Ed Senate: Torture should not be our legacy

[KatieG]

Senate: Toruture should not be our legacy

Too late!

 

[The Atheist]

Senate: Toruture should not be our legacy

Too late!

Correct; it has been for several years now.

They should have said ".... continuing legacy."

 

[Aepervius]

You got me, it is that easy. The hard part is getting a consensus on the definition of "torture".

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Seems straightforward to me. The only weasel word i see is "severe". But from those who tried it it is pretty clear water boarding fits the definition : feeling of drowning, feeling of imminent threat of death, and it is damaging to the lung.

The most widely accepted definition of torture internationally is that set out by Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):

“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

 

[Aepervius]

Senate: Toruture should not be our legacy

Too late!

And the great propaganda it gave to many other countries. "The US is doing it too".

 

[3point14]

Could you provide an example to explain what it is you mean? I once defended the techniques I now think should be forever left in our past. I changed my mind due to discussion of the issues involved. This makes me uncritical how?

What's the problem here?

This works on the "does not agree with me therefore does not think critically" category. Is there a label for that fallacy?

 

[3point14]

I imagine hose responsible for torure in the name of the American people will now be prosecuted?

 

[Upchurch]

This works on the "does not agree with me therefore does not think critically" category. Is there a label for that fallacy?

Maybe a false dichotomy?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No it's not. The law is the same now as it was before 9/11.

I have to say, it's more than a little disturbing how some people can so easily say, "Yes, torture is absolutely wrong and barbarous, but... let's spend an eternity nailing down exactly what we mean by 'torture' before we actually stop doing anything."

From the outside, such comments appear to be a pretty clear self-delusion. At a minimum, they're an attempt to simultaneously advocate for the action while trrying to convince the audience that you're actually against it. Very politician-like...

 

[Upchurch]

I have to say, it's more than a little disturbing how some people can so easily say, "Yes, torture is absolutely wrong and barbarous, but... let's spend an eternity nailing down exactly what we mean by 'torture' before we actually stop doing anything."

From the outside, such comments appear to be a pretty clear self-delusion. At a minimum, they're an attempt to simultaneously advocate for the action while trrying to convince the audience that you're actually against it. Very politician-like...

"Question. What if I see something that I wanna torture someone?"
"Then you will be arrested."
"But what if I want really want to torture someone I think is evil?"
"Still illegal."
"That doesn't follow. No, I want to do it, sir. Do you understand me?"
(with apologies to Rocket)

 

[Kestrel]

I imagine hose responsible for torure in the name of the American people will now be prosecuted?

It is more likely that they will be employed as foreign policy advisors to Jeb Bush.

 

[BStrong]

And the great propaganda it gave to many other countries. "The US is doing it too".

For countries in the third world, extra judicial punishment and torture is the rule, not the exception.

Here in the U.S. there have been documented instances of abuse and even murder of individuals in custody going back to the 1940's into the 1960's in the prison systems in the south.

Just had a local scandal involving S.F. County Sheriff deputies running a fight club in the S.F. county jail:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-gladiator-style-fight-club-article-1.2164297

The extra judicial punishment and abuse of individuals in custody just didn't pop up fully formed as a result of 9/11.

 

[RandFan]

For countries in the third world, extra judicial punishment and torture is the rule, not the exception.

Here in the U.S. there have been documented instances of abuse and even murder of individuals in custody going back to the 1940's into the 1960's in the prison systems in the south.

Just had a local scandal involving S.F. County Sheriff deputies running a fight club in the S.F. county jail:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-gladiator-style-fight-club-article-1.2164297

The extra judicial punishment and abuse of individuals in custody just didn't pop up fully formed as a result of 9/11.

No but we did as a nation rationalize our criminality to the rest of the world.

 

[Upchurch]

No but we did as a nation rationalize our criminality to the rest of the world.

...and to ourselves.

 

[Arcade22]

The hard part is getting a consensus on the definition of "torture".

That's only hard when people refuse to acknowledge that something is torture simply due to the fact that the torturers are "the good guys" or that they torture for "good reasons".

Essentially: Torture is bad and torturers are bad people so if the good guys do something it can't possibly be torture because then they wouldn't be good guys in the first place.

