bXOlUXjbg6HiWl6zL_uV0RyWq1ZqppgRHKMqfczIv4PEXh_2j6l9dYyWiD8Hs220DkuOFuJ3dt0_NZ3w-p4prJENs7bPXxk8w_Z-7pJNGNTrQr3dkuAEAaAGFNgGAg&num=0&sig=AOD64_0Al4NOOrjjE8ab6MpJOjdqlw9M9w&client=ca-pub-0470540291979577&adurl=http://www.mademan.com/gentleman-up/formal-friday/food and water to last her for a week. Let's say the man comes forward and admits to the crime but will not reveahttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=C5KIb6rROVPHeLsejlQe8-4HoCeqF4NgHAAAQASAAUNmJ6d_8_____wFgyb65h-CjtBCCARdjYS1wdWItMDQ3MDU0MDI5MTk3OTU3N8gBAuACAKgDAaoEhgFP0Ol_xwl94fde503TTlI2CgO-IwoFA_vx3autKzy2BnNCRpwav9SoKzXW4f3wgka8bXOlUXjbg6HiWl6zL_uV0RyWq1ZqppgRHKMqfczIv4PEXh_2j6l9dYyWiD8Hs220DkuOFuJ3dt0_NZ3w-p4prJENs7bPXxk8w_Z-7pJNGNTrQr3dkuAEAaAGFNgGAg&num=0&sig=AOD64_0Al4NOOrjjE8ab6MpJOjdqlw9M9w&client=ca-pub-0470540291979577&adurl=http://www.mademan.com/gentleman-up/formal-friday/l her location unless x amount of dollars are wired into his wife's account in the caymans or whatever. Do you let the child starve or would you be ok with putting a candle under that asshole's feet until he gives up a real location?

Again, in situations like this I am for it. You know they're criminals, you know they know what you want to know, and the information is worth getting.

I would consider this no different from a sniper taking out a gunman who has hostages. Both are equally guilty of being in the progress of committing murder or conspiracy to commit murder and if lethality is justified then torture is a pittance comparatively.

Except certain rights are under attack. Obama has already claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without a trial and, worse, without actually accusing someone of a crime. You may have heard of the rand paul filibuster a while back, a filibuster that even had democratic support. The point is, American citizens shouldn't generally have these rights, they should always have these rights, no exceptions. The government shouldn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions concerning torture, especially when they're not only unconcerned with the American people's opinions, but they're actively keeping things hidden. How can a functional democracy work when we aren't supposed to know about the NSA or torture?

But I feel like you've misrepresented my point. In your hypothetical a killer has openly acknowledged his guilt after being caught, and demanded money. It's illogical. In real world scenarios the individual would be a suspect who may or may not know of the persons whereabouts. In all likelihood the person would give you false information that would lead to a wild goose chase, and the child would die, since the person didn't know anything. The fact is, there is usually a great deal of doubt in these situations. We've tortured innocent people to death, and gotten nothing but bad intel as a result.

In the end, torture dehumanizes the victim and perpetrator. It also creates martyrs.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The point is, American citizens shouldn't generally have these rights, they should always have these rights, no exceptions.

I've never understood this, to be honest. I've always believed that anyone within a nation's juridiction should be subject to both the full weight AND the full protection of its laws. Citizens should not be a special consideration.

 

[Namehere]

we have an obligation to fight to see to it that the intelligence community knows they should stand by us.

I think that is a big part of their mission and they know it. But when I hear of soldiers facing tribunals for shooing someone that they reasonably think is out to kill them, I worry they have a right to think we do not stand by them and that is wrong.

it ["torture" of non signatory, non conforming to Geneva conventions] will cost the US both in war and peace.

Those who do not conduct themselves, nor are signatories of the Geneva conventions don't really follow them. I'm not sure what you mean that not treating such people will have consequences. Your added thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you.

No, it definitely would have more weight if I stumbled through some sort of contrived excuse instead of straight-up accounting for what you said.

Then, with apologizes, I have no idea what you mean.

Are you serious? You don't realize the seed change that is enemies who can and can not surrender? Wow. That's a huge deal. Massive. You think criminals are scary when confronted by police who mean to drag them to the gallows, trap an army. They love that. Especially when they don't think they can surrender and that their rights - regardless as the US demonstrated - are meaningless and they'll be subjected to show trials. And there was a lot of that out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So enemies who once might have surrendered instead of fighting to the death, now fight to the death. Those 'enemies' don't die alone, they take soldiers with them. That is a serious COST. An all but fruitless cost no less. Not only do you have to divert forces to face off with those enemies, but you loose lives that a peaceful resolution would have saved, allied lives. Sounds like a bit of an issue to me.

