It might be a little fucked up, but as far as I'm concerned, if they were found guilty of being terrorists enough to warrant torture, they should just be executed. Don't waste your time, just off them. Otherwise, treat them like a human being, regardless of how they would treat you. Any and all torture is just plain wrong, for so many reasons, and it should never be acceptable in any circumstance. "But ISIS does it and worse" is all the more reason why the rest of the world should strive not to do that, it's so the opposite of justification. Take the high road, but that doesn't mean be a pussy about it. Human psychology is fucking interesting, especially when it explores just how fucked up we are. http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5- ... oomed.html We know how people will react in those situations, and we know the natural outcomes of those scenarios, so we HAVE to be smart enough and do enough to ensure that it doesn't happen. It's too late for this shit that's been reported in the CIA document, but people have to be held accountable and a message sent so that the others following them will get it.
If you're responding to me please go back and reread what I wrote. What do you mean by just execute them? You don't think they should try to gather any info at all? Care to clarify that? You wouldn't use any methods, even those that aren't torture? I think what you're saying raises an important question. At what point does it become more moral to engage in one human rights violation to prevent another? Let's say you were in a situation where you knew an attack was imminent and you knew the person you had in custody was connected to the organization that was going to carry it out and likely had valuable information that would prevent it. If in that spot would you really just fold your arms and say, "Well, sorry folks I just couldn't be inhumane no matter how much of a cunt this guy is, it doesn't matter how many people die." So is it more moral to not water board one person to save hundreds than it is to water board one guy, or let's say water board ten and try to prevent an atrocity? Granted, you have no idea if that's going to get you the info you need, but I would rather have the people that tried than just letting the chips fall where they may. As excruciating as I imagine water boarding is, I would still take it over a bullet to the head and be locked up for an indefinite number of reform years. Then again, I'm sure many of the eager to martyr themselves terrorists can't wait to get to paradise and take advantage of all those prepubescent virgins waiting for them.
I'm saying that once you have used the non-torture methods to gather info, then you're done. And I won't play that slippery slope that even remotely justifies torture, because that's how we got to where we are now. Just what credible and useful information was gained from the torture performed so far? I'm going with "none", and it's all because of that "they must know something that will protect us" mindset. Terrorists are the bottom of the pile, in my opinion. Get info from them, then kill them. No pomp and ceremony, no media statements, just "bang, you're dead". Shoot them like the rabid dogs they are, dump them in a hole somewhere, and go find the next one. It's overly simplistic, I know, but I think it's a good place to start.
You're begging the question. By inventing a situation where you know a priori that torture is going to work, you make it the right thing to do. How could someone who had been in jail for months or years know enough current information to foil a plot that was just about to unfold? Besides that, read the Hitchens article from Vanity Fair - people had been made to confess they were hermaphrodites under pressure of waterboarding. Waterboarding 10 people to avoid an atrocity is going to require 10 intelligence teams to triage information and try to action it. Good luck saving hundreds of lives in that scenario.
Let's talk about the "they're terrorists, so it's okay" mindset for a minute. First of all, how is "terrorist" defined, exactly? It appears that right now "terrorist" is a checkbox in someone's CIA profile, rather than something concrete. This has been reinforced by multiple findings in the report indicating that the person being tortured actually had no information about what they were being interrogated for. So where do you draw the line that a certain person is deemed a terrorist and deserves anything that is done to them? Do they have to have killed Americans directly? Participated in planning? Sat in on meetings? Ran messages? How do you define this person whose humanity is forfeit and may be tortured with impunity? Isn't that vague area basically why one of the core tenants of the justice system is the avoidance of cruel and unusual punishment and unilateral condemnation? Because I sure as fuck don't know where to draw the line. On one hand, it seems to me that anyone involved in the killing of thousands of people doesn't deserve an ounce of my compassion. On the other hand... well, how do you feel about someone getting paid to run messages? What if those messages were direct planning of the 9/11 attacks? What if the person knew about the contents? What if they're a true believer? What if they're not and are feeding their family, no matter the cost? This isn't a slippery slope argument: these questions are why the justice system exists. My other issue is a concern about protecting our own troops. Sure, maybe ISIS isn't likely to abide by the Geneva conventions, but we're not only talking about ISIS here. If the US is happy to throw all international law out the window in the interest of domestic security, I'm not sure there's any reason to hold other countries to that standard, and plenty of reason for other governments to believe the US will not be treating their captured citizens in accordance with the law.
