Should torture be Top Secret?

[ponderingturtle]

Bingo. Senator McCain seems to agree with you. (Or vice versa)

DR

Until he caved in and gave them what they wanted.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Until he caved in and gave them what they wanted.

Bloody politics.

DR

 

[steverino]

I don't know enough about the workings of the UN to be able to speak to address that, although my impression is that you are correct in your criticism of the UN in that regard.

I don't know all that much about Amnesty International either, but my impression there is much more favorable. They do a world-wide scrutiny, and do not exempt any nation from examination. They spotlight both the pony-tail pullings and the puppy drownings, which is exactly what I believe they should do. Their job is to impartially list all the violations, and from what I've seen they do a fairly good job at this.

I have on occasion referred to their reports on abuses, and it does seem to me that in examining a country they attempt to find and list all the abuses they are able to uncover. They do not subject one country to a different level of scrutiny than another. If most of the abuses listed for the UK or US seem to be of the pony-tail pulling variety than the puppy drowning variety, that's because those are the kinds of violations they found.

My point in my previous post -- and fishbob's point, too, I think -- is that both kinds of violations are wrong.

I think it is admirable that Amnesty International does such a comprehensive listing of violations. If Amnesty were to point out pony-tail pulling and not point out puppy drowning, that would be cause for concern. If they were to condemn pony-tail pulling but excuse puppy-drowning, that would be even worse. But I don't see that happening. I have never seen an example of an Amnesty statement in which they excused puppy-drowning.

Can you please give me examples of what you are talking about? If you believe there has ever been an occasion when Amnesty was aware of torture going on in (for example) Chinese prisons and issued a statement to the effect of People are being tortured in China, but it's being done for good reasons so we don't see any need for our members to write letters to the Chinese government letting them know we are aware of this and demanding they put a stop to this, please let me know and I will join you in criticizing AI and in working to have AI's policies changed.

Ah. Here you appear not to be talking about the country-by-country reports on violations which Amnesty International compiles, but about their press releases and calls for action. I think it is important to distinguish between these things.

Amnesty does a fairly comprehensive listing of the violations it finds. From what I can see, they apply the same standards in their scrutiny of the US as they do in their scrutiny of Vietnam and Burma and Uganda. They issue public reports which contain these findings -- but these public reports are long, dry, and not something most people pay much attention to.

They also issue occasional public statements to spotlight various violations they have found. These are short enough, and interesting enough, that the news media may actually give these attention and coverage if they think they can make a good story out of it and if it's a slow news day.

In making public statements, Amnesty has to pick and choose which particular incidents to focus on. In doing so, they may indeed be using standards which will lead to the US or other modern democratic nations being mentioned disproportionately. There are a number of reasons that could happen, some of which I feel are quite valid. For one, the discovery or significant violations being done by a country by the US is more newsworthy than the discovery of similar violations by China or Saudi Arabia.

One large point of these public statements is to get media coverage of the problem of human rights abuses. By spotlighting an abuse in one country, they are able to draw attention to the fact that these things occur in many countries. A story about torture in Whocaresistan is likely to be totally ignored; so Amnesty may be less likely to spotlight it, and when they do you may still be less likely to hear it.

But spotlighting abuses in modern democratic nations is not the same as excusing abuses in developing nations. Amnesty spotlights these as well, and condemns these as well.

Just as you and I must pick and choose what topics to start threads about, and what threads to respond to, so Amnesty must pick and choose what incidents to mention in their press releases. But that doesn't mean they are unconcerned about, or excusing, the ones they don't fit in, any more than the fact you or I don't have time to do a thread on something means we are excusing it. The test of whether Amnesty is concerned about a violation and whether they are condemning it is to see whether it is listed in their reports. And these reports, on the occasions I have needed to refer to them, seemed to me to be admirably comprehensive.

Yes, we should. And as an American, I tend to feel more of an obligation to point out, and work on correcting, US abuses than I do to work on pointing out and correcting abuses far away.

That does not mean I excuse those abuses. If an opportunity comes up to speak out against those and take effective action against them, I am glad to do so. But it makes sense to me to work on keeping one's own house clean and one's own family fed before looking for too many outside projects to work on. the USA is my home, so I feel an obligation to help with the house-cleaning.