 

[gorfias]

enemies who once might have surrendered instead of fighting to the death, now fight to the death.

A good point.

I think that an enemy that knows he will realize Geneva convention protections even if he is non-signatory, non-compliant sees no cost at all to violating those standards. That is going to have costs too.

 

[Thaluikhain]

enemies who once might have surrendered instead of fighting to the death, now fight to the death.

A good point.

I think that an enemy that knows he will realize Geneva convention protections even if he is non-signatory, non-compliant sees no cost at all to violating those standards. That is going to have costs too.

The Geneva protocols don't mean that people can't be punished for their actions. They can't be tortured, but there is a lot of room for various unpleasant things to happen.

 

[Fireaxe]

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

So this hypothetical scenario bears absolutely zero resemblance to reality. So what's the point of it?

 

[Lightknight]

Except certain rights are under attack. Obama has already claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without a trial and, worse, without actually accusing someone of a crime. You may have heard of the rand paul filibuster a while back, a filibuster that even had democratic support. The point is, American citizens shouldn't generally have these rights, they should always have these rights, no exceptions.

I'd hardly consider an all-out assassination of an individual to be the same as torturing someone you know is a criminal and should have the information you need to save lives. comparing this to insta-death without trial is not like comparing it to WWII Germany tactics or whatever Poe's Law accounts for nowadays.

The government shouldn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions concerning torture, especially when they're not only unconcerned with the American people's opinions, but they're actively keeping things hidden. How can a functional democracy work when we aren't supposed to know about the NSA or torture?

Lot's of things are kept secret. Such is life and a functional democracy can work damn will without knowing the very specific particulars that are often important to keep secret for a time. What's more is that they actually release the information after the sensitive time has passed just like they did recently with that report. You've got to see them as a troop in the field. Bad stuff can go down and we as a society need to review that and make alterations so it doesn't repeat itself. But claiming that we have to know now would be as silly as strapping a video camera to a soldier and streaming it in real time on a public site. "What do you mean terrorists have the internet too?!"

But I feel like you've misrepresented my point. In your hypothetical a killer has openly acknowledged his guilt after being caught, and demanded money. It's illogical. In real world scenarios the individual would be a suspect who may or may not know of the persons whereabouts.

If you don't even know that they're a terrorist, then you have no business torturing them or imprisoning them. On that we agree. I think there is a time and a place for torture. It is not a shot in the dark just in case they know something.

In all likelihood the person would give you false information that would lead to a wild goose chase, and the child would die, since the person didn't know anything. The fact is, there is usually a great deal of doubt in these situations. We've tortured innocent people to death, and gotten nothing but bad intel as a result.

Eh, they give you a place, you verify that it's the place or that it isn't, then you resume torture until the spot sticks. As long as they know the information then you're good. If they don't know the information, that's when it's nothing but wild goose chases.

In the end, torture dehumanizes the victim and perpetrator. It also creates martyrs.

Killing a person who is holding hostages also ends the murderer's life. Not seeing a point here. Shooting terrorists in the dick when they're pointing guns at you also dehumanizes and emasculates them. Still no point to be found.

 

[Lightknight]

enemies who once might have surrendered instead of fighting to the death, now fight to the death.

A good point.

I think that an enemy that knows he will realize Geneva convention protections even if he is non-signatory, non-compliant sees no cost at all to violating those standards. That is going to have costs too.

Not really, Americans still surrendered in Germany and in Asia. Capture and torture is still preferable to most than death.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

So this hypothetical scenario bears absolutely zero resemblance to reality. So what's the point of it?

I guess the OP's point is to see at which point you'd find torture acceptable. It's a valid philosophical trip into the psyche on the matter. If you knew you would get information out, would you be OK with it? Is the unknown the barrier for people or is it the action?

 

[Queen Michael]

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

So this hypothetical scenario bears absolutely zero resemblance to reality. So what's the point of it?

Somebody on Twitter -- I think it was Brianna Wu, but I'm not sure -- said that even if we knew that the torture victim was a terrorist who would release 100% correct info, we shouldn't torture people. And I thought, would she really let 9/11 happen just so we could spare a terrorist from agony?

 

[angryscotsman93]

Well, let me pose a hypothetical to YOU, in turn: your mother has lung cancer, real bad lung cancer, and you've come to the conclusion that the only way to save her is to grind up kittens and force-feed her their grisly remains. A few notes:

1. This is guaranteed to work. I'm super cereal, you guys.

2. In this universe, chemotherapy doesn't exist. At all.

3. Also, if your mother dies, your dad has sworn to go on a murderous rampage through an orphanage, so get to it, skippy!

