Should POW's be Tortured

[SezMe]

but let's be honest. All this is is you trying to push your political views and using torture as a means to try and guilt your opinion on others.

Tell me, Jonny, when I and Piggy and Joe and others express our opinions regarding this powerful issue, how does that constitute trying to lay guilt on others? And when YOU express an opinion, why is that NOT trying to lay guilt on others?

 

[Piggy]

No one is saying that the average joe prisoner should be tortured. And when such things do happen, it's illegal. Hence people being involved in Abu Grabass going to jail. And yes that indeed makes things worse for us. But this whole issue has come up over the waterboarding issue. And this is something done in the extreme cases. This is what congress is arguing about. Not the rogue interrogators who break the law. But whether the act of waterboarding, or at least the loop hole on it should be made illegal.

But this is the problem with this being turned into a political issue. The implication is being made that torture should be used on every and anyone. And what gives the bad guys (for lack of a better term) this impression of us being this society of torturers are those that use this stuff as a political tool.

To simply make a hard set rule is going to mean putting lives in jeopardy when (not if) the extreme scenario comes around. This is why there need to be conditions for these extreme cases.

The issue at hand is how to handle the loop hole of enemy combatants. The best solution is to make it illegal with provisions for extreme cases. Otherwise the rules of the Army handbook are to be followed. And for every story you provide, there is a counter one. It's all about a balancing act and that is why absolute rules are dangerous.

Thanks for that post.

I still don't see eye-to-eye with you on this issue, but now I have a much better grasp of where you're coming from.

 

[Piggy]

There's a bit of misunderstanding of how good intelligence works. I suggest the A&E program The First 48 if you're interested in seeing a decent-enough civilian analogue. There are moments of immediate understanding but more often than not it's a very painstaking - and frankly boring - assembly of a broader mosaic from seemingly trivial details. Who drives the truck? How is the cell financed? How does the operational commander receive orders? Those are the stuff of Eureka! moments - not some Hollywood plot that fits nicely between commercial breaks.

There's also an interesting article in the May '07 "Atlantic Monthly" called "How to Break a Terrorist" which speaks to this issue.

Painting with an overly broad brush here (admittedly), a lot of this debate comes down to the value of psy-ops, generally favored by the military, versus dirty tricks, generally favored by civilians such as CIA.

From what I've seen, the record clearly comes down in favor of the former.

 

[gumboot]

I think a number of people might agree that in the hypothetical situation where you know person X has information that will definitely save the lives of lots of people, torture is acceptable. I'd be inclined to agree with that myself.

The problem, of course, is that this hypothetical scenario does not and can not exist. You can never know without question that the person in question has the information you need, and you can never know without question that torture will give you that information, and you can never know without question that once you have that information it will guarantee you will save the lives of lots of people.

The real world simply does not work this way.

Our legal systems recognise this - that is why a person must first be proven to be guilty in a court before that can in fact be considered guilty.

Finally, the above scenario speaks only from the concept of saving lives. During WW2, and countless other wars, our societies have accepted the loss of millions upon millions of lives, based entirely upon the premise that many things are more valuable than the collective value of the individual human lives. Freedom. Justice. Equality. We have died for these, generation after generation after generation. We have established, through blood, that these ideals, these values which constitute the very fabric of our society are worth more than a human life. They are worth more than entire generations.

To surrender those values for the sake of saving a few lives, then, is a direct rejection of everything our society stands for. Let's pretend that I know for a fact I can save the lives of 1 million people. All I must do is reject the values of my society and torture a single individual.

What that says is that 1 million people are worth more than our values. And what does that say of the millions of people who sacrificed their lives to preserve those values?

Torture is an insult to our fallen, because it rejects their sacrifice as worthless.

 

[SezMe]

Very well said, gumboot.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, thanks, gumboot.

And we must never forget that habeas, which is granted to all persons within US jurisdictions -- not just citizens -- was not instituted because the founders were ignorant of terrorism. They knew terrorism all too well.

Yet they also understood that an even greater threat to life and liberty lay in the exercise of arbitrary power by those who hold the reins of governmental authority.

What would they think about the cowardly rush by so many to abandon liberty today?

I believe they would be repulsed at the notion that the liberties they risked and sacrificed so much to attain would be tossed aside for fear of violence.

They were made of stronger stuff.

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

It's a shame that so many today look at risk and say, "No. Never. Anything but that. We cannot have that. Go ahead, engage in torture, give the government the power to spy on citizens secretly, send people to black cells in foreign lands without trial or due process, anything... just please, don't let any harm come to me."

 

[Cylinder]

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

No they didn't.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, thanks, gumboot.

And we must never forget that habeas, which is granted to all persons within US jurisdictions -- not just citizens -- was not instituted because the founders were ignorant of terrorism. They knew terrorism all too well.

Yet they also understood that an even greater threat to life and liberty lay in the exercise of arbitrary power by those who hold the reins of governmental authority.

What would they think about the cowardly rush by so many to abandon liberty today?

