Should torture be Top Secret?

ponderingturtle said:
... What other than maiming, death and rape are out of bounds?

So with a the right definition of torture of course we don't torture people. All you have to do is define torture correctly
Click to expand...
Is even rape out of bounds? If some of the stuff that has occurred can be brushed aside as the equivalent of fraternity hazing, and sexual humiliation of prisoners can be dismissed because, hey, some people pay to have that stuff done to them, then is it so hard to imagine the rape defense Yeah, s/he said to stop, but I didn't think s/he really meant it, I thought s/he was enjoying it. If s/he didn't want to have sex, why didn't s/he fight back harder?

As for maiming, I believe the current administration definition already provides an out -- it's not torture unless the maiming was deliberate. Otherwise it's simply a regrettable accident. Same for death.

We would not accept such ridiculous excuses and justifications if it were people we know and loved being subjected to this abuse. I cannot understand any reasonable person putting out such justifications with a straight face. If someone who is putting forth such justifications, and who is sincere in doing so, would be willing to explain their thinking, I would appreciate it.

I can understand people doing this who don't sincerely believe the argument they are making, but believe it is okay to put forward arguments they don't really believe if it helps them win a debate. I don't agree with that philosophy, but I can understand it. But I can't wrap my mind around the idea that there are people who really, truly, believe what is described in these allegations is nothing more than harmless fun, something they would have no problem with if it happened to their kids at college.

US soldiers have been POWs in the past; they likely will be POWs in the future. A good time to take a clear stand on what we do and don't consider appropriate behavior of captors to captives is now.
 
Huntster said:
The Bagram events were crimes committed by U.S. personnel, not U.S. policy.
Click to expand...
If this were purely a hypothetical situation, then trying to draw a distinction between torture which is offical US government policy and torture which is the individual initiative of people the government put in charge of the prisoners might be an interesting intellectual exercise. But this is not a hypothetical situation. The important question is whether people are being tortured and abused -- not whether it is being done in such a way that we can wash our hands and pretend it's none of our business.

You asked if this was happening. People gave you examples of several incidents which have come to light.

These are incidents which I hope you agree should not have happened. That's why your dismissive reply to the people who answered your question saddens me.

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. 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. If this were a Congressional Bill, an appropriate title might be The USA Torturer Protection Act.

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.

You are drawing a distinction between what is done to captives by their captors which can be proven to be US policy, and treatment which is done to captives by their captors which cannot be proven to be US policy. But how is a prisoner to know whether abuse and mistreatment they are undergoing is official US policy? All the prisoner knows is what is happening -- not whether it is happening because the US government ordered it or whether it is happening because the US government failed to take adequate steps to prevent it from happening.

If a prisoner is being tortured or abused, they should be able to get the word out, so that those of us who are not in prison, who are not powerless, can know about these abuses and can take steps to try to end them. That's why groups like Amnesty International exist: to put a spotlight on the torturers of the world.

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.
 
My quote: "Wrong is wrong, but some wrongs are wronger than others. If I pull my sister's braides and she reacts by drowning my puppy, I hope Mommy slaps me on the wrist for my wrong, and then grounds Sis for a couple of months for her wrong."


fishbob said:
What your sister does is irrelevant to your morals.

You and ghost707 can be classmates!!!
Click to expand...

1) fishbob- You were the one who told me that Kerry and Bush were the two worst choices and you voted for Kerry because he was less worse. So there is a moral relevancy, even according to you.

2) I would be honored to be a clasmate of ghost707, or even his student.
 
steverino said:
My quote: "Wrong is wrong, but some wrongs are wronger than others...

fishbob- You were the one who told me that Kerry and Bush were the two worst choices and you voted for Kerry because he was less worse. So there is a moral relevancy, even according to you.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing fishbob's point.

You are right when you say Wrong is wrong. You are also right when you say some wrongs are wronger than others.

In your second example: you pulling your sister's braids was wrong. Your sister drowning a puppy was also wrong. It was significantly more wrong than your wrong, but what you did is still wrong. Pointing to her reaction to what you did, and pointing out it was worse than what you did, does not change the fact that what you did was wrong. If you attempted to excuse your action by pointing to hers, you would be wrong on that as well.

In your first example: Bush promulgating policies which have allowed torture to occur, and now trying to put in place a policy which would help keep torture from being brought to light, is wrong. Teddy Kennedy letting a woman drown was wrong.

Pointing out Teddy Kennedy's wrongful act in order to distract from the wrongness of Bush's, or pointing out the wrongness of Bush's in order to distract from the wrongness of Kennedy's, would be wrong.

