"We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

[the_ceebs]

Such suffering must be "severe," the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to suggest it "must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure."

so if a person actually gives information, then it would be considered torture?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Atahualpa

And for that ridiculous story Spencer made up: Do you HONESTLY think that you can get information out of a guy whose nuclear bomb is going to explode in 2 hours? Dont you think, people blowing themselves up for their cause, give a rat's ass about being tortured??? They will heroically stand through the 2 hours and then BOOOM. Those people are martyrians! Torturing them is what they expect. Seriously, if it is going to get close you are lost, if you caught someone or not.

I said nothing about 2 hours but I think your point has some validity. Not all of them are martyrs though. There is clear evidence that not all the 9/11 terrorists knew that the plan was to kill themselves with the hijacked aircraft.

The majority here would rather keep their 'morality' and allow the bomb to explode rather than use every means at their disposal to try to prevent it. Some morality!

Its amazing to me that most of those with this opinion were the whiners about the lack of intel over 9/11. You cant have it both ways.

[Kropotkin]

Well, I think I've only have on thing to say about all this; SpencerH would probably have great career in front of him if he had joined TjK/GPU/NKVD/MGB/MVD back in the good old days.

[SpencerH]

Anyone care to argue an alternative?

[Ramo]

An alternative to torturing people? Well, that's easy: not torturing people.

Not only is torture morally outrageous, it doesn't work. People under torture would say anything to satisfy their torturers regardless of the veracity of their claims.

And how exactly do you find out who the next 9/11 hijacker will be? Torture every Muslim? If we actually knew who was going to conduct a terrorist act on 9/11, we'd have been able to prove his guilt in a trial. The simple truth is that we didn't, and torture wouldn't have got us anywhere.

[SpencerH]

I guess I should have been more specific. Since you dont seem to have read the thread, my question is more akin to, if you remove our ability to coerce information from terrorist suspects in these situations what do we do instead, ask them nicely?

Many here have voiced there disgust with torture but no one has said they're willing to live with the disasters that can occur when intelligence gathering is handcuffed by impractical 'marquis de queensbury rules' (as it became during the Clinton administration).

[Aeson]

The majority here would rather keep their 'morality' and allow the bomb to explode rather than use every means at their disposal to try to prevent it. Some morality!

So if I thought you had set a bomb to go off, I would be justified in torturing you?

You need hard evidence to justify torture. In your scenario, we either know there is a bomb, or it's just guessing there is a bomb. Torturing someone on a guess is not something I would support.

If we have hard evidence that there is a bomb set to go off... We know there is a bomb, where it is, and it's going to go off... that means we have the information already that we need. You don't need to torture to get it. But you need that information to justify torture in the first place.

We also have to know we have the right person to torture. Torturing someone who knows nothing will not help us obtain the information, and only serves to throw away our own humanity. How do we know unless we already have the evidence that would provide the information we need (ie. observation of the placing and/or activation of the bomb)? Again, having the information to justify the torture means we don't need to torture to get to that information.

Even if you make your scenario much more specific to bypass these problems, you still have a problem. The example would be you find a person placing a bomb just as they set the timer and activate. You don't have the resources to disable the bomb, and so are reliant upon the person who set it to deactivate.

Then you have the problem of whether the information you could obtain from the torture will be useful or not. Torture relies on using pain to circumvent the rational portion of brain activity. That means the information you get from torture is irrational in nature. It may be good information still, it may just be jibberish. How do you distinguish between them, and how do you distinguish between the irrational bypass and intentionally shoddy information from the rational process?

It's more likely the guy setting the bomb would tell you how to make it bypass the timer and go off instantly than to tell you how to prevent it from going off.

Torture is dangerous (to all of us), and not an exact science. When you open the door to it with the reasoning present in your 'scenario', then you are justifying torture of basically anyone. Because all you are requiring is that we think they have set a bomb to go off, not hard evidence that they actually have done so.

[Seeker]

Please, please Americans stop making it so difficult to be a white guy working in a foreign country.

declare a one year moratorium on anal object rape, 'stress positions' and random beatings/electrocutions.

Just for my sake.

BTW, Spencer, do you think that the NSA should go to Hanoi and interview some of their ace interrogators?

I hear they developed some real nifty techniques for extracting information from terrorists who literally might know where the next bombs were going to explode. Sounds just like the kinda stuff the Cheney/Ashcroft posse are into. The results were kinda spotty though.

