"Why This Tolerance for Torture?"

05/22/2009 02:44:07 PM · #40

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I guess it really all depends on how you define torture...

The definition was set by the third and fourth Geneva Conventions, and they prohibit "physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion." As a signatory, the U.S. is bound by that agreement, regardless of where you or anyone else would personally draw the line. Waterboarding certainly qualifies as torture, and the U.S. prosecuted war criminals in the past for using that specific technique.

It was also defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as, "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..." The U.S. is a signatory to that one, too.

Message edited by author 2009-05-22 14:47:00.

05/22/2009 02:45:50 PM · #41

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Torture is torture...

Just to ask the question, but what isn't torture and how does one easily discern the difference? Can you use ANY technique to gain information from the enemy? or should we just concentrate on keeping them from doing harm to us and forget about asking questions?

The UN Convention uses the word "severe" in its definition which is, of course, completely up for debate. There are likely techniques which most (or maybe all) people agree constitute torture (the rack!), but there are techniqnues which some agree constitute torture and techniques where few people agree.

So throwing out tautologies like "torture is torture" really doesn't advance the conversation much.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/22/2009 02:56:18 PM · #42

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to ask the question, but what isn't torture and how does one easily discern the difference? Can you use ANY technique to gain information from the enemy?

"The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation, sometimes known by the military nomenclature FM 34-52, is a 177 page manual describing to military interrogators how to conduct effective interrogations while conforming with US and international law... During the American war on terror the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued "enhanced interrogation techniques" that went farther than those authorized in the Army Field Manual."

The regular police are certainly capable of interrogating people without resorting to "enhanced" techniques, so your argument is weak, and threats against the country do NOT excuse torture. The U.N. Convention Against Torture specifically "declares that no state of emergency, other external threats, nor orders from a superior officer or authority may be invoked to justify torture."

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/22/2009 03:14:21 PM · #43

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Torture is torture...

Just to ask the question, but what isn't torture and how does one easily discern the difference? Can you use ANY technique to gain information from the enemy? or should we just concentrate on keeping them from doing harm to us and forget about asking questions?

The UN Convention uses the word "severe" in its definition which is, of course, completely up for debate. There are likely techniques which most (or maybe all) people agree constitute torture (the rack!), but there are techniqnues which some agree constitute torture and techniques where few people agree.

So throwing out tautologies like "torture is torture" really doesn't advance the conversation much.

I actually doubt that my choice of words would fall into the category of "Tautologies" but that is another debate.

Given the comments made by

dponlymein this regard, it would seem that he does not care what psychological harm the person being questioned suffers, and that all is permissable. That would most certainly fall within the realm of what is unquestionably both "Severe" and "Unconscionable". The degrees you allude to in your rebuttal would therefore seem Moot.

I don't know how familiar you are with interrogational techniques Doc, but a great deal of information can be gleaned from conventional methods. It could be argued that resorting to the methods advocated by

dponlymecould and often do have either limited effect or on occasion even impact negatively on the investigative process. I don't have the time to conduct the research at this time since I am at work, but I do believe that one of the accused terrorists provided the interrogators with oodles of good information until such time as he was "Waterboarded" at which time, (pardon the pun) the information well ran dry.

I am certainly NOT advocating that interrogators cease asking pertinent questions, but rather reminding folks that there are guidelines to be adhered to.

Ray

Message edited by author 2009-05-22 15:18:49.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/22/2009 03:23:56 PM · #44

I'm just having conversation. I'm as against torture as the next guy, but a portion of the argument strikes me as silly. The UN Convention definition of torture mentions "severe" abuses. One would assume then that "moderate" abuses were fine. But one person's "severe" is another person's "moderate". I am perhaps wrong, but I'm guessing there is no smoking gun paper which states "waterboarding is torture". My guess is based on the fact that people like Alberto Gonzalez, to get where there are, must be intelligent and it does not strike me as very intelligent to write his memo if there was direct, irrefutable contradiction. I will allow being wrong about that though because at the end of the day I also think Waterboarding is pretty reprehensible no matter what terminology is applied.

BTW, "torture is torture" is a tautology by definition.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/22/2009 03:30:43 PM · #45

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I am perhaps wrong, but I'm guessing there is no smoking gun paper which states "waterboarding is torture".

How about the (previously mentioned) fact that the US has in the past carried out prosecutions for the commission of this particular act. It seems it would take more than "intelligence" to argue that we can prosecute THEM for doing something, but it's OK when WE do the same thing.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/22/2009 03:43:14 PM · #46

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My guess is based on the fact that people like Alberto Gonzalez, to get where there are, must be intelligent and it does not strike me as very intelligent to write his memo if there was direct, irrefutable contradiction.

What does intelligence have to do with it? Bernie Madoff was certainly intelligent and knew all about finance. So? If Alberto Gonzalez ever stood trial for war crimes, his defense would be in a really tough spot since the U.S. has officially considered waterboarding to be torture in the past and has signed agreements declaring that torture is NEVER justified. What defense could he possibly use?

05/22/2009 03:46:59 PM · #47

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My guess is based on the fact that people like Alberto Gonzalez, to get where there are, must be intelligent and it does not strike me as very intelligent to write his memo if there was direct, irrefutable contradiction.

What does intelligence have to do with it? Bernie Madoff was certainly intelligent and knew all about finance. So? If Alberto Gonzalez ever stood trial for war crimes, his defense would be in a really tough spot since the U.S. has officially considered waterboarding to be torture in the past and has signed agreements declaring that torture is NEVER justified. What defense could he possibly use?

Well, give it to me then. Show me the document. I'm fairly up-to-date on world affairs and I don't recall such a document ever being presented in the media. You'd think they'd be all over it.

You could also cite the instance where we prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. That would be fairly good too, although the older it is the less it may be relevant.