When people are engaged in wrong-doing, they need to be called on it. This is especially true of wrong-doing which is happening now. There isn't much that can be done to save Mary Jo Kopechne's life today. There is a lot that can be done to prevent torture and abuse from continuing to happen to people in US custody.

By all means continue to point out Kennedy's past failings if you feel people need to be made aware of them or if you feel there is something that needs to be done to rectify them or to prevent others from repeating them. But don't use that as a way of distracting from or excusing other wrong-doing. If you use Kopechne's death to try to distract from what is being done to captives today, then you are not only condoning torture but you are cheapening Kopechne's death.
 
Nova Land said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
The Bagram events were crimes committed by U.S. personnel, not U.S. policy.
Click to expand...

If this were purely a hypothetical situation, then trying to draw a distinction between torture which is offical US government policy and torture which is the individual initiative of people the government put in charge of the prisoners might be an interesting intellectual exercise. But this is not a hypothetical situation. The important question is whether people are being tortured and abused -- not whether it is being done in such a way that we can wash our hands and pretend it's none of our business.
Click to expand...

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.

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

I challenge you to prove that claim.

You asked if this was happening. People gave you examples of several incidents which have come to light.
Click to expand...

And I pointed out that these examples were crimes, and justice was sought.

These are incidents which I hope you agree should not have happened.
Click to expand...

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

That's why your dismissive reply to the people who answered your question saddens me.
Click to expand...

I dismiss nothing, and nothing in my post indicates that. I repeat, these are crimes, they are violations of U.S. policy, and justice must be sought.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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

You are drawing a distinction between what is done to captives by their captors which can be proven to be US policy, and treatment which is done to captives by their captors which cannot be proven to be US policy.
Click to expand...

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

But how is a prisoner to know whether abuse and mistreatment they are undergoing is official US policy?
Click to expand...

I don't want them to know what U.S. policy is. You don't read Miranda rights to prisoners you want information from.

All the prisoner knows is what is happening -- not whether it is happening because the US government ordered it or whether it is happening because the US government failed to take adequate steps to prevent it from happening.

If a prisoner is being tortured or abused, they should be able to get the word out, so that those of us who are not in prison, who are not powerless, can know about these abuses and can take steps to try to end them. That's why groups like Amnesty International exist: to put a spotlight on the torturers of the world.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Well, actually, not a nice try. No further comment.
 
steverino said:
1) fishbob- You were the one who told me that Kerry and Bush were the two worst choices and you voted for Kerry because he was less worse. So there is a moral relevancy, even according to you.
Click to expand...

Moral relevancy is very different from practical choice making.

I had 3 practical choices in voting: Bush, Kerry, or don't even bother.

My moral choice is to not torture. There is no picking among options.

I hope you can see the difference.
 
Nova Land said:
I think you are missing fishbob's point.

You are right when you say Wrong is wrong. You are also right when you say some wrongs are wronger than others.

In your second example: you pulling your sister's braids was wrong. Your sister drowning a puppy was also wrong. It was significantly more wrong than your wrong, but what you did is still wrong. Pointing to her reaction to what you did, and pointing out it was worse than what you did, does not change the fact that what you did was wrong. If you attempted to excuse your action by pointing to hers, you would be wrong on that as well.

In your first example: Bush promulgating policies which have allowed torture to occur, and now trying to put in place a policy which would help keep torture from being brought to light, is wrong. Teddy Kennedy letting a woman drown was wrong.

Pointing out Teddy Kennedy's wrongful act in order to distract from the wrongness of Bush's, or pointing out the wrongness of Bush's in order to distract from the wrongness of Kennedy's, would be wrong.

When people are engaged in wrong-doing, they need to be called on it. This is especially true of wrong-doing which is happening now. There isn't much that can be done to save Mary Jo Kopechne's life today. There is a lot that can be done to prevent torture and abuse from continuing to happen to people in US custody.

By all means continue to point out Kennedy's past failings if you feel people need to be made aware of them or if you feel there is something that needs to be done to rectify them or to prevent others from repeating them. But don't use that as a way of distracting from or excusing other wrong-doing. If you use Kopechne's death to try to distract from what is being done to captives today, then you are not only condoning torture but you are cheapening Kopechne's death.
Click to expand...

I am flattered that you have taken the time to examine this. I have two ears and one mouth, so I am actually open-minded. My problem with all this is that organizations like the UN and Amnisty International point to the "poney-tail" pulling, if you will, and seem to excuse the "drowning puppy." It is as if they have two levels of expectations, one set for modern democratic nations, and another for developing nations. In other words, we as Americans should know better. One example that comes to mind is that Roger Ebert has admitted that he will give, say "Meatballs 14," 3 stars if it is mildly amusing, while giving a Scorsese film just 2 stars if it is not quite wonderful because he has a higher expectation of the director and genre than the Meatballs film.
 