I believe they would be repulsed at the notion that the liberties they risked and sacrificed so much to attain would be tossed aside for fear of violence.

They were made of stronger stuff.

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

It's a shame that so many today look at risk and say, "No. Never. Anything but that. We cannot have that. Go ahead, engage in torture, give the government the power to spy on citizens secretly, send people to black cells in foreign lands without trial or due process, anything... just please, don't let any harm come to me."

Whatever else they were, they weren't cowards, unlike the present crop of "take our freedoms, just keep us safe" yellow scumbags.

 

[Piggy]

No they didn't.

Oh, sorry. I wan't referring specifically to habeas in that passage, which came much later in my post than my reference to habeas in the beginning. But since I led w/ habeas, I can see how I'd give that impression. Mea culpa.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, thanks, gumboot.

And we must never forget that habeas, which is granted to all persons within US jurisdictions -- not just citizens -- was not instituted because the founders were ignorant of terrorism. They knew terrorism all too well.

Yet they also understood that an even greater threat to life and liberty lay in the exercise of arbitrary power by those who hold the reins of governmental authority.

What would they think about the cowardly rush by so many to abandon liberty today?

I believe they would be repulsed at the notion that the liberties they risked and sacrificed so much to attain would be tossed aside for fear of violence.

They were made of stronger stuff.

Yes, we may yet have attacks on our soil. Yes, hundreds or thousands may die if our enemies succeed in implementing another attack.

Our founders looked at risk and decided, "It's worth it".

It's a shame that so many today look at risk and say, "No. Never. Anything but that. We cannot have that. Go ahead, engage in torture, give the government the power to spy on citizens secretly, send people to black cells in foreign lands without trial or due process, anything... just please, don't let any harm come to me."

To be entirely fair, I suspect that the founding fathers would probably be horrified by the number of liberties there are in the USA today. Let's not forget that you're talking about people who kept slaves, followed sexually repressive religions, were almost certainly racist, sexist, and so forth.

You're right that they might also be disturbed by government spying and such things, but I suspect such matters would be overshadowed by their moral outrage at the USA's social liberties.

This is why I feel that appealing to the Founding Fathers is not necessarily a good thing. I doubt the current state of the USA is anything like what they envisaged. Tough. It's no longer their USA. The question is whether the current state of the USA is what the current population of the USA wants, because ultimately that's all that matters.

The checks and balances established by the founders were not designed to restrict the USA to an unchanging formula based on what the founding fathers wanted. They were designed to prevent any future government of the day from turning the USA into something the people of the day didn't want.

The starting point, thus, is not "What would the founding fathers think of this?" but "What do I think of this?"

At least, that's how this non-American perceives it.

 

[SezMe]

While the USA founding fathers were certainly influenced by Locke and the Enlightenment, they were also the product of their times. Their guiding principles were humanistic, many were Deists, but they were also politicians and merchants.

Thus, I think it is a folly to wonder what they would think of the American culture today. Another question would be what would they think had they been raised in our culture. Who knows.

The checks and balances established by the founders were not designed to restrict the USA to an unchanging formula based on what the founding fathers wanted. They were designed to prevent any future government of the day from turning the USA into something the people of the day didn't want.

Unfortuantly, this view is not universally held and is, in fact, rejected by, for example, the "strict constructionists" who inhabit the federal judiciary. Notable among these are Justices Scalia and Thomas.

I do agree that your posited starting point is the right one. Sadly, others do not.

 

[Piggy]

To be entirely fair, I suspect that the founding fathers would probably be horrified by the number of liberties there are in the USA today. Let's not forget that you're talking about people who kept slaves, followed sexually repressive religions, were almost certainly racist, sexist, and so forth.

You're right that they might also be disturbed by government spying and such things, but I suspect such matters would be overshadowed by their moral outrage at the USA's social liberties.

Some would be outraged, others would no doubt be pleased.

And although an appeal to the founders certainly cannot be our basis for all law, there is a meme floating around these days that we need to give more power -- of secrecy, torture, rendition, spying on citizens, denying due process, etc. -- to the government because our current situation of terribly terrifying terror is a totally new thing in this world, something that the framers of our government could not have foreseen.

My point is that they didn't have to foresee war, terrorism, and internal enemies, because these were part of their experience. And they built these protections into our Constitution anyway.

 

[billydkid]

To be entirely fair, I suspect that the founding fathers would probably be horrified by the number of liberties there are in the USA today. Let's not forget that you're talking about people who kept slaves, followed sexually repressive religions, were almost certainly racist, sexist, and so forth.

You're right that they might also be disturbed by government spying and such things, but I suspect such matters would be overshadowed by their moral outrage at the USA's social liberties.

This is why I feel that appealing to the Founding Fathers is not necessarily a good thing. I doubt the current state of the USA is anything like what they envisaged. Tough. It's no longer their USA. The question is whether the current state of the USA is what the current population of the USA wants, because ultimately that's all that matters.

The checks and balances established by the founders were not designed to restrict the USA to an unchanging formula based on what the founding fathers wanted. They were designed to prevent any future government of the day from turning the USA into something the people of the day didn't want.