The problem I see is that some people are trying to use other people's messy homes as an excuse for not keeping our own house clean. What the Bush administration is proposing -- making it a crime to expose torture of prisoners -- is wrong. Nothing that China is doing changes the need to speak out against that.

Again, thank you for spelling your perspective out with such clarity. I am guilty of listening to the radio and assuming Amnesty International is disperportionately, well, picking on that country, and I will take time looking at their website, etc. On NPR, we hear AI's complaints about Israel's treatment of Palestinians, Abu Grab, Gitmo, and high profile American death-penalties. On right-wing radio we hear that this is AI's focus and not China, Burma, or Bhutan. Thank you and cheers!

 

[Huntster]

.....But why are they fighting so hard for thier right to torture people if they are not tortureing people?

Please provide documentation on what it is they are "fighting so hard for." You know; evidence.

Then, I will comment.

(I've already done both. Apparently, some folks need some personal participation before they "get it." So, do some homework).

 

[steverino]

Yes, and people who endorse torture in their professional lives, are heading their opposition. Why is it that the private instead of profeshional lives only matter as a protection for the party you are in? That happened many years ago, but looking at bush's alcohol/drug abuse and such is inaproprate why?

This old chestnut I have a problem with. My belief is that Bush is now sober, and that to overcome a drinking problem should be commended. Last time I wrote this here every Bush-hater west of the Pecos (and east) jumped down my throat. If you hate him, his judgement, his lack of intellect, fine. But if your axe to grind with Bush is that he used to be a drunk, well, it reminds me in the fiifth grade when I first got eye glasses. They allowed me to see 20/20. Classmates would tease me, as now that I wore glases, they said I was blind.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please provide documentation on what it is they are "fighting so hard for." You know; evidence.

Then, I will comment.

(I've already done both. Apparently, some folks need some personal participation before they "get it." So, do some homework).

Well there was their opposition to a ban on torture to start with, they spent quite a bit off effort blocking anti torture legislation. Then there is the new powers they wanted to define torture themselves and not have to abide by any international standard(or any standard they would support if it was say our troops being subjected to the interogation techniques)

 

[ponderingturtle]

This old chestnut I have a problem with. My belief is that Bush is now sober, and that to overcome a drinking problem should be commended. Last time I wrote this here every Bush-hater west of the Pecos (and east) jumped down my throat. If you hate him, his judgement, his lack of intellect, fine. But if your axe to grind with Bush is that he used to be a drunk, well, it reminds me in the fiifth grade when I first got eye glasses. They allowed me to see 20/20. Classmates would tease me, as now that I wore glases, they said I was blind.

The point is attacking someones past personal life and not their present political life. If you attack Kennedy's past, then bush's and everyone else's is open.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This old chestnut I have a problem with. My belief is that Bush is now sober, and that to overcome a drinking problem should be commended. Last time I wrote this here every Bush-hater west of the Pecos (and east) jumped down my throat. If you hate him, his judgement, his lack of intellect, fine. But if your axe to grind with Bush is that he used to be a drunk, well, it reminds me in the fiifth grade when I first got eye glasses. They allowed me to see 20/20. Classmates would tease me, as now that I wore glases, they said I was blind.

This topic is, of course, cursed with the vague definition of "torture." I also think the OP is asking a curious question, since "should it be American policy if the definition is rigorously scrubbed and agreed in the first place," which I am still not confident is the case, strikes me as the dominant concern.

Should torture, the sustained infliction of physical pain, abuse, injury, and programmed deprivation be a policy used by the United States of America, and in what limited instances should it be applied?

Should it be a universal option? (My answer is no to that)

Why or why not?

If the answer is yes, then the necessary question becomes "at what level are the selected instances where torture is a valid method of prisoner handling to be classified? What legislative body is responsible for oversight, and on what interval?"

If the answer is no, the above consideration is OBE.

Requiring a classification of Top Secret (TS) implies that compromise of the information (that torture was used? the info derived from torture?) will do grave damage to US national security interests.

As I posted earlier, the policy has already leaked even though some people conflate dropping a copy of the Koran on the floor with torture, or naked dogpiles. (Harassment, yes, unprofessional, yes, torture, no.)

Has US national security been gravely damaged by these "revelations" and by the public debate?