Also, Ted Kennedy is still a powerful force in our political establishment. He is a leader with a lot of sway on how we live our lives. So to call his past into question I feel is still relevant. I mean, these old SS Nazi farts living in Uruguay may deserve to get hunted down and exposed for the scoundrels they were, but they currently have no power. No, Kennedy's wrong is not AS wrong, but I simply make the point he is still around and voting for bills.
 
steverino said:
... My problem with all this is that organizations like the UN and Amnesty International point to the "pony-tail" pulling, if you will, and seem to excuse the "drowning puppy."
Click to expand...
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.

It is as if they have two levels of expectations, one set for modern democratic nations, and another for developing nations.
Click to expand...
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.

In other words, we as Americans should know better.
Click to expand...
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.
 
steverino said:
Also, Ted Kennedy is still a powerful force in our political establishment. He is a leader with a lot of sway on how we live our lives. So to call his past into question I feel is still relevant.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have no problem with questioning Kennedy's past actions, or Bush's, or anyone else's.

But if you feel Kennedy's past actions are worth discussing, I think it would be better to start a thread devoted to that topic than to introduce it in a thread about the Bush administration proposing a policy which would prevent instances of torture from being brought to light. The one does not excuse the other.

Too often, people respond to criticism of someone they support by countering with criticism of someone they oppose. I think that's a mistake. It uses one injustice to distract attention away from another. If something is wrong, it needs to be condemned for its own sake -- not used as a way to excuse someone else's wrong.

Which I think is what you were saying about Amnesty, so I think we are likely in philosophical agreement. We may simply be in disagreement for now about how to apply that philosophical principle.
 
posted by Stevarino
I am flattered that you have taken the time to examine this. I have two ears and one mouth, so I am actually open-minded. My problem with all this is that organizations like the UN and Amnisty International point to the "poney-tail" pulling, if you will, and seem to excuse the "drowning puppy." It is as if they have two levels of expectations, one set for modern democratic nations, and another for developing nations. In other words, we as Americans should know better. One example that comes to mind is that Roger Ebert has admitted that he will give, say "Meatballs 14," 3 stars if it is mildly amusing, while giving a Scorsese film just 2 stars if it is not quite wonderful because he has a higher expectation of the director and genre than the Meatballs film.
Click to expand...
Interesting point, but with one caveat on Amnesty, they feel that there goal is to publicise alleged abuses, they do not vette thier stories which thier reporters send to them, although they do cite the sources when possible.

So Amnesty's goal is to just point out that abuses might be occuring.

But is you actualy look at thier web site, something most of thier detractos don't do, then you will find that the vast majority of reports are from all sorts of countries other than the USA.

One of thier current campaigns, as it has been for a long time, is about Darfur. There current biggest campaign is to talk about the trade in miltary arms.

So I would state that thier goal is to talk about a lot of things, they certainly don't single out the US, not like they do Russia and China. Most of thier reports about the US concern thier stand on the execution of prisoners.

http://www.amnesty.org
 
Huntster said:
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.

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

I challenge you to prove that claim.
Click to expand...

Well there is rumsfeilds "we have to be on the dark side a bit"

But why are they fighting so hard for thier right to torture people if they are not tortureing people?
 
steverino said:
Also, Ted Kennedy is still a powerful force in our political establishment. He is a leader with a lot of sway on how we live our lives. So to call his past into question I feel is still relevant. I mean, these old SS Nazi farts living in Uruguay may deserve to get hunted down and exposed for the scoundrels they were, but they currently have no power. No, Kennedy's wrong is not AS wrong, but I simply make the point he is still around and voting for bills.
Click to expand...

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?
 
I remember some psych study that had eerily similar results to abu grahib (sp?). I think it was the harvard prison study? It was neat to read about, it looks like most of us have it in us to do those things. If you give people authority without clear rules it degenerates into prisoner abuse. I personally blame the administration.
 
nails said:
I remember some psych study that had eerily similar results to abu grahib (sp?). I think it was the harvard prison study? It was neat to read about, it looks like most of us have it in us to do those things. If you give people authority without clear rules it degenerates into prisoner abuse. I personally blame the administration.
Click to expand...

Yep, almost exactly the same. That was the problem they did the thing most people would do if told to soften up people for interogation. They where giving improper instructions and training, but acted in a normal fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom