Once a torturer always a torturer

[AvalonXQ]

I usually disagree with most of what George Bush Jr stands/stood for, but this is one of the things he got right. What are we meant to do? just ask them politely "are you a terrorist?" War is a dirty business...

I'm not sure there's any good evidence that techniques like waterboarding (and, worse, actual torture) are actually effective, though.

 

[epeos76]

It's interesting how much opposition you can generate if you are rabid and confused enough, even in the name of a just cause.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm not sure there's any good evidence that techniques like waterboarding (and, worse, actual torture) are actually effective, though.

That is a good question and a thorough analysis by experts shows that there is no evidence that it does and not much research apparently is being done into finding techniques that actually work.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501204.html

Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says
Few Studies Have Examined U.S. Methods
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

And: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/badintelligence/

Waterboarding Doesn’t Work, Scientists Say
By Brandon Keim Email Author
September 21, 2009

A report published by the Intelligence Science Board in 2007 found that no research existed to support the use of enhanced interrogation. And O’Mara’s review, published Monday in Trends in Cognitive Science, describes a wealth of science that supports ending the practice.

The Report is Here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

And why the Intelligence Science Board is qualified to write such a report is here:
http://www.dia.mil/college/

I respectfully suggest that posters in this thread read the report.

 

[theprestige]

So is threatening to rape the prisoner's children.

All things considered, I'd say it's an incredibly cheap price to pay.

If only the 9/11 attackers had stooped to such depths, as to threaten horrible things, instead of actually going out and killing people!

 

[Red3]

I'm not sure there's any good evidence that techniques like waterboarding (and, worse, actual torture) are actually effective, though.

Maybe not, after all if you torture someone long enough they're more than likely gonna tell you whatever you wanna hear. But what are the alternatives? I understand the negatives of torture, but how else do you get information from a fanatical enemy that doesn't wanna share it?

In comparison to the techniques and tactics used by islamic terrorists, i'd say it was pretty humane.

 

[Polaris]

Those who gives a rat's ass about the rule of law.

The law is crazy if it values the comfort of Islamic terrorists (or any Islamists, frankly) over the lives of its intended victims. You're mistaking Islamists for actual humans. They've forfeit that claim and would deny it to the world on "Allah's" mythical say-so.

That trash can smell our Western hyper-introspection and guilt like a bull shark smells blood. It'll be our downfall unless we stop pretending this isn't a game for keeps.

 

[fishbob]

Waterboarding might save the lives of hundreds of people. There is no injury and no lasting physical damage. Its a cheap price to pay.

Check your facts:

Count up all the people who lived because somebody spilled crucial information during waterboarding. Any at all? Just 1?

Compare with the number of waterboardees who accidently didn't quite survive their waterboarding session. Oopsies.

Waterboarding is a cheap way to get anybody to say what you want to hear, a government service I am not willing to pay for.

 

[fishbob]

I think the judgment that waterboarding is harsh interrogation but not torture is a reasonable judgment and would not claim that those who have engaged in waterboarding are violating international agreements against torture. I certainly wouldn't call for them to be tried for violating human rights.

I would.

See the section titled: A Punishable Offense
article

We have a long history of convicting and punishing waterboarders.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Nothing is stopping the person being tortured to lie. It's a stupid and desperate decision to torture. It's results are unreliable. I think it's only even an issue we're discussing because of what people feel the person being tortured deserves. There's no such thing as "deserving" outside of human ideals.

 

[Nova Land]

For those who believe water-boarding is not torture, and that it is a useful interrogation technique, three questions:

1. During various wars, such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War, US soldiers have been captured by the enemy. If the Koreans or North Vietnamese had water-boarded US soldiers in order to obtain information from them (such as whether US forces were committing war crimes), or if US soldiers captured in some future conflict are water-boarded, do you consider this acceptable treatment and a legitimate form of interrogation?

2. If US citizens suspected of espionage are arrested in foreign countries, would you consider the use of water-boarding acceptable treatment and a legitimate form of interrogation?

3. If US soldiers confess during interrogation by water-boarding that they are guilty of war crimes, or US civilians confess during interrogation by water-boarding that they are guilty of espionage, would you have any objection to their being convicted and executed based on that evidence?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

'...In his first major interview since leaving office, former president George W. Bush defended the most controversial aspects of his tenure - including the use of waterboarding against terrorism suspects and the invasion of Iraq. ...'