Not the way leaking Crypto would degrade our security. I don't see TS as the correct level of classification, if the policy were to be undertaken.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

As I posted earlier, the policy has already leaked even though some people conflate dropping a copy of the Koran on the floor with torture, or naked dogpiles. (Harassment, yes, unprofessional, yes, torture, no.)

When does systematic humiliation become torture? So sexual assaults are only torture if there is pain involved, after all otherwise it is just the humiliation that is the key.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Please provide documentation on what it is they are "fighting so hard for." You know; evidence.

Then, I will comment.

(I've already done both. Apparently, some folks need some personal participation before they "get it." So, do some homework).

Well there was their opposition to a ban on torture to start with, they spent quite a bit off effort blocking anti torture legislation. Then there is the new powers they wanted to define torture themselves and not have to abide by any international standard(or any standard they would support if it was say our troops being subjected to the interogation techniques)

Please point out in your response the "documentation" or "homework" I asked for.

What you replied with appears to be hearsay, conjecture, and/or opinion with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

[Darth Rotor]

When does systematic humiliation become torture? So sexual assaults are only torture if there is pain involved, after all otherwise it is just the humiliation that is the key.

Where did I mention sexual assault?

I don't consider humiliation to be torture.

Learning how to deal with "humiliation" is one of life's lessons, as is learning not to be a drama queen. It is also part of Resistance training. This so called "humiliation" is only a big deal if you, the one allegedly humiliated, makes it a big deal. Stoicism is a fine tool for the prisoner, be he political or otherwise. Epictitus' lessons need to be brought back into currency, IMO.

Trivial schoolyard example:

Person A: "I see your underwear!"

Person B: (Humilitated person, person who gives away control of the situation *blushes* makes deal and cries about it

Person B': Person non humiliated: "Yes, I wear underwear." *shrugs*

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

The point is attacking someones past personal life and not their present political life. If you attack Kennedy's past, then bush's and everyone else's is open.

While what you say is true as an observation on how the political game is played, how is a reformed drug/alcohol abuser different from, or on the same plane as, a reformed negligent homicide/manslaughterer?

Are all past sins equal?

Is Agnew's tax evasion equal to Wilbur Mills' dalliance with strippers? Is Nixon's illegal activity equal to Clinton's blow job from an intern?

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out in your response the "documentation" or "homework" I asked for.

What you replied with appears to be hearsay, conjecture, and/or opinion with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Ah so you pay no attention to national politics I see.

These where major issues recently, you have to be very isolated not to know about them

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where did I mention sexual assault?

No where, and did not cover anything about sexual humilation that would normaly consitute sexual assault. So by implication sexual assault that is not related to pain is not torture

I don't consider humiliation to be torture.

So once again what is sexual assault? It is clearly intended to sexualy humiliate the individual, and as humiliation is not torture neither is sexual assault.

Learning how to deal with "humiliation" is one of life's lessons, as is learning not to be a drama queen. It is also part of Resistance training. This so called "humiliation" is only a big deal if you, the one allegedly humiliated, makes it a big deal. Stoicism is a fine tool for the prisoner, be he political or otherwise. Epictitus' lessons need to be brought back into currency, IMO.

So the sexual nature of the humiation is irrelevent I see.

As for comparing it to hazing, well it is missing a major part of hazing the ability to leave. Just like many activities change there status greatly when it changes from consentual to forced.

 

[ponderingturtle]

While what you say is true as an observation on how the political game is played, how is a reformed drug/alcohol abuser different from, or on the same plane as, a reformed negligent homicide/manslaughterer?

often pretty much, you can agrue eithe being worse, depending on your politcal beliefs. You simply find the reasons to hate the oposition and show how they are immoral. You forgive the ones that you choose to in your own group as they beleive what you beleive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out in your response the "documentation" or "homework" I asked for.

What you replied with appears to be hearsay, conjecture, and/or opinion with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Fine you want evidence you ignore the news so much to have missed I will give it to you

Bush vowing to veto anti torture legislation
The recent laws giving the president the power to decide what other than maiming, rape and death constitutes torture
More of the administration campaigning against blocking their right to torture people
Presidential lawyer advocating the presidents right to torture people including children

All very easy to find, you are very unaware and putting your head in the sand if you have not seen the various actions that the administration has done to enable them to torture people. How please show me some reason to think they are not acting on their belief that they have the right to torture people?

