• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should POW's be Tortured

ponderingturtle

Orthogonal Vector
ponderingturtle
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
54,545
As the most common argument for torture is the ticking time bomb one, why shouldn't POW's be tortured?

They are one of the most likely to have intelligence that can save lives in an immediate fashion. So the ticking time bomb situation is the most real for them.

Why don't people who advocate that kind of torture follow their argument to a more regular conflict instead of terrorist acts?
 
My position is torture should NOT be allowed, with one caveat. If we *know* that the person held had information that could save *many* lives, and it was time sensitive information, then it should regrettably be done. Morals are good and should be adhered to, but not when the lives of innocent people are on the line.
 
Mister Earl said:
My position is torture should NOT be allowed, with one caveat. If we *know* that the person held had information that could save *many* lives, and it was time sensitive information, then it should regrettably be done. Morals are good and should be adhered to, but not when the lives of innocent people are on the line.
Click to expand...

But the question is if you think it's ok for POWs as well as... hell I can't even remember the euphemism used for captured (suspected or known) terrorists.

Also, the question of whether or not to allow torture is very well covered in other threads. Let's keep this thread on the question of whether it should be ok to use on POWs if it's ok to use on suspected terrorists.

Right. Sticking to the premise of the question, no, not on POWs; or you can expect our captured soldiers to suffer the same fate. I'm personally against using torture at all, but it makes even less sense to use it on "official" POWs.
 
Because, by virtue of carrying arms openly, wearing fixed devices and obeying the laws and customs of war, soon-to-be POWs ameliorate the effect of the armed conflict on the surrounding protected civilian population to such a degree as to allow individual protections to be applied without any operational penalty (or one that can be easily mitigated) on the detaining party to the conflict who is adhering to the LOAC.
 
Cylinder said:
Because, by virtue of carrying arms openly, wearing fixed devices and obeying the laws and customs of war, soon-to-be POWs ameliorate the effect of the armed conflict on the surrounding protected civilian population to such a degree as to allow individual protections to be applied without any operational penalty (or one that can be easily mitigated) on the detaining party to the conflict who is adhering to the LOAC.
Click to expand...

So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.
 
Almo said:
But the question is if you think it's ok for POWs as well as... hell I can't even remember the euphemism used for captured (suspected or known) terrorists.

Also, the question of whether or not to allow torture is very well covered in other threads. Let's keep this thread on the question of whether it should be ok to use on POWs if it's ok to use on suspected terrorists.
Click to expand...

Thanks that is very much what I am wondering, why do people seem to hold POW's to be different than others who are your enemies who might well have knowledge that could save the lives of many of your people.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.
Click to expand...


Yes. Exactly. Let's do everything in our power to forget that technology during WWII made such tactics necessary as precision bombing was flat-out impossible. Using that carefully applied bit of amnesia, let's do everything in our power to morally equate circumstances today with circumstances sixty-three years ago.

Or ... and this is just a suggestion ... we could choose not to do that.
 
To further muddy the waters, consider the following:
If you knew that a person was deliberately withholding information that could save thousands of people, does he or she deserve to be left alone?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Thanks that is very much what I am wondering, why do people seem to hold POW's to be different than others who are your enemies who might well have knowledge that could save the lives of many of your people.
Click to expand...

Because "lawful combatants" deliberately limit their actions to less than their full destructive capacity.

For example, they wear uniforms, so that civilians can tell when enemy soldiers are present and get the hell out the way, instead of disguising as neutral parties in order to protect themselves from attack.

They avoid targeting non-combatants to the extent practical.

They avoid using illegal weaponry such as poisons.

They do not kill surrendering enemies.

Et cetera.
 
I don't think anyone should be tortured, lawful POW or otherwise. There's always a better way.
 
Minadin said:
I don't think anyone should be tortured, lawful POW or otherwise. There's always a better way.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. But there's a reason that the Geneva Convention protects combatants but doesn't protect (e.g.) spies and/or criminals.
 
If you eliminate freedom of speech, religion, freedom of assembly, Habeus Corpus, right to counsel, etc. They won't have any opportunity to get together to make a bomb that we would need to torture the infomation out of them to prevent detonation....See? We don't need torture, just have to do away with pesky old fashioned view of human rights....
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
*snip*
They avoid targeting non-combatants to the extent practical.
*snip*
Click to expand...

That phrase is extremely... flexible. Especially if one side or the other has declared total war.

In your opinions, did the following forces "avoid targetting non-combatants to the extent practical":

(1) Sherman´s force during his "march to the sea" in your Civil War
(2) bomber crews in WW2 terror-bombing enemy cities (but NOT including daylight "precision" bombing against industrial targets)
(3) Allied bomber crews in WW2 flying "precision" bombing attacks against industrial targets
(4) Waffen-SS and "Einsatzgruppen" teams killing jews and communists in Russia, in WW2

(FWIW, in my opinion (3) is still covered by the phrase, (1) is questionable, (2) is HIGHLY questionable and (4) is definitely out)
 
ponderingturtle said:
So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.
Click to expand...

You first have to define torture - WWII POWs did not share all of the protections that were codified in the 1949 Conventions. Also, CEPs in WWII were measured in hundreds of yards - not hundreds of inches. Allied air did purposefully target civilian populations as as a form of retaliation and as the lesser of two evils. Had the Germans obeyed the existing laws and customs of war, then the city raids would have been a major moral stain on Allied forces and their host countries. As it stands now (IMO), not so much.

Had the 1949 Geneva Conventions been in place at the time, US aircrew and commanders would have been guilty of grave war crimes as legal combatants.
 
I think everyone should be tortured.

I think they should just torture random folks just in case.

You never know what you might find out.

And if you love your country, is it really that much of an imposition?

I think not.
 
Chaos said:
That phrase is extremely... flexible. Especially if one side or the other has declared total war.
Click to expand...

Which is why war crimes tribunals exist.

And also why the definitions of the rules of war change from time to time; my understanding is that the first modern formal codification of the rules didn't happen until about 1899, which makes Sherman's march largely irrelevant. Prior to the 20th century, pillaging was considered to be a standard way to support an army in the field and not an atrocity, but I believe the first Berne convention did away with that. Modern supply technology made it practical to supply an army in the field, which in turn made it practical to establish a "no pillaging" doctrine.

Similarly, given the inaccuracy in bombing technology in the second World War, "terror bombing" was largely unavoidable. Today we can deliver bombs to within yards of the target; in 1941, both sides were lucky to hit the same ZIP code as the target.

Today modern technology makes it possible to deliver firepower with almost pinpoint accuracy; the USAF can put a missile through a selected window of a building. Even this doesn't necessarily make it "practical" to avoid killing civilians in the room next door, but it's a start. And the USAF does try, in general, to hit the right window of the right building; if nothing else, it's more cost-effective.
 
Last edited:
How good is information obtained under torture?

If someone wanted to attach electrodes to my body parts, I'd be prepared to say just about anything.

Soldiers on the ground rarely have useful information. Those in command are usually trained to withstand torture.

So how valuable is it?
 
SimonD said:
How good is information obtained under torture?

If someone wanted to attach electrodes to my body parts, I'd be prepared to say just about anything.

Soldiers on the ground rarely have useful information. Those in command are usually trained to withstand torture.

So how valuable is it?
Click to expand...
That's one of the primary problems. It's highly dubious.

Psychological operations are much better at retrieving higher-reliability intelligence.

This is why so many veteran intelligence officers oppose coersion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom