Should POW's be Tortured

[Piggy]

Of course they should be tortured. In fact, I think the government should pick people at random from other countries or even this country to torture just as a matter of principle and to keep people in line.

I already suggested that, but nobody seems to be on board with it.

I mean, seriously, you never know what you could find out.

And a true patriot would be willing to take a chance at being selected for torture sometime in his life if it's going to make our country safer, right?

Here we are, asking our young men and women to fight overseas, risking death or maiming, and yet we are not willing to risk the chance of mere random torture in order to assure our freedoms?

Makes no sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

So tell me, Bush and his group keep speaking as if this plot was averted or that plot was uncovered. Yet here they are arresting a bunch of penny-ante terror wannabes in Florida, Bin Laden is at large, and as far as I can tell, there ain't ◊◊◊◊ to show for this torture.

We hear the claim over and over, they got this useful information. We hear the excuse, what if you knew there was a ticking nuclear bomb and you had a knowledgeable participant? I hear propaganda. I hear mistakes and failure being spun.

What do you think this torture really accomplished other than to make Bush et al feel like he was doing something after his abject failure to prevent 9/11?

 

[nzric]

No. As someone has said before, the average grunt on the ground has absolutely no knowledge of any strategic value.

The goal of war should always be trying to find an end to the war. The Geneva Convention and treaties against nuclear proliferation, chemical and biological weapons, landmines, space-based weaponry, etc..., are all aimed at reducing civilian death and stopping war from spreading.

Torture should be used as a last resort. If it's used as an institutional policy you cannot help spreading the war further, creating more hatred and tendencies for escalation of violence from your enemies and those sitting on the fence, which is exactly what you are fighting against.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ...

We know for certain this has happened in the past and will likely happen in the future. And the people perpetrating it think they are getting the results they want. Trouble is, they aren't getting results. They send innocent people to jail in the case of cops, and in war, the majority of the experts in the field of interrogation that I have read feel it is a poor tactic which leads to a lot of wasted resources tracking down false leads and very few if any real leads.

 

[SezMe]

The imminent bomb scenario as a justification for torture is, IMO, falacious. The idea is that we know Sam knows where the bomb is. How do we know that? If the people know that, maybe they know more. Or maybe the info is falacious to take the torture away from them and on to someone else just to gain enough delay for the bomb to go off.

No, it is a scenario so filled with fiction that I do not find it a valid basis for ad hoc torture.

 

[Wildy]

Given that your scenarios (IED/ambush) DO NOT CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE ARMY OF ANY COUNTRY but to terrorists (they can call themselves whatever they want, the rules of warfare - including POWs etc. do not apply to them) your point is moot for now. If that comes up with a real, legitimate armed force, we'll get back to you on it.

So no army in the world will even consider ambushing another army?

But tell me, how does the insurgency in Iraq differ in any way from the French Resistance in WWII?

Er, no.

IED and ambushes are both recognized and legitimate military tactics when targeted against military targets. Even the more advanced militaries recognized that sometimes you (meaning, they) don't have the high-tech backup and it comes down to what some poor squaddie can accomplish with himself, a grenade, and a can of petrol that he scrounged somewhere.

The key is who the IED and/or ambush is aimed at. Putting an IED along the route that a military convoy is expected to travel is perfectly fine, even if it ends up going off at the wrong time and killing civilians. Putting an IED on the front steps of a church timed to go off at a civilian wedding is a no-no.

Except that wasn't talking about people placing an IED on the front steps of a church. I was saying that by using IEDs to attack a military target is more likely to have civilian casualties.

No. It's certainly very rare that the winners of a war will convene multinational war crimes tribunals, but violations of the rules of war is something that, historically, the US has acted on its own to punish. One of the most famous examples is the My Lai massacre, for which Lt. William Calley was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison. (The sentence was later commuted by President Nixon, but the conviction still stands as an example.)

So the US won the Vietnam war?

The tribunal was convened because of public outcry in the US. And even though Calley claimed that he was only following orders (and the lower sentence of about 4 years given by Nixon basically reflects that) none of his commanding officers were convicted of anything.

But please, show me where Admiral Nimitz was charged by the US for waging unrestricted submarine warfare? Or planning to fight a war?

And what happened to the US Marines who killed those people at Haditha?

 

[billydkid]

I have to add and I may well be adding nothing - they we know full well that torture goes on, it always has gone on in war and it always will. The question before us is whether or not to give it legal, however limited, sanction, which I think could not be more wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So tell me, Bush and his group keep speaking as if this plot was averted or that plot was uncovered. Yet here they are arresting a bunch of penny-ante terror wannabes in Florida, Bin Laden is at large, and as far as I can tell, there ain't ◊◊◊◊ to show for this torture.

We hear the claim over and over, they got this useful information. We hear the excuse, what if you knew there was a ticking nuclear bomb and you had a knowledgeable participant? I hear propaganda. I hear mistakes and failure being spun.

What do you think this torture really accomplished other than to make Bush et al feel like he was doing something after his abject failure to prevent 9/11?

I don't think torture is useful. I was trying to determine why those who argue for the rightness of the ticking time bomb justification of torture do not aply it to the area it would be most likely to come up in, POW's.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. As someone has said before, the average grunt on the ground has absolutely no knowledge of any strategic value.

And what about the non average grunt? I am thinking in cases where armies make their foes think that they are doing one thing and are actualy doing something else, how common is that knowledge?

It is not something that would be useful the vast majority of the time, but learning that the enemy is coming in one way and not another could sometimes be determined.

 

[drkitten]

So no army in the world will even consider ambushing another army?

Of course they will. But ambushes aren't prohibited tactics, so there's no problem if they do.

The problem is if they "perfidiously" wear civilian clothing instead of simply hiding behind walls and trees or something --- not wearing uniforms is a prohibited tactic.

But tell me, how does the insurgency in Iraq differ in any way from the French Resistance in WWII?

Well, one BIG way in which it differs is that the French resistance was active from about 1941-5, while the Iraqi insurgency is active from about 2002-8.


[QUTOE]
Except that wasn't talking about people placing an IED on the front steps of a church. I was saying that by using IEDs to attack a military target is more likely to have civilian casualties.[/QUOTE]

... which is acceptable. The legally relevant difference is one of targeting, not of accidental casualties.


Wow. Three objections, none of them relevant or even well-thought out. Let's see how you do with the fourth.

So the US won the Vietnam war?

No, but the Lt. Calley trial was not imposed upon the US. It did that voluntarily.

So, zero for four. Good going.

But please, show me where Admiral Nimitz was charged by the US for waging unrestricted submarine warfare? Or planning to fight a war?[/QUTOE]

You mean, the charges for which Admiral Donitz was acquitted because they were not contrary to the laws and customs of war? No need to charge someone with something that isn't a crime....

Zero for five. I'll bet you vote Libertarian, too.

 

[epeos76]

In addition to the many problems raised above, there is also the question of who gets to decide that person X might have information that could "save" thousands of lives. Historically, the U.S. has acknowledge the problem with giving that type of unchecked discretion to anyone, and imposed checks and balances.

Assuming there is ever a reason for government torture, Alan Derschowitz argues that it should require a warrant from an independent court (at a freaking minimum, I think it justifies a full trial).

In a Hollywood scenario where Bruce Willis has five minutes to cut the blue wire, the government should be required to justify the decision to use torture in the same manner after the fact, and to bear the risk of a mistake about both the decision and the result. Something on this order is a bare minimum first step for me to even consider tolerating government torture.

 

[JoeEllison]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to. If you take an enemy soldier, strip his uniform off, and put him in jeans and a t-shirt, does it magically make torture acceptable? It is psychotic to try to re-label human beings in order to pretend that it is sometimes acceptable to torture someone. It isn't wrong or right depending on the victim's status. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is the same as claiming that there is a way to change a person's legal status in order to make raping them legal... it isn't the status of the victim that matters, it is the law that restricts our behavior no matter who the victim is.

 

[drkitten]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to.

Unfortunately, neither law nor politics recognizes this sort of moral absolutism.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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.

I'm afraid it hasn't . See the words of Bush first here: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7245670.stm

Bush demands that the USA be allowed to torture whoever the US likes.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't think torture is useful. I was trying to determine why those who argue for the rightness of the ticking time bomb justification of torture do not aply it to the area it would be most likely to come up in, POW's.

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

So they aren't doing to your average guy there, they are doing it to guys like KSM, people who have had direct hands in events such as 9/11 killing thousands of people and have potential information that might affect 1000s more.

And the issue of the ticking time bomb is very important. It proves that everyone has a line they draw and that this issue isn't about right or wrong, but people thinking that their opinion of where to draw that line is more right than others. And then those same people often try to use guilt to bully people into agreeing with their opinion. Hence the need to turn the issue into a black and white one.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to. If you take an enemy soldier, strip his uniform off, and put him in jeans and a t-shirt, does it magically make torture acceptable? It is psychotic to try to re-label human beings in order to pretend that it is sometimes acceptable to torture someone. It isn't wrong or right depending on the victim's status. It is ALWAYS wrong. It is the same as claiming that there is a way to change a person's legal status in order to make raping them legal... it isn't the status of the victim that matters, it is the law that restricts our behavior no matter who the victim is.

So again. A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in NYC that is set to go off in 24 hours. This terrorist had previously done the same thing that cost the lives of 1000s of people. Do you let 100's of 1000s of people die to uphold your moral standard?

I would like to know how you would explain to everyone that it would have been wrong to torture the guy and that allowing all those people to die was the right thing (ALWAYS).

 

[Darat]

How do you know it is this person that has planted the bomb, how do you know it is set to go off in 24 hours, how do you know what information you need to make it safe and of course how do you know you can torture the person into giving you the information you need to make it safe?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please answer the question. The question implies that information is already known. Intel has shown it and no, you don't know that the torture will get the information out of the prisoner.

 

[SezMe]

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

So they aren't doing [missing noun]to your average guy there, they are doing it to guys like KSM, people who have had direct hands in events such as 9/11 killing thousands of people and have potential information that might affect 1000s more.

The noun that is missing in your sentence needs to be specified to determine if your assertion is correct. If the [missing noun] is "waterboarding" you are correct in that that is what the administration is claiming on the part of the USA. I don't trust them enough to believe it, but even if it is true, notice that that statement says nothing about what has been done to prisoners rendered to other countries.

If the [missing noun] is "torture" then the assertion is completely in error. The average guy has, in fact, been subject to torture.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

We're talking about waterboarding. And if you are pretty much making up your own mind about what is and isn't being done based on what you want to think is happening, then there's no point in discussing it.