Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

This is a PERFECT example of why following the Geneva Conventions is important.

No, it's a perfect example of why we need to have a clear set of standards that apply to detainees of every stripe, whether they are offical combatants from other members of the convention or international criminals detained by foreign law enforcement agencies and turned over to the U.S. for questioning.

[Alexander's Horse]

Look, this is a loony argument. Probably the most successful intel gathering from human sources was done by the Western allies during WWII.

The Germans and the Japanese used torture and had abysmal human intelligence. It was just a black hole for them. Partly because once they tortured, people flocked to help the other side. And they couldn't rely on the information gained from torture anyway because once you start mistreating people they'll pretty much tell you anything to make you stop.

So now we're learning from the losers?

The Soviets used torture but actually found it quite unreliable for intelligence gathering and mostly did it for other reasons - like to terrorise the enemy. After Stalingrad they changed tactics with the 6th Army General staff, treated them well and got sh*tloads of good reliable information. They even turned some of them, including Paulus, who lived out his days in East Germany as an adviser to their military.

Most of the people who support torture don't know the first thing about how to gather information.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Colon
EU to investigate allegations of CIA jails

This pisses me off, if it is true. If the US wishes to trample due process of law and human rights, and wishes to squander whatever moral authorithy it has, fine, be my guest. But do it in your own bloody territory.

Those euro countries in question better have nothing to do with it.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Soviets used torture but actually found it quite unreliable for intelligence gathering and mostly did it for other reasons - like to terrorise the enemy. After Stalingrad they changed tactics with the 6th Army General staff, treated them well and got sh*tloads of good reliable information. They even turned some of them, including Paulus, who lived out his days in East Germany as an adviser to their military.

Really? That's interesting, I never read anything about him (Paulus, who apparently wasn't a von) becoming very soft towards the USSR because of the Soviets, I read that he turned after the June Conspiracy and Hitler had some of his friends executed. Is that true? Is the lack of torture what made him turn? Also, I thought he was advisor to the GDR police, rather than army...or were they the same as per Germany officially not being allowed to field an army?

[BeBMan]

The Eastern German "Kasernierte Vokspolizei" (difficult to translate, the term refers to police units which were de facto organised as military units, and therefore different from the "normal" police, which did of course exist as well) in the early 1950ies was something like a "proto-army", since full-scale military forces were indeed not allowed for both German states after 45. This changed during the course og the Cold War, and especially after the Korean War and the establishment of the NATO/Warsaw Pact ....

In Eastern Germany those police units formed the core of the military when it was created as "official" army in 1955/56.

[Alexander's Horse]

The other thing about communist torture was it wasn't usually to get the truth but to get people to sign their names to lies, like they were part of some conspiracy or something.

This isn't much different from the torture at Gitmo imo.

[SpencerH]

Joining the 'flower children' are we AH! Yeah, we should be able to convert fundementalist terrorists to our cause with our good will and kind words.

[SpencerH]

For the life of me I cant understand why people think that the commitment of Islamic terrorist funde's to their cause anything is less than total.

How many people here would give up their countries secrets to their enemies while well treated in captivity? Even amongst these many bleeding hearts at poly, I daresay not many.

If we accept that killing is morally wrong but understand that it is justified in some cases then why can we not say that torture is wrong but justified in some cases.

If you then accept the premise that as a society we are sometimes forced to do things that most people consider morally wrong then all that is left is to do is to define the limits (if any) to those 'un-moral' actions.

In some countries, for example, self defense is a valid justification for killing another person while in others it is not. In addition, in countries that allow the self defense justification, there are rules that vary from place to place that determine the circumstances that allow for the use of 'lethal force.'

I see no difference here with torture compared to killing. We need to accept the fact that extracting information from people who are committed to not giving you that info requires coercion of some type. The distinction between torture and coercion varys for people and societys. We need to accept that we are justified in trying to obtain info from our enemies and we need to clearly define what actions are justified in these circumstances. That's what McCains amendment tries to do.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SpencerH
How many people here would give up their countries secrets to their enemies while well treated in captivity? Even amongst these many bleeding hearts at poly, I daresay not many.

He said that many of the suspects he had interrogated expected to be tortured, and were stunned to learn that they had rights under the American system. Due process made detainees more compliant, not less, Coleman said. He had also found that a defendant’s right to legal counsel was beneficial not only to suspects but also to law-enforcement officers.Defense lawyers frequently persuaded detainees to cooperate with prosecutors, in exchange for plea agreements. “The lawyers show these guys there’s a way out,” Coleman said. “It’s human nature. People don’t cooperate with you unless they have some reason to.” He added, “Brutalization doesn’t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.”

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4085321#post4085321

Granted we won't be needing a lot of these people for trial but it does show quite well that getting reliable information from even Islamic terrorist funde's doesn't require torture.

[Drake Tungsten]

On a side note, what are the odds of there being an investigation to track down the leakers responsible for the revelation of these secret CIA prisons?

[Cyclotron]

If we accept that killing is morally wrong but understand that it is justified in some cases then why can we not say that torture is wrong but justified in some cases.

I don't accept your premise. 'Killing' is not morally wrong; murder is. Torture is always wrong and never justified. End of story.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by SpencerH
For the life of me I cant understand why people think that the commitment of Islamic terrorist funde's to their cause anything is less than total.

How many people here would give up their countries secrets to their enemies while well treated in captivity? Even amongst these many bleeding hearts at poly, I daresay not many.

If we accept that killing is morally wrong but understand that it is justified in some cases then why can we not say that torture is wrong but justified in some cases.

If you then accept the premise that as a society we are sometimes forced to do things that most people consider morally wrong then all that is left is to do is to define the limits (if any) to those 'un-moral' actions.

In some countries, for example, self defense is a valid justification for killing another person while in others it is not. In addition, in countries that allow the self defense justification, there are rules that vary from place to place that determine the circumstances that allow for the use of 'lethal force.'

I see no difference here with torture compared to killing. We need to accept the fact that extracting information from people who are committed to not giving you that info requires coercion of some type. The distinction between torture and coercion varys for people and societys. We need to accept that we are justified in trying to obtain info from our enemies and we need to clearly define what actions are justified in these circumstances. That's what McCains amendment tries to do.

I hope I do not misread your post....but don't you have slight problem that - when using torture - we violate the same principles we try to defend, and in a serious way? Aside from the practical question how useful this would be.....

I just skimmed through the thread, I think cyclotron made a similar point before, but to me this is still the main point here, and everything else about defense or justification is mainly rationalization to make up an excuse.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

nm

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


I don't accept your premise. 'Killing' is not morally wrong; murder is. Torture is always wrong and never justified. End of story.

Semantical games part duex

Killing is to murder as extracting information is to torture.

Murder implies premeditation with some evil purposes while killing implies some justifiable reason for soing so.

Torture implies inflicting harm with some evil purposes while extracting intelligence implies some justifiable reason for doing so.

[Kontiki]

Why would killing imply a justifiable reason to do so? I would think killing is simply ending a life, regardless of reason. Murder is just a subset of killing.