Political Discussions
What can we do to be sure that torture is stopped on our behalf on detainees?
Posted by rachaelbliss • 12/16/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: advent, afghanistan, detainees, iraq, john baptist, pbs, rev. billy, torture
I'm watching a special that spills the beans on the USA torture of detainees on our behalf. It's gruesome. Do you feel that this is something we should continue to let our government do in our name? How can we be sure it is stopped? I write about this in peoplepowergranny.blogspot.com tonight. Vote in my poll on how you feel about this.
User Comments
-
Can you say for certain that this isn't part of the reason why we haven't had a terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11?
How many American lives should be paid to ensure that these people are treated the way you want them to be? What would you consider a fair deal. ? 10 / 100 / 1000 or should their human rights be protected to the point of for instance a complete anihilation of say the east coast?
I'm just wondering, what is the price you are willing to risk?-
Has the torture and mistreatment of our own soldiers helped further the information gathered by Al Qaida, and, has it made us stop attacking them?
No.
Why do we think it would work in our favor then? -
Can you say for certain that this isn't part of the reason why we haven't had a terrorist attack on US Soil since 9/11?
Um, we were. -
The last attack on US soil was known about before hand. So this discussion is ridiculous. The detainees in Gitmo should be CIA and quite a few members of our Government.
So here's a better question. How many deaths were acceptable to carry out their great plan? Planes not filled, bombings taking place in the morning before most were even at work and the missing Air Plane that struck the Pentagon? Nobody saw that plane by the way. There's still no evidence that there even was one.
I wonder what they used to assess that one.
-
-
We ask that our captured soldiers not be mistreated, so we must do the same. It's the humane thing to do. We know now that we have mistreated plenty of innocent captives, so that's also no good.
Thinking that proper treatment of prisoners will lead to the annihilation of the east coast or something like that is outrageously shortsighted, especially when we have our own soldiers' lives to think about. -
I notice that you didn't answer the question.
Fact, There hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11 2001. Can you say with certainty that no information gathered through these interrogations has helped ensure this.
And if it has been helpful in preventing terror attacks, how valuable is this? Is it really more important to protect the sanctity of captured combattants.
And on that note, did you happen to see the beheadings of US soldiers and other captives? It doesn't appear that our captured soldiers are being treated according to the Geneva convention either wouldn't you say?
But the real question remains, how many civilian lives is according to you a reasoable price to pay to uphold the human rights of terrorists?-
Fact: 9/11 was the ONLY major attack on U.S. soil in the history of our country (not counting Pearl Harbor). So claiming that we haven't been attacked since then isn't really much of an accomplishment. -
So the failed bombing of the world trade center doesn't count just because it was unsuccessful?
-
Even if you count it, wasn't that in 1993? That's 8 years with no attack and no gitmo?
You do have a valid question but I don't believe there is a valid answer. It is impossible to measure how many terrorists are created by our torture. In Iraq, the best intelligence comes from when the civilians think we are treating them better than the terrorists do. I submit that would be true on a larger scale as well. -
The fact is, attacks here are not a common occurrence and there is no evidence that torturing anyone has prevented an attack. Like xmarks said, our policies are probably resulting in more people wanting to do us harm.
-
I know there is no proof. Do you have any proof that the torture HASN'T stopped any attacks?
-
We also haven't had an attack since I started wearing boxer briefs. But no one thanks me for that.
Unless you count that whole anthrax thing... -
Even if you count it, wasn't that in 1993? That's 8 years with no attack and no gitmo?
Oh, there you go again, making sense. How's anyone supposed to be a Bush apologist when everyone insists on making sense?
-
-
We supported the prosecution others for war crimes due to torture. This has included water boarding. One example that comes to mind was when the Japanese were prosecuted.
Now that Cheney has admitted authorizing waterboarding and other administration members have been implicated, the only legitimate question is do we prosecute them or do we turn them over to the world court for trial. -
What to do? End the whole detainee policy for starters. And then maybe recall why we have rules of war that ban torture. It is in part about humanity, but it is also for very pragmatic reasons: we don't want our own soldiers treated that way. The Bush admin has made our soldiers' jobs more dangerous, though admittedly non-state actors don't feel bound by these agreements. Even so, there are enough state actors potentially involved to make sticking to the rules worthwhile. There's also that whole public diplomacy thing, a game the Bush admin has been losing.
And why should we stoop to such levels? Are we that weak? Are we France in the Algerian War, when France faced serious domestic political threats at the same time? I don't think so. We're stronger than that. Torture is for the weak. So are lame excuses about military necessity.-
How many of Sati's family would I let die? All of them. If I tortured to save Sati's family, we create a scenario where werelax, Markstoneman, Crowtcte, Anok and Racaelbliss's families are targeted next. Winning against terrorists isn't about being a better terrorist. It is about being a better society, that will make terrorism less acceptable and less supported. Then we are safer.
-
-
I keep noticing that one one adversary to this is willing to set a simple answer to the question i asked.
How many lives are we willing to lose because we are not willing to extract information? What is a reasonable death toll to pay to protect the sanctitude of a terrorists human rights?
It's an easy question..
But I'll make it even easier. For all those that oppose this.
Sati, Xmarks, werelax, Markstoneman, Crowtcte, Anok, Racaelbliss
Pick anyone of your fellow opposers to torture in that list, and tell us how many of their family members you would let die to ensure that a terrorist in captivity isn't tortured for information that could save their lives.-
Your question is based on a false premise. Information "extracted" through torture is generally useless.
-
My point above is that your question also doesn't address another unknowable, i.e. how many more lives are put a risk because we used torture.
edited: more lives in other separate attacks -
Well to me that comes down to mentality. I find it hard to think that the following reasoning goes through the mind of a terrorist.
