Use of torture in interrogation

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Nishant S wrote: I am not British, but I am with you on this Add a Swede to the crowd too. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Chris Losinger

and one USian -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

paulb

Taka Muraoka wrote: Moral superiority?! Welcome to the real world What I meant by this was that its all well and good if you want to behave this way but dont then come out and claim you are the good guys and they are the bad guys. Taka Muraoka wrote: Bad sh*t happens when you're fighting a war. I've never really understood the logic that says that it's OK to kill the other guy, slash his throat or gut him if you end up in hand-to-hand combat but if you capture him, you have to be nice to him. What point does it serve to tie, gag, and blindfold an unarmed man naked to a stretcher other than UNNECCESSARY TORTURE

Nish Nishant

Chris Losinger wrote: and one USian "american" too general for you? Nish

Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]

Alvaro Mendez

Hopefully the thousands of freed Iraqis cheering in the streets of Baghdad, after we've eliminated their oppressor, will serve to change a few minds. Regards, Alvaro

Quitters never win. Winners never quit. But those who never win and never quit are idiots. -- despair.com

Taka Muraoka

paulb wrote: What I meant by this was that its all well and good if you want to behave this way but dont then come out and claim you are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I couldn't agree with you more. To reduce complex global political issues to "you're either with us or against us" and "axis of evil" is ludicrous. But even so, in the real world sometimes the good guys have to do bad things. paulb wrote: What point does it serve to tie, gag, and blindfold an unarmed man naked to a stretcher other than UNNECCESSARY TORTURE None whatsoever. But you're talking about two different things. Your original post talked about the possibility of torturing the guy captured in Pakistan. In this case, it might server some purpose. And while I don't condone the use of it, my point was why is it OK to kill the other guy in battle but not to torture him?

You should save yourself and your company years of grief by shooting yourself through the head immediately. Believe me, in the long run it'll turn out better for everyone. - Tyto (at arstechnica) Awasu 1.0[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.

Chris Losinger

Nishant S wrote: too general for you? too much typing.

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Nish Nishant

Chris Losinger wrote: too much typing Ah, didn't think of that. It's when you type that you wish you were born in fiji or bonn rather than in thirunelveli or washington d c. Too much typing. Nish

Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]

paulb

Oooooh yes please

Nish Nishant

Alvaro Mendez wrote: the thousands of freed Iraqis cheering How will they cheer when their brothers and friends are all dead? Alvaro Mendez wrote: the streets of Baghdad You think there will be streets left there after continuous bombing for several hrs or even days? Nish

Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]

Nish Nishant

Yup, specially since there are 100 people ahead of me and so I gotta catch up!!! Nish

Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]

peterchen

It's not an easy choice - but if you once agreed it's a "no", it should remain a "no" even if you don't like this. (Maybe that's an alltogether new and interesting concept: to follow a law not only when it's convenient to do so. Oh wait...) A country that decides to go the "don't be afraid - if you play nice it won't happen to you" is not ruling by democracy, but by fear. And those people that claim someone "revoked all his human rights" when he took up arms against freedom or yadda yadda showed his buttocks to his teacher or whatever, can roll their pity selves up in their egocentric world and smoke it. It is not in your power to name someone "not human". For me: yes, it is barbaric. It can be a real live saver in a few situations, but any mechanism allowing that is too easily abused. Maybe this way: Yes, an interrogator can dedcide that it is worth to break the basic rights of a human being. But doing so strips him and his family from the same rights he breaks.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

tidge

It's ok to kill the person in hand to hand combat because it is a situation where it is kill or be killed. It is not o.k. to kill a person that is surrendering, because they are surrendering, hence, not fighting anymore. The object of war isn't to kill, it's to accomplish certain goals. While those goals may involving killing people, the actual killing is just a means to an end.

peterchen

If you quote US American movie icons, let me quote a german sexist: "if you look into the abyss, the abyss will look into you". So the quesiton to be asked is: can you sleep in peace when you're guarded by devils?

