Should POW's be Tortured

[Cylinder]

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

How would you know what to say?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Should POW's be Tortured

NO.

Contrary to the reports from the Bush admin about only waterboarding 3 people and how they were sure the tortured people had info that would thwart another attack and the lie that Abu Ghraib was a couple rogue night shift soldiers and so on went their excuses, the EVIDENCE is pretty clear torture is ineffective and does more to waste time following false leads than it does uncover useful information.

I reviewed a lot of literature when the Canadian and German were imprisoned and tortured by our government, and when the Brian Ross story came out where Bill O'liely claimed the US had successfully gotten info through torture. Turned out they had gotten info, very little if any was useful.

I found exactly what Piggy notes above, "veteran intelligence officers oppose [coercion]" and recognize it doesn't work. Torture is used to oppress and intimidate one's rivals into being afraid to act. It is not useful for getting information.

 

[gtc]

Why do people use torture if it doesn't work?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do people use torture if it doesn't work?

First there are the purely psychological things in human nature.

Stanford prison experiment^WP aka The Lucifer Effect

Milgram experiment^WP on obedience to authority

Lord of the Flies^WP

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse^WP

My Lai Massacre^WP

Then there is the means of control in a totalitarian state.

Torture and Silence; how we all become complicit in torture when we remain silent.

Totalitarian States, accused of torture, always deny its existence and point to other States that employ torture as a means of obtaining “necessary” information.
The pressures a modern Totalitarian State can exercise over the individual are frightful. The weapons are substantially three: 1) direct propaganda or propaganda camouflaged as upbringing, instruction and popular culture, 2) the barrier erected against pluralism of information, and 3) terror (Primo Levi).
Persistent misinformation and terror lead to war, torture, murder, manipulation and the end of Democracy. Accommodated by the silence of “the people”, totalitarianism takes shape behind the closed doors of power and “the people” are doomed to one day wake up and find that they have abdicated their rights and freedoms and become prisoners of the Totalitarian State.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And our enemies lack the technology to have such precision attacks, so why is it so wrong for them to attack the populace? Why are the tactics that we used with similar technological restrictions now war crimes?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Why does this remove their value in the ticking time bomb situation? They might well know of an attack that will kill thousands, so if the idea is saving lives then it would seem that the situation that the ticking time bomb is most likely to actualy come up is with lawful combatants.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Of course they did, they realized that the work force in a war factory is just as important to the production of that factory as anything else and often easier to target, especialy once some factories moved underground.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So what you are saying is that because of the technology gap, some sides with antiquated technology can commit war crimes that would not be war crimes if that technology was the most advanced at the time?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

That is not really the issue. If people support the idea that in ticking time bomb situations torture is acceptable, how do they reconcile that with laws regarding treatment of POW's?

 

[ponderingturtle]

NO.

Contrary to the reports from the Bush admin about only waterboarding 3 people and how they were sure the tortured people had info that would thwart another attack and the lie that Abu Ghraib was a couple rogue night shift soldiers and so on went their excuses, the EVIDENCE is pretty clear torture is ineffective and does more to waste time following false leads than it does uncover useful information.

I reviewed a lot of literature when the Canadian and German were imprisoned and tortured by our government, and when the Brian Ross story came out where Bill O'liely claimed the US had successfully gotten info through torture. Turned out they had gotten info, very little if any was useful.

I found exactly what Piggy notes above, "veteran intelligence officers oppose [coercion]" and recognize it doesn't work. Torture is used to oppress and intimidate one's rivals into being afraid to act. It is not useful for getting information.

Then this is not directed at you, the question was for people who think torture is useful in situations where you need to get information from someone to potentially save many lives in an imminent attack.

 

[JoeEllison]

Why do people use torture if it doesn't work?

It "works" by making weak and cowardly people feel better? Certainly, in the pre-Bush era, few Americans would have considered this to even be a worthy question. But, with fear-based politics at an all time high, torturing people seems to be important to the powers that be.

I wonder, though, in my least optimistic moments, if they are engaged in torture for nothing more than the sake of being allowed to torture... just one more good thing about America that the Bush administration has taken away from us.

 

[SimonD]

How would you know what to say?

That is not really the issue. If people support the idea that in ticking time bomb situations torture is acceptable, how do they reconcile that with laws regarding treatment of POW's?

In the case of a 'ticking time bomb' all I have to do is outlast the timer. If I'm resigned to my fate, what's the worst you can do?

In the case of 'confess to the crime', I'd confess to anything to stop the pain.

I just think that information obtained by torture isn't to be trusted, so should we be doing it in the first place? Is there a better way to get the information, other then torture?

 

[fuelair]

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.