"OK, we'll cut the captives head off.. that should get the message across... WHAT you're telling me that they flush our boys heads with water? this is an outrage"
Just seems a little far fetched in comparison.... -
Torture as standard procedure is wrong. But if you know someone has information that could save lives and they're not talking, you do whatever it takes to get that information and if it involves something illegal like torture, you do it and pay the consequences later.
-
NO i agree on that one. It's not a "first measure" in any way.
But the fact is that we don't know who and why this is being used. And like we both agree. Neither you nor I can say if it has had any effect.
I just find it hard to believe that we have american soldiers sitting around thinking.. I'm bored, lets go half-drown someone. At least for any length of time without superiors reacting to it.
And if it hasn't produced any results, i'm pretty sure that the ones in charge would have stopped it, just because they know as well as you and I that there will indeed be consequences one day. Now if you can sit there and show results, saying "we saved the sears tower with this interrogation" you're pretty certain to go free. If you have no positive outcome, you're not going to keep doing it.
-
-
Still no one willing to answer the question. Interesting.
And mark, i don't know where you get your information. But information extracted through torture is far from useless. We can discuss the time/value of it. But information is information. Torture has been used sicne the beginning of time to extract vital information quickly.
The "useless" part of it is relevant to things like the inquisition and when too much time has passed for information to be relevant. But far from it in time critical events.-
This question?
How many lives are we willing to lose because we are not willing to extract information? What is a reasonable death toll to pay to protect the sanctitude of a terrorists human rights?
As Mark stated above, the question is based on a false premise. If torture was effective in getting useful information, I'd say: by all means -- torture away! But it's not effective so why compromise the integrity of our military? -
Then why do you suppose its used? and what are you basing your information that it isn't effective on?
-
You didn't answer my question about torture.
Al Queida et al regularly use torture on their detainees (US soldiers, mainly).
Has that worked for them? Has that discouraged the US from pursuing them? Have they been able to extract valuable information about US military activities with torture?
No?
Then why would it work for us? Why would the threat of torture make them stop attacking us? Why would it help extract valuable information that the detainees probably don't even have?
Is anyone under the impression that detainees here have access to all or any of the information we need to prevent mass attacks? Much like our own soldiers, information is on a need to know basis...
It doesn't work - it's never worked. Why are we using it, and helping the bad guys out by giving them recruiting material? -
We aren't using torture as a discouragement. We are using it to extract information.
And please Anok, Since you are avoiding the question. I'll pick for you. HOw many of Sati's Family would you prefer die before we torture a terrorist?
Edited to add:
I keep hearing this "it doesn't work" yet it has been used for close to eternity. It works, like any other method of achieving anything, it has pros and cons, but it works alright. -
We aren't using torture as a discouragement. We are using it to extract information.
And so are they.
Has it worked yet?
We were attacked ONCE, there has be no indication of future attacks. We have prevented nothing. We haven't prevented attacks on our own soil with it, and we haven't prevented attacks on foreign soil 9of which, there have been attacks).
Torture doesn't work.
If the terrorists plan on killing Sati's family, then the detainees we torture will still not have the master information, just like our foot soldiers in the US doesn't have that information. They will not extract any information that will be of use to prevent anything.
It will not only NOT prevent the attack, it will not deter an attack, but it will mean that we have engaged in abhorrent behaviors (just like our supposed enemy) and then given them more fuel to the recruiting fire, which will endanger MORE of our soldiers, opening them up to even more brutal warfare, and heinous torture in return.
Torture doesn't work - it didn't work during the crusades, it didn't work during Puritanical beatings, it didn't works during the inquisitions, it didn't work during Roman times, it didn't work during the bloody periods of England, it didn't work in the tower of London, it didn't work in WWI or WWII it didn't work in Vietnam, it won't work now.
Torture doesn't work.
Edit to add: we keep using it because we're sick bastards, and for no other reason.
-
-
Torture the torturers (I mean the ones in charge over here) and I bet it will stop pretty darned quick! Torturing is evil and were it to happen to them they would see the light!
Peace can happen if we demand it. -
Someone check CSI's basement. If he doesn't have a Silence of the Lambs dungeon down there already I fear he will in the near future.
-
@Sati - you do whatever it takes to get that information and if it involves something illegal like torture, you do it and pay the consequences later
I would tend to agree with you. Under that reasoning, Cheney, Rumbsfield and the rest should be charged and they should be willing to stand trial, based on the Armed Services Committee report. -
From the NEW YORK TIMES Dec. 18th, 2008 Editorial:
".....Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who protested the abuses, told the Senate committee that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”
We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding....."-
Could you please include the link for that story? I would like to read it in full.
-
-
I think this is it:
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/index.html -
Torture doesn't work, but people still do it when told to or encouraged to (see: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7791278.stm, a report on a new round of experiments based on Stanley Milgram's work in the 1960s).
Most people are willing to horrific things, given the right circumstances and motivation. -
go ahead and shoot'um on the battle field and we wont have this problem. HELLO!!! They were out to kill us.-
So your answer is to avoid one atrocity by having soldiers commit other atrocities? Yikes!
-
-
Some of the responses here suggest to me that changes need to occur not only in our public policy, but also our our popular culture. One thing that I'd like to see is a thriller series where the main characters don't act like Jack Bauer (www.slate.com/id/2195864/ and www.inthesetimes.com/article/2481/).
-
Better yet. Let Jack Bauer shoot someone in the knee to get information and then have the information proven wrong, thousands die, Jack goes to prison and his name is used to recruit thousands of new terrorists.
-
I like it.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