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Russell Morris

Nishant S wrote: War will achieve only temporary goals. Every war leaves behind it memories that serve to increase mutual hatred among humans. This in turn leads to further wars. I think that you are wrong here - it's not a given that war will lead to future wars as a direct result. Look at how stable western Europe has been since WWII. Look at how stable and close the relationship between the US and Japan is. Look at how close the US and England are. There are no feuds brewing between these once bitter enemies. It is not war itself that creates the seeds for future wars - it is the way that the victor treats the defeated after the war that can either sow seeds of friendship or future war. For instance, if the US had just got up and left after turning Japan into a smoking hole, they would most certainly be our great enemies today. But instead the US went to great effort to help rebuild the country after the war. Not out of pity or guilt, but out of recognition that perceived weakness and fear - be it in a man or a nation - is the root of violence in otherwise rational behavior. Now, this particular war, I think, is a bad idea. Not because of the "innocents and children" that will be killed - war doesn't come in a non-Hell version - but because the reason for it being fought are shaky at best, and because the wanted outcome of a victory isn't going to happen. In the endgame, Bush wants a stable Middle East that loves to sell oil to the US and doesn't want to bug any of our friends or convince 13 year old kids to blow themselves up in restaraunts. The administration seems to think that ousting Sadam will further this goal - I do not. BTW: There is no way that the UN can come out of this situation without looking worthless. One of these two things will happen: - US goes to war against its wishes (which looks like what will happen). This makes the UN look completely powerless. - US doesn't go to war, conceding to the UN. UN continues to apply worthless and damaging trade sanctions, and continues to let itself pretend that weapons inspectors have a snowball's chance in hell of getting Iraq to comply with the disarmament treaty. Either way, the UN looks like beaurocracy for the sake of beaurocracy - not so much shaping the future state of the world, but just complaining about how others do it. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"

Taka Muraoka

tidge wrote: It's ok to kill the person in hand to hand combat because it is a situation where it is kill or be killed. Good point. Maybe hand-to-hand combat was a bad example. How about military leaders ordering missile attacks, even on military targets? tidge wrote: It is not o.k. to kill a person that is surrendering, because they are surrendering, hence, not fighting anymore. But if they were to escape, then they would be combatants again! I'm not trying to condone torture here. I find the whole idea abhorrent. But if you find yourself committing yourself to war, to *killing* other people, then it strikes me as odd that people feel that there should be rules about what you are allowed to do and not do. This is not a game!

You should save yourself and your company years of grief by shooting yourself through the head immediately. Believe me, in the long run it'll turn out better for everyone. - Tyto (at arstechnica) Awasu 1.0[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.

Taka Muraoka

peterchen wrote: "if you look into the abyss, the abyss will look into you". I like it :-) I think the point Jack's character was making was that people don't want to think about it. And they don't. And even if they did, I suspect they wouldn't care. Which is part of the problem.

You should save yourself and your company years of grief by shooting yourself through the head immediately. Believe me, in the long run it'll turn out better for everyone. - Tyto (at arstechnica) Awasu 1.0[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.

peterchen

yep, and the point I was making is: what about the people that do think about it - i.e. can't sleep peacefully when they are guarded like this. Is their sleep worth less?

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Tim Smith

(EDITED to add more content) If you want a real clue about torture, check out these sites: http://www.stoptorture.org/[^] http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,757783,00.html[^] http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr92.html[^] The question you have to ask yourself: "Are you really concerned about torture or are you just bringing it up to make a political point?" How many of you have actually been to an Amnesty International meeting or fundraiser? Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.

Brit

I raised this question a few months ago when a report came out about some terrorists being interrogated in Morocco because, as the US spokesperson said, "other countries can be more 'persuasive' in getting information out of them". I read that as meaning, "we don't use torture, but we'll look the other way". First, when torture is used, there is a tendency (I believe) to use it in more and more situations. Hence, people who use torture may find, after a while, that they are using it in ways that they would've never initially agreed to. Second, some people argue that terrorists won't give-in to torture or that it is less effective than psychological methods. I don't know if that's true, but it sounds like it might be a dodge of the whole question. (In other words, you can avoid the whole debate if you can just say that it's ineffective - thus dodging the tough questions.) I take a balanced approach to this question. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." I think there should be a strong resistance to using torture, but I don't entirely rule it out. I can imagine situations where, begrudgingly, it might be useful, and I'd live with that guilt if it saved enough lives. That would be a sacrifice I would make for the survival of others. Some people will also argue that if we use torture, that we are no better than the terrorists. I disagree. Torturing a terrorist is very different from killing innocent civilians. Another problem with torture is the subjectivity with which it is applied (and if the US does it, it becomes difficult to criticize third world dictators - even if the US is doing it in preservation of the lives of innocent civilians, while the third-world dictator does it to eliminate his opponents and consolidate his selfish grip on power). The use of torture should be weighed against what it is being used to protect. I say that democracy, individual rights, and the advancement of human civilization is superior to third world dictators, religious extremism, and and the backward-looking philosophies of the rejection of modernity and strict adherance to the extremist interpretation of Islamic law. If you're particularly liberal, you'll avoid making any judgements on the questi