[DinoDoc]

Working in South Korea is going to be diffucult as a white guy regardless of what we do.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I guess I should have been more specific. Since you dont seem to have read the thread, my question is more akin to, if you remove our ability to coerce information from terrorist suspects in these situations what do we do instead, ask them nicely?

Did you just say, suspects?

[Ramo]

I guess I should have been more specific. Since you dont seem to have read the thread, my question is more akin to, if you remove our ability to coerce information from terrorist suspects in these situations what do we do instead, ask them nicely?

I don't want us to have the "ability" to get phantom threats and false intelligence from people who may not be terrorists. I'd rather that we committ our resources to real investigative work. You know, the stuff that law enforcement in this country is able to do perfectly competently, without having to torture suspects.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Did you just say, suspects?

[SpencerH]

Yes, suspects, just like those that attacked us on 9/11. Only Atta was a known terrorist. Until they actually do something (and often even if they do do something) they're suspects.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Aeson

So if I thought you had set a bomb to go off, I would be justified in torturing you?

yes

You need hard evidence to justify torture. In your scenario, we either know there is a bomb, or it's just guessing there is a bomb. Torturing someone on a guess is not something I would support.

No. In my scenario we have:

1) intel that a terrorists have been working on a dirty bomb in the USA
2) a suspect
3) evidence that the suspect has handled radioactive isotopes that could be used in such a weapon

If we have hard evidence that there is a bomb set to go off... We know there is a bomb, where it is, and it's going to go off... that means we have the information already that we need. You don't need to torture to get it. But you need that information to justify torture in the first place.

Obviously if we knew where the bomb was we'd have no need to torture the suspect for that information.

We also have to know we have the right person to torture. Torturing someone who knows nothing will not help us obtain the information, and only serves to throw away our own humanity.

I agree

How do we know unless we already have the evidence that would provide the information we need (ie. observation of the placing and/or activation of the bomb)? Again, having the information to justify the torture means we don't need to torture to get to that information.

You have set up a wonderful catch-22 by setting the level of evidence impossibly high. By this definition, we could never convict a criminal (for example).

Even if you make your scenario much more specific to bypass these problems, you still have a problem. The example would be you find a person placing a bomb just as they set the timer and activate. You don't have the resources to disable the bomb, and so are reliant upon the person who set it to deactivate.

Why wouldnt I have the resources? In any case, if we imagine that there is not enough time to study the bomb in order to disarm it safely, would that not justify using strongly coercive measures i.e. torture to force the 'suspect' to divulge any info he has?

Then you have the problem of whether the information you could obtain from the torture will be useful or not. Torture relies on using pain to circumvent the rational portion of brain activity. That means the information you get from torture is irrational in nature. It may be good information still, it may just be jibberish. How do you distinguish between them, and how do you distinguish between the irrational bypass and intentionally shoddy information from the rational process?

If we go to where he says it is and its there, we know he was telling the truth. All info must be assessed before it is called intel. Its interesting to note that the most succesful intelligence organisation of recent times i.e. Mossad does not reject the concept of torture and has argued against the curbs on such activities mandated by the Knesset.

It's more likely the guy setting the bomb would tell you how to make it bypass the timer and go off instantly than to tell you how to prevent it from going off.

That's a potential risk. As I said above, the info must be judged before used. We're not discussing characters from a movie guessing which coloured wire to cut

Torture is dangerous (to all of us), and not an exact science. When you open the door to it with the reasoning present in your 'scenario', then you are justifying torture of basically anyone. Because all you are requiring is that we think they have set a bomb to go off, not hard evidence that they actually have done so.

I agree. My argument is that we already use torture every single day, in this, and every other western country. Torture does not simply mean chopping bits off people or using electric shock. Torture also means emotional and mental torment. Solitary confinement is torture, and in fact it is recognized as a 'legitimate' torture method for use in Guantanamo (but only up to 30 days).

As I said before, I can understand that someone might reject torture outright. That means, however, that we would not be allowed to question any suspect (of anything) under anything but ideal circumstances. Simply questioning a suspect in the environment of a police station is likely to be stressful for some individuals and hence torture. I'm not sure that even Ghandi would have advocated that criminal suspects (for example) should be treated with such deference.

If one accepts that legitimate reasons exist that allow us to coerce information from suspects under stressful conditions, then one also accepts torture (as a concept). Once that is done, all that remains to be decided is what level/type of torture is acceptable with respect to specific circumstances. Such choices vary from culture to culture and from person to person.

I am not advocating torture. I simply accept that it exists and that it has legitimate uses. What I dont accept is the two-faced opinions of those who wish to remain 'lily-white' about this issue while whining about intelligence failures and pointing fingers at the governments corruption on this matter.