Sure they say that they are not doing it, but they limit torture to such extreme definitions that is had little meaning, and they often lie like about their secret prisons that they said they didn't have right up until they announced that they where all going to Guantanamo bay.

 

[Nova Land]

All "hypo" aside, it was a crime. Hands were not washed. The criminals were tried, some were acquitted, others convicted on various charges. It is not policy to beat prisoners. It is a crime.

Yes, it is a crime. And if the new administration policy is put into place, and they are allowed to classify the details of how prisoners are treated as Top Secret, then in the future it will be illegal to blow the whistle on such crimes. That is the point of this thread -- a point which you seem to be missing, since you still have not addressed it.

You state that torture is "offical US government policy."

I do? I'm not sure what you read in my posts that gives you that impression, but it's not something I intended. Please quote the passage where you think I say that, so I can see what it is I said that gave you that impression.

The official US government policy I have been talking about in this thread is the Bush administration's attempt to have details of how prisoners in US custody are treated classified as Top Secret. I thought that was fairly clear in my opening post, but it is easy to misread what people write on an emotionally charged issue such as torture. Please read my posts again with that in mind and see if that makes any difference to what you think I am saying.

These are incidents which should not occur, and when they do, legal justice should be (and was) sought

Good. We are agreement that these incidents should not occur, and we are in agreement that when they do they should be brought to light and prosecuted.

The one point where we appear to differ here is your parenthetical comment "(and was)". You appear content to say simply that Legal justice was sought. I think that in order for that statement to be honest it needs to include Legal justice was sought in the cases which have been brought to light.

Without that qualifier, the statement is deceptive. It implies that we know of all the incidents, and that all known incidents have been completely and fairly looked into. That is not the case. Bringing to light even the incidents which are now acknowledged by the Bush administration to have occurred was a difficult task. The Bush administration dragged its heels every step of the way, aided and abetted by apologists such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, numerous right-wing blogs, etc., who first said the reports weren't credible, then admitted the reports were credible but claimed that the incidents were no worse than fraternity hazing, then admitted the incidents were criminal but claimed there were only a few rogue personnel involved. A track record like that does not instill confidence in the accuracy of what the administration says. When the truth has to be dragged out of somone, it is hard to know when all the truth has been dragged out.

We still don't know if there are other cases which haven't been brought to light, because the Bush administration is still hiding behind a shield of secrecy -- a shield of secrecy which they are trying to expand with this new Top Secret classification policy. It is only in recent months, for instance, that they finally admitted we have been holding peole in secret prisons. The early reports that the US was engaged in this, which apologists have tried for the past year to pooh-pooh, have turned out to be substantially correct in all the details established so far. That means the allegations of torture in these reports -- which, because of Bush administration secrecy, are still unresolved -- have a good chance of being true as well. Until the Bush administration is leading the effort to investigate charges of mistreatment of prisoners, rather than stalling and obfuscating, it is premature to conclude that all the incidents have been brought to light or that all the criminals have been brought to justice.

 

[Nova Land]

continued from previous post...

All "hypo" aside, it was a crime.... It is not policy to beat prisoners. It is a crime.

Since we agree that these are crimes, and we agree that justice should be sought, do you agree that it would be wrong for the US government to put obstacles in the way of bringing such incidents to light in the future? Do you agree that it would be wrong for the US government to make it a crime for people who are aware of such things happening to leak the story to reporters, for reporters who write stories about such incidents to be put in jail, and for newspapers which print such stories to be fined or shut down? Because that is the US government policy I am opposed to and which you appear to be defending.

Here, for example, are three exchanges between us in which you seem to be defending such a policy:

The proposed policy of making it a crime to disclose the details about how prisoners are being treated would make it harder for such incidents to be brought to light in the future.

Yup. And they are a miniscule part of military action which is classified. The military classifies a whole lot of stuff, and in an era when intelligence failures abound, and when the Western media has demonstrated outright glee in anti-U.S. and U.S. military propaganda, it shouldn't be surprising that they want to classify more prisoner information.

That sounds to me as if you are saying you are not bothered by a policy which would classify as Top Secret the details of cases where prisoners were tortured.