I'm confused here. Where the people being water boarded hermaphrodites? If so it sounds like it worked. This is a stupid issue. Society is supposed to be better than the individual. For example if one of my relatives died on 9/11 I would want everyone that may have known anything tortured. That's because of emotion. Society is supposed to be better than my emotion.
Or they could know exactly when and where the attack is going to happen and give that information to you. It might well not work, but it has a better chance at getting to the answers than just putting a bullet in their head and dumping them in a hole. Maybe the attack is in a week, maybe a month, maybe 6 months. Maybe you don't get direct info, but something that leads you elsewhere. I don't understand this logic that says, "Well some people have lied under torture, therefore it must never work." That's just faulty reasoning, plain and simple. With regards to Hitchens, I don't think I would hold him up as a model for anything. This is the guy that went well out of his way to exaggerate the Saddam regime's connections to terrorism and thought it was totally ok to start a war that was going to kill tens of thousands, even if you started it on false pretenses, as long as the long term intentions were good. But water boarding? No, that's just wrong. I think people say torture will never get anywhere because people want that to be true so they can make blanket statements about how it's wrong in any situation. We know everyone has a breaking point. Not quite an expert here (like everyone else posting) but the idea that you'll never gain anything useful is an argument of convenience. Odds are someone is going to crack and give up the goods. I realize you aren't saying this, but I have also heard from people that it's fine to bomb civilian areas as long as you might get some terrorists. But water boarding to find out where they are so you don't murder a bunch of innocent people? Nah man, that's just inhumane. That aside, my point has nothing to do with revenge. There's no reason to water board a serial killer when he's in custody because he can't hurt anyone else. But if you have someone that knows vital info that's going to save lives down the road and bring other terrorists to justice? Then, I'm going to have to support it.
You fundamentally misunderstand the point. It's not that people "lie" under torture. "Lying" under torture is "okay, I'm going to get these guys to torture me a bit, then I'm going to pretend to break, and give them misleading information to throw them off the scent". The objection is that torturing someone who legitimately has no information for you is going to result in him saying goddamned anything to make it stop. That's what makes it torture. Otherwise, it'd be called truth serum boarding. You'll also note that it wasn't Hitchens himself saying that people confessed they were hermaphrodites - people who were trained in waterboarding said that happened. Hitchens' arguments about the Iraq War are irrelevant. He sought the opinion of a real, live CIA agent who had been involved with efforts against Al Qaeda long before 9/11, and he printed that opinion. Can we consider that guy an expert? Because he's against it. Another question for you: where's your limit? Water board 1 person to save a hundred lives? How about thumbscrews on 2 people to save 50? What if it's an American citizen being tortured? What if it's domestic organized crime and not foreign terrorists threatening to kill innocent people?
Yes, minus the thumb screw part. Regarding organized crime probably not, but there's circumstances that could be an exception. Regardless, that's getting off topic. I'd draw the line at mutilation. Of course you will get some wrong info as result. That doesn't mean you won't get anything useful. And yes, I know some experts are against it. Obviously if none were for it it never would have happened in the first place.
It's worth bearing in mind that the point of terrorism is usually war by doctrine of escalation. Right now, from the Muslim extremist viewpoint, the status quo is comfortable for non-Muslims and intolerable for large portions of the Muslim population. As long as the West is comfortable and holding the balance of power, the status quo won't change. If you can't win a conventional war, the only way to change that is to hit soft targets and frighten the civilian populace. Make people afraid, so they draft laws in panic. Hope that they empower the Government's secret police. Do something heinous enough and you can radicalize people; half the populace will want vicious reprisals (see: invading Iraq) and half won't, and these halves are fluid and changeable over time, creating discord. Encourage a climate of paranoia. The more repressive Western Governments get with things like surveillance, freedom of speech 'zones', etc the less stable the regime is and the more likely the status quo is to change. A comfortable, relatively free middle class almost never revolts. A frightened, angry populace will. Torture enough people and you can probably prevent a couple of attacks, while radicalizing people on both sides of the debate. It's a good method of winning the battle and losing the war.
So you can't fuck up someone's thumbs, because that's not cool, but irreparable mental trauma is all good?