[Aeson]

yes

Well, get ready for the torture then. I think you have planted a bomb. Don't think there aren't people out there who wouldn't take advantage of this. Some people are sadists, and would make up information just to watch you squeel. It's bad enough without government sanction. With government sanction, we turn our country into hell.

1) intel that a terrorists have been working on a dirty bomb in the USA

Intel good enough to justify torture though? That is where we differ. I don't accept torturing on a guess. It's got to be a sure thing.

2) a suspect

A suspect. So you haven't proven he's the guy.

3) evidence that the suspect has handled radioactive isotopes that could be used in such a weapon

So show the evidence in court. You haven't mention anything which says that there is a bomb ready to go off and there is a time limited factor. To know those things you really need to know where the bomb is and that it's set... and you then have the information you need anyways.

You want foreknowlege as a given to justify the torture. You can't have that foreknowlege though. You can't fix faulty intelligence with torture, because justifying the torture will be reliant on that faulty intelligence.

You have set up a wonderful catch-22 by setting the level of evidence impossibly high. By this definition, we could never convict a criminal (for example).

Giving a person a trial by jury is not the same thing as torturing someone based on a guess.

I would want a sure thing to justify torturing someone. That doesn't mean we need a sure thing to convict someone of theft. Beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice, because the actions we are taking in response differ from one case to another. You need evidence to support not just the conviction, but the punishment as well. When you are going to do something irreversable (mentally or physically breaking someone) you need more evidence than when you are just going to be imprisoning someone.

You can give someone back their freedom, you can give them compensation for their time. It might not have been 'worth it' to the person, but at least attempts can be made. You can't even try to make ammends to dead people. Torturing someone to the point of breaking is something you can't take back or make ammends for either.

Why wouldnt I have the resources?

Because obviously you don't need to torture the guy if you have the resources to disable the bomb.

In any case, if we imagine that there is not enough time to study the bomb in order to disarm it safely, would that not justify using strongly coercive measures i.e. torture to force the 'suspect' to divulge any info he has?

If you also had evidence that doing so would produce the necessary information. The only way you're going to get that evidence though is by torturing him, and trying out what he says.

He's just going to tell you how to set the bomb off most likely. Our collective morality (a sure thing) vs. a chance at information about an event we aren't sure will even happen (not a sure thing) doesn't seem like a very good gamble to me.

Its interesting to note that the most succesful intelligence organisation of recent times i.e. Mossad does not reject the concept of torture and has argued against the curbs on such activities mandated by the Knesset.

I'm not saying you can't get more information by torturing.

The CIA and FBI could a lot better intelligence if they were allowed to read everyone's mail, plant cameras in everyone's house, drug and torture anyone they wanted... But I'd rather live with faulty intelligence than in such a state. Do you think we should allow them these options without counterbalances? (court issued warrents, wiretaps, ect.)

(That doesn't mean I justify acting on what we know is faulty or insufficient intelligence. Sometimes we have to bite the bullet and just admit we don't know.)

As I said before, I can understand that someone might reject torture outright. That means, however, that we would not be allowed to question any suspect (of anything) under anything but ideal circumstances.

If one accepts that legitimate reasons exist that allow us to coerce information from suspects under stressful conditions, then one also accepts torture (as a concept).

Only if they use the same definition(s) of torture as you do.

From the dictionary:

tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
1b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

You are misusing the term in this argument. To extract information using torture necessarily means the pain is inflicted intentionally (1a and/or 1b). But instead you use the definition of torture which deals with the pain experienced (2 and/or 3, which even giving a guy ice cream could end up doing) to justify it.

I am not advocating torture. I simply accept that it exists and that it has legitimate uses. What I dont accept is the two-faced opinions of those who wish to remain 'lily-white' about this issue while whining about intelligence failures and pointing fingers at the governments corruption on this matter.

Address the people you feel fit this description then. Don't hide behind generalization of 'people'.

I feel we've had a lot of intelligence failures. I don't support torture as a legitimate tactic. I certainly don't support corruption in our government on any matter.

Does this make me two-faced? Or does this mean my use of "intelligence failure" is not dealing with our inability to know everything (through torture, or whatever). That would be a silly thing to imply, because obviously we can't know everything even with every option available, and I am advocating giving up a potential source of information to keep our humanity. "Intelligence failure" is my way of saying we have acted on too little information. Which incidently is exactly what I am saying in regards to torture.