Right!! A point that eludes a lot of Hamas (supporters?) here. No uniforms, not legitimate military, not treated like legitimate military.

 

[fuelair]

So allied air crews of bombers in WWII could have been tortured then? As they where often targeting civilians.

No, they were targeting cities with large military production/supply facilities - which are recognized as legitimate targets by rules of warfare. The fact that they were not accurate enough (especially in night bombing) to avoid civilian only areas is unfortunate (and an argument for making sure all war production is done away from population centers) but does not make them war criminals by any rational standard.

 

[fuelair]

Should POW's be Tortured ?

Almost always no (captured spies, terrorists, etc. are not POWs) - the liklihood that a military person with any functional knowledge of a major plan/offensive will have any information that is useable is close to zero. The exception would be elite unit members (but they are trained to resist torture) and higher level officers. It is highly unlikely,though, that these will be in big supply for capture.

Spies and terrorists/guerillas (Your guerillas are my terrorists) should be asked politely for information, then asked less politely, then rendered. Kidnappers, etc. similar.

 

[Region Rat]

It "works" by making weak and cowardly people feel better? Certainly, in the pre-Bush era, few Americans would have considered this to even be a worthy question. But, with fear-based politics at an all time high, torturing people seems to be important to the powers that be.

I wonder, though, in my least optimistic moments, if they are engaged in torture for nothing more than the sake of being allowed to torture... just one more good thing about America that the Bush administration has taken away from us.

You really believe that prior administrations, not one single administration, did not use less than desirable means to extract information from (perceived) enemies? Really? Not until Bush? And only because he 'can'?

Heck, before Miranda, it was not unusual for your local cop to smack a perp around to find out what he knew, let alone the FBI, CIA, etc.

And just to be clear, I am not 'pining for the good old days'. It was wrong then, and its wrong now, no matter who's doing it. Its just that the seemingly mindless "blame it all on Bush" has gotten pretty childish.

 

[Region Rat]

Let's say that the US Army, sometime in late 1944, captures Himmler. (I hope that's not too close to a Godwin. If so, I apologize). Himmler is technically a POW, at least I think he would be. If not, fill in the blank with Goebbels or some other high ranking military type. The US Army knows darn well that Himmler (Goebbels) knows things, and the US Army is staring down the German border, knowing it needs to invade the fatherland to end the war. How far would you go? This is not a situation where you're trolling for info with hot coals or something. You KNOW that he knows things that could hurt you. How far would you go?

 

[JoeEllison]

You really believe that prior administrations, not one single administration, did not use less than desirable means to extract information from (perceived) enemies? Really? Not until Bush? And only because he 'can'?

Heck, before Miranda, it was not unusual for your local cop to smack a perp around to find out what he knew, let alone the FBI, CIA, etc.

And just to be clear, I am not 'pining for the good old days'. It was wrong then, and its wrong now, no matter who's doing it. Its just that the seemingly mindless "blame it all on Bush" has gotten pretty childish.

It is childish to make the claim that "everyone did it." No one before this administration made torture into an openly official policy. If you don't understand the difference, I doubt anyone could ever explain it to you.

 

[Region Rat]

It is childish to make the claim that "everyone did it." No one before this administration made torture into an openly official policy. If you don't understand the difference, I doubt anyone could ever explain it to you.

I don't believe I made the statement that 'everyone did it', thankyouverymuch. I just questioned your statement that prior to Bush, few would ever consider the question, and that with Bush, somehow torture is important to him.

It might just well be that this administration was the first one stupid enough to get caught with their pants down, and then even more stupidly (proudly?) admitted it. But if it makes you feel better to think there's a real difference between doing it in secret, and doing it openly, have at it.

Actually, I feel better that he's taken the (stupid) position that he has, so it's all well known, he is known for what he truly is, and maybe, just maybe, the next guy or 2 won't try to do the same thing, even in secret.

 

[Cylinder]

So what you are saying is that because of the technology gap, some sides with antiquated technology can commit war crimes that would not be war crimes if that technology was the most advanced at the time?

No - you have it backward. The Laws of Armed Conflict are the same for parties to a conflict whether they are chunking spears or JDAMS.

One of these laws and custom of armed conflict is proportionality - that is, the manner by which a legitimate military target is attacked must be designed to the best of current ability to damage only legitimate targets. For example, if you attack a communications hub that is located across the street from a hospital you would be restricted from using iron bombs when a guided munitions package was available.

During WWII, bomb accuracy was measured in hundreds of yards - today it is in the ones of meters. This places additional operational restrictions on US forces. In today's Air Force, every single combat mission that is flown is reviewed beforehand for LOAC compliance. It is not uncommon for targeting intelligence types to have real disagreement with a weapons team over ordnance.