Sounds like bullshit, doesn't it? That's because it is. Torture doesn't goddamn well work, there are other ways to gain the information, and most terrorist threats against the US are just dipshits blowing smoke out of their asses. The only time I'd condone torture would be if the target was a sapient being who was waging a war of genocide upon my people, and whose mental processes were so alien to ours that other forms of interrogation were impossible.

 

[Ramzal]

-snip-

 

[cikame]

The only time torture would be used is for massively important reasons, if some information could save millions of peoples lives that can only be a good thing.
Condoning it doesn't mean we'd be using it all the time, if someone commits a murder that's different, the legal system is perfectly capable of finding evidence and applying pressure for confessions in other ways, we're talking large scale terrorism here.

The degree of damage inflicted during torture is up to the individual, if they can't cooperate with the good guys arn't they a lost cause anyway?

 

[Frission]

The degree of damage inflicted during torture is up to the individual, if they can't cooperate with the good guys arn't they a lost cause anyway?

'Good Guys'. What a dangerous Calvinistic viewpoint. Black and white, and white is always justified to do whatever they want to black, right? Vicious. The most dangerous and monstrous people are those who never allow themselves a moment of doubt, of wondering about the morality of their actions, of never thinking if they could be the 'bad guys'.

Face it, we know what everyone here is talking about. It's the U.S committing torture. This black and white view might be the reason why the U.S seems so surprised when someone calls them out on their crimes, because they're the 'good guys' right? No, being the 'good guy' doesn't absolve you of your crimes.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If you want to believe what the CIA says about their techniques or their operations, that's your business but it's also worth noting that the CIA are responsible for giving firearms that were used by the Taliban TO the Taliban directly

That would have been an extremely neat trick of them seeing as the Taliban didn't exist back then. The Taliban formed in the multi-faction civil war that broke out after the Soviet Withdrawal. The CIA armed/funded various Mujahadeen groups in Afghanistan who were fighting against Soviet Occupation, some of whom did go on form the core of the Taliban while most others clumped together under effective and/or charismatic warlords and the remaining few seem to have just fucked off back to tribal lands. A lot of originally CIA funded weaponry wound up in the Taliban's hands by being captured from warlords they rolled over.

 

[Fox12]

The point is, American citizens shouldn't generally have these rights, they should always have these rights, no exceptions.

I've never understood this, to be honest. I've always believed that anyone within a nation's juridiction should be subject to both the full weight AND the full protection of its laws. Citizens should not be a special consideration.

This is true, I was simply making a point. Historically, foreigners have been given the same legal representation as citizens. I'm not sure why giving a terrorist a trial is controversial now. Do people honestly believe that jury of New Yorkers or Texans would be likely to let a terrorist off easy in a trial, if there's sufficient evidence to support their prosecution? Habeus Corpus is everyone's right.

 

[gorfias]

The Geneva protocols don't mean that people can't be punished for their actions. They can't be tortured, but there is a lot of room for various unpleasant things to happen.

Historically, pretty un-motivating. To some extent, they are getting away with a certain level of crime, and they know up front, they will. For instance, the Japanese supposedly lost only 11 war criminals to the ultimate punishment. And WW2 Japan nearly matched Nazi Germany for brutality and inhumanity. Rape rooms, death marches, forced slavery, torturing people to death. And North Vietnam war criminals? They won the peace. The percent brought to justice is likely puny.

enemies who once might have surrendered instead of fighting to the death, now fight to the death.

A good point.

Not really, Americans still surrendered in Germany and in Asia. Capture and torture is still preferable to most than death.

I don't know if I'd surrender to Al Queda, even with a gun to my temple. Have you seen or heard about the horror stories of what they do to captives? There are pictures out there, too graphic for a family website.

 

[Jacques Joseph]

Given all the very specific circumstances of this hypothetical situation, I´d say yes.

But here´s a couple of things to consider (and I´m sorry if that´s already been mentioned, I´m too lazy to read all the 6 pages of replies...):
- in real life, you can never be sure whether the information obtained through torture really is accurate (and how much)

- much more importantly for me, in real life there is always (at least hypothetically) some other way of getting that information

- given that, the reaction has absolutely no relation whatsoever to a person´s opinion on torture in real life and as such, I acutally don´t really see the point of the question. Of course, if you build up the situation for torture to be the only possible option, I´ll pick that. But since it is the ONLY option, I don´t have much of a choice, so it doesn´t really prove anything or say anything about me and my opinions, does it?