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...AR2010110807347.html?nav=rss_email/components

Also

'...He said he personally approved use of the tactic on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, adding that when he was told that it and other harsh interrogation techniques were legal, he ordered: "Use 'em." ...'

Here we see a torturer claim that he personally ordered torture to be used. Let us not forget that he pressured the lawyers to declare torture to be legal.

His behaviour amounts to a crime and is illegal under many international treaties the USA has signed up to (including the Geneva conventions). What has happened to this criminal? Nothing. Nada. he struts the streets of the USA free and easy, justifying torture to all and sundry. He argues that to defend Usans it is necessary to use torture.

This episode shows: -


1/ That the world cannot trust the USA not to break any human rights treaties it signs.
2/ That Usan soldiers are now at more danger of being tortured because a US government declared that torture is legal all around the world.
3/ Hypocrisy on a breath taking scale. The USA walks around the world stage demanding others obey the law while it will not prosecute self-confessed torturers because they are Usan. Is this not an example of a major reason why the Founding Fathers of the USA wanted to break away from the UK - the arbitrary use of power and law breaking in favour of the rich and powerful. Perhaps Bush and the Republican party never actually read the Declaration of Independence.
4/ This suggests that as soon as another Republican president is elected that the USA will start torturing again. One only has to listen to what possible Republican candidates for the Presidency are saying. People like the deeply odious Palin and her lunatic cronies in the racist Tea Party.

PS
For those of the knee jerk inclination that criticising the USA over its official use of torture is anti-Usan - do you really, really want to claim that being pro-Usan is to be pro-torture and/or that the USA has no need to keep treaties on human rights?

PPS
For those inclined to argue that torture is legal please see just some of the following: -

'...Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education and coercion. In the 21st century, torture is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 147 states.[3]
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical.[4] Despite these international conventions, however, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.[5]...'

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

The USA is a signatory of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Bush confessed that he ordered torture. That is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.

I saw this. It made George W Bush seem more cuddly to me.

 

[funk de fino]

No. I don't believe police should be permitted to do anything to suspected criminals other than lock them up and send them to trial.

So when it this "enhanced" interrogation allowed?

Only on muslims?

 

[Travis]

Rationally we know this stuff doesn't really work but I can understand how it happens.

You got the 24/7 news media that's wondering why nothing is happening. This angers the politicians who lean on the bureaucracies to get something done and to get it done "yesterday." They lean on their inferiors "just get some results, any results!" They in turn just want something, anything to stop the **** from running downhill and drowning them. So they waterboard the guy just to get something even if it's utter garbage. Then justifying it proceeds back up the chain of command as everyone realizes what their impatience has done.

 

[fishbob]

I saw this. It made George W Bush seem more cuddly to me.

Yeah. He's so cute, you just want to pinch his little cheeks.
Off.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yeah. He's so cute, you just want to pinch his little cheeks.
Off.

Eh? Keep it clean there are children participating. D)

 

[theprestige]

Waterboarding is a cheap way to get anybody to say what you want to hear, a government service I am not willing to pay for.

What if I want to hear testable claims that evaluate as true when tested?

Is it that torture produces whatever the torturer wants to hear, unless the torturer wants to hear true facts?

Or is it that of all the things that torturers might possibly want to hear, they never want to hear true facts?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So when it this "enhanced" interrogation allowed?

I'm okay with interrogation for terrorism prevention and other war scenarios -- for use in information necessary to prevent harm / fight the war, not for use in court proceedings. I'm not okay with interrogation of citizens suspected of crimes; I don't think any interrogation techniques are appropriate to try to obtain a criminal conviction.
So I have one standard for the rights of criminals (very high), which basically precludes the use of force to get evidence to send people to jail. I have another standard for the rights of enemies (not as high), which allows the use of force to get intelligence to fight them (but that evidence is still inadmissable at trial).

 

[AvalonXQ]

Is it that torture produces whatever the torturer wants to hear, unless the torturer wants to hear true facts?

The claim is that torture causes the subject to confirm information that the torturer wants confirmed whether or not the information is accurate, without actually causing the subject to divulge information that the torturer didn't already have.