The starting point, thus, is not "What would the founding fathers think of this?" but "What do I think of this?"

At least, that's how this non-American perceives it.

Actually, I don't think you are being entirely fair. I think the founders knew full well that they didn't actually live up to the creed they espoused and figured on the country becoming more liberal and eventually being able to fulfill the ideal, more or less, of what it means to be genuinely, politically free. And I think it is a mistake to confuse liberty with the libertine. If I follow your argument one would have to assume that if the people decided they wanted a socialist empire like the former USSR the founders would be okay with that. I think that is obviously not true. The founders espoused certain bedrock principles which would preclude the possibility of having a government, merely, that the people of a certain generation want. One of the fundamental principles is the idea of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men, which is why following the Constitution is so basic. If a society has come to believe that some aspect of the Constitution is not viable, the proper thing to do is to change it, not disregard it.

Another fundamental belief of the founders is that people should have the power and the means to throw off and change the government should it become oppressive and that is the purpose of the second amendment. The founders were quite explicit about this and virtually all the 2nd amendment debate is entirely disingenuous. It should be recognized that one of the first steps any repressive regime takes is to disarm the populace and the first steps toward gun control were taken to disarm blacks in the south and to prevent them from being able to meaningfully stand up for their basic rights.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

No one is saying that the average joe prisoner should be tortured. And when such things do happen, it's illegal. Hence people being involved in Abu Grabass going to jail. And yes that indeed makes things worse for us. But this whole issue has come up over the waterboarding issue. And this is something done in the extreme cases. This is what congress is arguing about. Not the rogue interrogators who break the law. But whether the act of waterboarding, or at least the loop hole on it should be made illegal.

But this is the problem with this being turned into a political issue. The implication is being made that torture should be used on every and anyone. And what gives the bad guys (for lack of a better term) this impression of us being this society of torturers are those that use this stuff as a political tool.

To simply make a hard set rule is going to mean putting lives in jeopardy when (not if) the extreme scenario comes around. This is why there need to be conditions for these extreme cases.

The issue at hand is how to handle the loop hole of enemy combatants. The best solution is to make it illegal with provisions for extreme cases. Otherwise the rules of the Army handbook are to be followed. And for every story you provide, there is a counter one. It's all about a balancing act and that is why absolute rules are dangerous.

Perhaps a start would be not to vote for torturers like Dick and Dub and Condie? If you blame the people for electing Hamas then you must blame the people who elected torturers as their representatives - or have I missed something important?

 

[gumboot]

If I follow your argument one would have to assume that if the people decided they wanted a socialist empire like the former USSR the founders would be okay with that.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[drkitten]

No, that's not acceptable. To make laws and then break them when convenient?

Actually, that's very close to the way that the current legal system generally works.

Are you familiar with the term "necessity defense"? Basically, it is a defense to any criminal prosecution that an illegal act was "necessary." For example, if there is a fire in a prison, and the prisoners escape (in order to avoid being burned to death), then they will be acquitted if charged with illegal escape. Driving drunk in order to get someone to the hospital is legal if you're the only driver on the scene. The Model Penal Code (which many states follow) explicitly allows that "Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that: . . . the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged"

The proposed torture policies thus go far beyond anything that would be required to protect someone who in good faith tortures a proven terrorist and thereby saves the lives of millions of innocents.

Therefore, it's a straw man. No matter what laws are enacted, it will still be legal to violate them in order to avoid harm or evil to another.

What the torture proponents here want is simply a blanket justification to carry out whatever sadistic whims they might have. They're lying to me and to themselves.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

WHat does that have to do with those useing the ticking time bomb justification for torture?

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.

So? This has nothing to do with does the ticking time bomb justification of torture mean that POW's should be tortured as it is with them that the situation is most likely to come up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

The thread was never about any particular technique. It was why do those who argue for torture under the ticking time bomb argument not extend to POW's. Many large offensives depended on suprise and used misdirrection quite effectively. This would seem to be the a real world example of the ticking time bomb.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It was you that mentioned torture and waterboarding in the same paragraph so it seems that clarification was called for. If you want to be strict about it, the OP asks if waterboarding should be used on POWs so your scenario does not apply. Other than that, I don't know what your post is trying to say.

No it specifies torture, it is not specific about the methodology of that torture.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How about something a little closer to home. What if we had KSM in custody just before 9/11 and we had followed up on the intel as should have been done to know there was an up coming attack. Would that be an impossible scenario? And would you have chosen KSM's rights over the lives and families of those killed on 9/11? Or say that he had been in custody during the attacks but nothing was done with him for fear of people getting upset that we might not be nice to terrorists. Would you have any trouble explaining to the family of the dead that it would have been wrong to torture KSM in an attempt to try and prevent the attack?

Ah but you again creating an entirely fictional senario. Or does there not need to be a ticking time bomb? You seem to be tortureing him just because he might know about a potential attack, not because you know he knows about a definite attack.


So then when does some terrorist suspect get tortured?