 

[RandFan]

That's only hard when people refuse to acknowledge that something is torture simply due to the fact that the torturers are "the good guys" or that they torture for "good reasons".

Essentially: Torture is bad and torturers are bad people so if the good guys do something it can't possibly be torture because then they wouldn't be good guys in the first place.

Sad but true.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

A brief moment of clarity.

Hi,RF. Long time, no speakee.
Just exactly what techniques do you think of as torture? I'm not talking about the legal definition, which is subject to interpretation, I mean where is the dividing line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture?
Think of it as a scale between:
Politely asking if the subject wants to discuss the issues.
and
Nailing his testicles to the chair and firing up the blowtorch.

Note: This isn't intended solely for RF. I'd be interested in multiple responses.

 

[theprestige]

Hi,RF. Long time, no speakee.
Just exactly what techniques do you think of as torture? I'm not talking about the legal definition, which is subject to interpretation, I mean where is the dividing line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture?
Think of it as a scale between:
Politely asking if the subject wants to discuss the issues.
and
Nailing his testicles to the chair and firing up the blowtorch.

Note: This isn't intended solely for RF. I'd be interested in multiple responses.

It's been a while since I read the memo listing the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" (for which approval and oversight were required), but as I recall none of them struck me as being "torture" in the "fundamentally evil and we should never do it ever" sense of the word.

So I'm definitely open to arguments that we shouldn't do it because it's not effective enough to justify the distress it causes; and arguments that we shouldn't do it because we can't manage effective oversight or screen interrogators properly. Conversely I'm underwhelmed by naked assertions that we shouldn't do it because it's torture and torture is always evil and wrong and we should never do torture.

 

[RandFan]

Hi,RF. Long time, no speakee.
Just exactly what techniques do you think of as torture? I'm not talking about the legal definition, which is subject to interpretation, I mean where is the dividing line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture?
Think of it as a scale between:
Politely asking if the subject wants to discuss the issues.
and
Nailing his testicles to the chair and firing up the blowtorch.

Note: This isn't intended solely for RF. I'd be interested in multiple responses.

Thanks for the question. I don't want to dismiss your question out of hand but a couple of things come to mind.

First, I like that there are experts who can tell me what is effective and what isn't. I like that there are experts who can tell me what is likely to cause long term harm and what isn't.

Second, is this in reference to Xenu's paradox or are you just trying to find out where my personal limits are?

Off the top of my head I would say that any action that experts believe to have a significant likelihood of causing long term harm due to the administration of severe pain resulting from the technique to be torture.

http://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

This definition contains three cumulative elements:

• the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering
• by a public official, who is directly or indirectly involved
• for a specific purpose.

 

[RandFan]

Conversely I'm underwhelmed by naked assertions that we shouldn't do it because it's torture and torture is always evil and wrong and we should never do torture.

No one is making that argument. We are arguing that we have a definition and laws that take into account that definition. If you want to discuss the definition I'm open to that. Hell, I've started my own thread in support of "enhanced techniques".

Torture is the illegal use of pain to get information. That's wrong. We ought not do that. Would you not agree?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Thanks for the question. I don't want to dismiss your question out of hand but a couple of things come to mind.

First, I like that there are experts who can tell me what is effective and what isn't. I like that there are experts who can tell me what is likely to cause long term harm and what isn't.

Second, is this in reference to Xenu's paradox or are you just trying to find out where my personal limits are?

Off the top of my head I would say that any action that experts believe to have a significant likelihood of causing long term harm due to the administration of severe pain resulting from the technique to be torture.

http://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

This definition contains three cumulative elements:

• the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering
• by a public official, who is directly or indirectly involved
• for a specific purpose.

And thank you for a well reasoned reply.
In reference to Xenu's paradox I am assuming you are referring to dichotomy paradox, but no, I am not. I am only seeking a general point where the line should be drawn.
As you probably know, I have more than a passing familiarity with the techniques of interrogation, but I am more interested in what the general public feels is excessive.

Personally I feel that any technique which has a likelihood of causing permanent physical harm exceeds the boundary. In short, the blowtorch is out, and I think everyone on both sides of the line is in agreement with that.
After that, we have shades of grey.
As example, sleep deprivation (which you mentioned before), or threats of action (but not the action in itself).
Am I clear about this? (no sarcasm intended)