Is This Torture

[kenrockthefirst]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/washington/31mukasey.html?hp"]Mukasey Calls Harsh Interrogation ‘Repugnant’[/url]

[i]But Mr. Graham, [b]a former military lawyer who has said he believes that waterboarding is unquestionably torture[/b], said he had “a couple of areas that I want to flesh out” before committing to vote in favor of confirmation.[/i]
...
[i]Waterboarding has also been a flash point among Republican presidential candidates. Last week, after Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, said he was not sure about waterboarding because he thought “the liberal media” might not have described it properly, [b]Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was tortured as a prisoner in North Vietnam, shot back, saying it was a torture method used since the Spanish Inquisition.[/b][/i]
[emphasis added]

[kenrockthefirst]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103001481.html"]Mukasey Losing Democrats' Backing[/url]

[i]Waterboarding generally involves strapping a prisoner to a board, covering his face or mouth with a cloth, and pouring water over his face to create the sensation of drowning, human rights groups say. The practice dates at least to the Spanish Inquisition [b]and has been prosecuted as torture in U.S. military courts since the Spanish-American War. The State Department has condemned its use in other countries.[/b][/i]
[emphasis added]

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1411846' date='Oct 31 2007, 12:57 AM']
Nit-picking bores me. And No. [/quote]
Only when the nits are being picked off of you, of course.
[quote]And No. [/quote]
Great argument. I see your standards for well constructed arguments remain high, as usual.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1411586' date='Oct 30 2007, 04:26 PM']Who the ---- rubs bacon on a terrorist?[/quote]

I knew you woldn't get the reference.....google search 'philippines pershing pork'

It's prolly an urban legend, but makes ya go hmmm....



Why in the world does anyone think bacon is torture?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1412055' date='Oct 31 2007, 07:43 PM']It's prolly an urban legend, but makes ya go hmmm....
Why in the world does anyone think bacon is torture?[/quote]

It was proposed that the bacon tactic be used specifically on Muslim prisoners. They don't just have a mild aversion to pig-meat. It's revolting to them. It would feel as though they had been smeared with excrement. And how would it make them any more likely to confess to terrorist crimes? All it would achieve is the recruitment of more terrorists. A Riyadh rehabilitation centre that is working with Saudi nationals who were caught participating in insurgency in Iraq has found that a common tactic of extremist groups is to try and brainwash young people in their mid- to late teens by emphasising the godlessness of the West, its barbarism, its lack of modesty, and so on ad infinitum. They also teach that this godless empire is conspiring to take over the world. Many of these young targets don't have personal friends from America or Europe. They just see a distorted, hypersexualised version of the culture through satellite TV, which makes extremist rhetoric very believable - especially in Saudi, where the unemployment rate is high and many of the best jobs are taken by highly qualified Western expatriates. The extremists teach that this is all part of the plan for wiping out Islam. Hearing stories of Muslim prisoners being rubbed with bacon is just going to confirm potential militants in those views. Using tactics like those is akin to throwing petrol on a blazing fire.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1411820' date='Oct 31 2007, 04:25 AM']God forbid that innocent human lives be spared at the cost of a terrorist's good night sleep, or by making him scared![/quote]

Sleep deprivation is about more than disturbing 'a good night's sleep' and inducing panic is a lot more sinister than making someone feel scared. The ethics aside, it's also very doubtful about how effective torture is in getting reliable information.

And on an ethical note...

"It is better than one man should die for the people than a whole nation should perish."

It is difficult to understand how anybody can exhibit the mentality of Caiaphas when discussing the question of torture.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1412667' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:01 AM']Sleep deprivation is about more than disturbing 'a good night's sleep' and inducing panic is a lot more sinister than making someone feel scared. The ethics aside, it's also very doubtful about how effective torture is in getting reliable information.

And on an ethical note...

"It is better than one man should die for the people than a whole nation should perish."

It is difficult to understand how anybody can exhibit the mentality of Caiaphas when discussing the question of torture.[/quote]
I'm aware of that, using some slight hyperbole to make my point.

However, the fact remains that unpleasant as these procedures may be, the terrorist has not lost his life, nor has he suffered serious permanent harm.
In the hypothetical situation being discussed where the purpose is obtaining information to save many lives from immanent destruction, is the comfort of the terrorist really worth thousands of innocent human lives?