And in the event that incidents of torture were discovered and brought to light, this policy would seek to punish those who exposed the torture rather than those who committed it.

Leaking official information, martial or not, has become a rampant problem.

That sounds to me like you are saying that leaks about the mistreatment of prisoners is a more serious problem than mistreatment of prisoners.

The policy the Bush administration is advocating would classify as Top Secret the details of how a prisoner is treated while in custody. Prisoners would be forbidden from revealing this information, even to their lawyers; if they did manage to pass this information on to their lawyers, the lawyers would be forbidden from telling anyone else or using this information in court filings; and any reporter who received this information and did a story about it would be liable to prosecution.

If that is true, I don't like it. However, I understand why they want it.

When you say that such a policy is understandable, that sounds to me as if you are saying such a policy is acceptable to you.

I wrote earlier in this thread that the Bush administration seemed more concerned with making sure that there were no leaks which disclosed incidents of torture than with making sure there no incidents of torture. My impression is that is what you are saying as well. But, as I noted above, it is easy to misread what people have written. I'm pretty sure you have misunderstood my position; it is quite likely I am misunderstanding yours as well.

So let me ask you to clarify your position:

1. Are you saying that preventing leaks is a higher priority to you than preventing torture?
2. Are you saying that a policy which forbids the disclosure of incidents in which prisoners are mistreated or abused is acceptable to you?

That is what I am hearing, but it may very well not be what you are saying.

 

[Nova Land]

still continued...

U.S. policy is black letter law. Violations of that is a crime.

Yes. But it is only officially recognized as a crime if the person committing the violations is identified, prosecuted, and convicted. Otherwise -- as happened in connection with Watergate, Iran-Contra, and a number of other scandals -- apologists for the law-breakers will claim that, since the person was not convicted, then obviously no crime took place.

And that's what this policy appears designed to facilitate. This policy makes it harder for incidents of torture and abuse to be brought to light -- which makes it harder for the people committing the abuses to be prosecuted and convicted. How many people in the Soviet Union were convicted of mistreating prisoners? Does the lack of such convictions mean no mistreatment took place?
will you argue that no crime has occurred?

Military officials are responsible for their actions. Abuses by military entities, U.S. and otherwise, have been revealed throughout this century, and trials held. If you want to fund attorneys for these people, go right ahead, but don't even think about bringing those "victims" here. You help them over there.

What on earth are you talking about?

I have said nothing about funding their attorneys, or about bringing these prisoners over here. What I have said is that a policy which classifies the details of their treatment as Top Secret is wrong. That is what I want to stop.

I have not heard that there is a problem with obtaining lawyers for these prisoners. The problem I've heard about is that lawyers are being prevented from seeing or talking with these prisoners. Which, if prisoners are being mistreated and the Bush administration prefers to keep that secret, makes sense. If the prisoners are allowed to talk to people from outside the prison, those people could carry details of abuses back to the outside world. So either one tries to limit the prisoners' access to outsiders (the policy for the past few years) or one permits the prisoners to talk to outsiders but forbids the outsiders from disclosing what they are told (the policy the Bush administration is now proposing).

This seems to me like a fairly simple issue. If people in our custody are being tortured -- whether at the direction of our government, or by rogue personnel -- then that is a crime which needs to be exposed and prosecuted. Those who attempt to conceal such crimes under the guise of "national security" are grossly abusing the power to classify information. Torture is not a "top secret," it is a disgrace.

 

[Nova Land]

a slight tangent

One doesn't need to be a christian to feel concern about things such as torture, but it is something I feel deeply that christians are called to do. I am disappointed that you who profess to hold a belief in god seem to feel more called to speak out in defense of those who condone torture than in defense of those who are undergoing it.

Nice try.

Well, actually, not a nice try. No further comment.

As a religious person, this is something I feel fairly strongly about. It's a side issue, though, and one more suited to discussing in the Religion & Philosophy section of the forum than in this thread. I'm going to be away from November 10th through 19th, but perhaps after I return we could discuss it over there?

If you are not interested in pursuing this further, that's fine too. I'm very slow at getting posts written, and there are enough threads which I'm interested in posting to, but haven't had time to catch up on, that I don't really need another to be thinking about at the moment. But this is a topic I would like to discuss with you someday.