I'd agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it's not always black and white where the line is to be drawn. Are we required to always be "nice" to imprisoned murderous terrorists?

The Church teaches just war doctrine. War by necessity involves combat, which is quite brutal, and often deadly, and almost never "humane." If war, including deadly combat, can sometimes be justified to defend a nation, why not rough interrogation techniques for the same purpose?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1413025' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:33 PM']I'm aware of that, using some slight hyperbole to make my point.

However, the fact remains that unpleasant as these procedures may be, the terrorist has not lost his life, nor has he suffered serious permanent harm.
In the hypothetical situation being discussed where the purpose is obtaining information to save many lives from immanent destruction, is the comfort of the terrorist really worth thousands of innocent human lives?

I'd agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it's not always black and white where the line is to be drawn. Are we required to always be "nice" to imprisoned murderous terrorists?

The Church teaches just war doctrine. War by necessity involves combat, which is quite brutal, and often deadly, and almost never "humane." If war, including deadly combat, can sometimes be justified to defend a nation, why not rough interrogation techniques for the same purpose?[/quote]
No, here's the point. The more we do this, the more we become like those we declare our enemies. That aside, from a purely pragmatic perspective, [i]torture is an ineffective means of gathering intelligence.[/i]

With respect to Just War, combatants fighting other combatants in battle is one thing. Church teaching on the treatment of prisoners, however, rules out "rough interrogation techniques." You simply cannot square that circle, whatever your political ideology.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1413025' date='Nov 2 2007, 03:33 AM']I'm aware of that, using some slight hyperbole to make my point.

However, the fact remains that unpleasant as these procedures may be, the terrorist has not lost his life, nor has he suffered serious permanent harm.
In the hypothetical situation being discussed where the purpose is obtaining information to save many lives from immanent destruction, is the comfort of the terrorist really worth thousands of innocent human lives?[/quote]

It's not about preserving a terrorist's comfort - it's about preserving his dignity and the integrity of the captor. Even terrorists deserve dignity, because they are humans first and terrorists second. Saying this is not being 'nice'. It couldn't be further from 'nice'. It's extremely difficult to accept that a hate-filled murderer is sacred by virtue of his being alive. But God calls us to accept this, and so I don't see how anybody could degrade or violate another person through torture and call it just. For the captors to become desensitized to such actions they would have to learn to distance themselves from their prisoners, probably through coming to regard them as subhuman. It goes against human nature to ask people to hurt other people in that way. Spiritually and psychologically, the captors could suffer more than the victims in later years. That has got to be considered.

Anything that induces fear can cause permanent psychological damage, which is why abuse victims often suffer from flashbacks or nightmares that interfere with their lives even after the abuse is over. Waterboarding could easily come under that category. The physical dangers of being prevented from using the toilet are probably greater than the psychological ones (ruptured bladder, urine poisoning, etc.) As for the other things - rubbing bacon over the person's body, etc. - they aren't torture, but bullying, and petty and pointless bullying at that.

I don't think that torture can fall under the just war theory at all, as the conditions of open warfare are very different from the conditions of a prison where torture takes place. Supposing that we try to apply the theory to torture anyway, two criteria prevent its inclusion: probability of success and proportionality. Torture is not a failsafe method of extracting information, [i]especially[/i] where terrorism is concerned. For one thing, it's not easy to identify terrorists - they wear no uniform and are organised into small cells that operate fairly independently. It's not easy to determine the amount of knowledge that an individual terrorist might have, precisely because of the loose organisational structure of terrorist groups. Torture in these cirumstances is always going to be indiscriminate, a shot in the dark, and when you consider that most people will try to placate the torturer by giving them the information that they want to hear (regardless of its truth) it's not very effective either.

Secondly, the damage to be inflicted must be proportionate to the good expected by fighting. This presents the greatest ethical dilemma. Even the body of a terrorist is God's temple. Can anything good come out of desecrating it? In the current 'war on terror' we are fighting against people who have no concept of the sanctity of life. Committing acts of torture requires indifference or hatred, so by getting our soldiers or security personnel to carry out torture we are asking them to become just like the people they're supposed to be fighting. On a practical level it's ineffective. On a moral level it's brutal.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Double post.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[jeffpugh]

Cathoholic, you've been saying a lot of good stuff throughout this thread. I commend you on this last post because it is the culmination of everything you've said. I think it's very clear that torture can't be used. Logically and morally it's out of the question.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I don't think that torture can fall under the just war theory at all, as the conditions of open warfare are very different from the conditions of a prison where torture takes place.[/quote]

i don't think you've explained this enough.

but, i think the proper response to this, and the debate about torture has been debated sufficiently in my poll thread.

it's not unreasonable to hold either view. it's not illogical for either side of the debate. it's an inherent value judgment. it's not a value judgment that can be fixed by logic, as many judgments can be. eg the sun is blue can be defeated. that is not this situation at all.

[kenrockthefirst]

Look, here's the deal. It's like going into a restaurant, looking at the menu and asking, "Can I afford this?" If you have to ask the question, you can't afford it.

It's the same with torture. If you have to ask, "Is this torture," and, "Can I justify it," it's torture and you can't justify it.

[Pleural]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1411474' date='Oct 30 2007, 09:14 AM']there is one person who apparently is against it.

but, i bet most would said this stuff is torture are only defining it as torture techincally, not as per what's allowable etc. and tehy probably are for more intense sorts of torture.

i think it's crazy to not intensely torture them. frankly, i'd use hard core torture too. these are terrorists, [b]presumably[/b]. some misktakes will be made yes.
we're not against killing them. why not torture? i know it's worse to some people, and probaly most depending on the situatino. but, if it gets info, doing something worse than killing is warranted.

i find it immoral to not torture them.[/quote]

[dstrycula]

A.M.D.G.
[quote]It's not about preserving a terrorist's comfort - it's about preserving his dignity and the integrity of the captor. Even terrorists deserve dignity, because they are humans first and terrorists second. Saying this is not being 'nice'. It couldn't be further from 'nice'. It's extremely difficult to accept that a hate-filled murderer is sacred by virtue of his being alive. But God calls us to accept this, and so I don't see how anybody could degrade or violate another person through torture and call it just. For the captors to become desensitized to such actions they would have to learn to distance themselves from their prisoners, probably through coming to regard them as subhuman. It goes against human nature to ask people to hurt other people in that way. Spiritually and psychologically, the captors could suffer more than the victims in later years. That has got to be considered.

Anything that induces fear can cause permanent psychological damage, which is why abuse victims often suffer from flashbacks or nightmares that interfere with their lives even after the abuse is over. Waterboarding could easily come under that category. The physical dangers of being prevented from using the toilet are probably greater than the psychological ones (ruptured bladder, urine poisoning, etc.) As for the other things - rubbing bacon over the person's body, etc. - they aren't torture, but bullying, and petty and pointless bullying at that.

I don't think that torture can fall under the just war theory at all, as the conditions of open warfare are very different from the conditions of a prison where torture takes place. Supposing that we try to apply the theory to torture anyway, two criteria prevent its inclusion: probability of success and proportionality. Torture is not a failsafe method of extracting information, especially where terrorism is concerned. For one thing, it's not easy to identify terrorists - they wear no uniform and are organised into small cells that operate fairly independently. It's not easy to determine the amount of knowledge that an individual terrorist might have, precisely because of the loose organisational structure of terrorist groups. Torture in these cirumstances is always going to be indiscriminate, a shot in the dark, and when you consider that most people will try to placate the torturer by giving them the information that they want to hear (regardless of its truth) it's not very effective either.

Secondly, the damage to be inflicted must be proportionate to the good expected by fighting. This presents the greatest ethical dilemma. Even the body of a terrorist is God's temple. Can anything good come out of desecrating it? In the current 'war on terror' we are fighting against people who have no concept of the sanctity of life. Committing acts of torture requires indifference or hatred, so by getting our soldiers or security personnel to carry out torture we are asking them to become just like the people they're supposed to be fighting. On a practical level it's ineffective. On a moral level it's brutal.[/quote]
I'm 100% with you. Torture is impractical and immoral.