Torture?
Ben suggested a new blog topic - what are your opinions about the use of torture to get information out of detainees? Washington DC is all abuzz about the topic due to the Senate's consideration of a bill that President Bush has asked to have passed related to this topic.
posted by Crosby | 9:47 PM
24 Comments:
I think that the bill is a step in the right direction. However, I think it is not nearly enough. In my opinion, torture is morally reprehensible, and I think it should be banned outright. We have to hold the high ground. Otherwise, our enemies would be able to strongly justify the torture of US prisoners. And that would be equally unacceptable.
I don't think torture is a good way to get information out of people. I don't have any suggestions as to what could be done otherwise, but I believe torture is wrong.
I am completely against torture! I fel that is morally wrong and the US government shouldn't do it. The US ratified the Genava Convention which states that
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; "
To me detainees fall under this catergory and should be treated humanly
tomr: What if we torture someone and it turns out they are in the wrong place at the wrong time? An astounding amount of prisoners are being held without charge.
Benh makes a good point. Many detainees have been held without charge or are falsely charged. Do we want to risk torturing the wrong people and making the opposition more incensed toward us? And also, aren't there better ways to obtain information? By torturing detainees, we're bringing ourselves down to the level of our opposition. We should give them no reason to justify torturing U.S. detainees.
tomr: I am really not certain, but I think it is up to the discression of the soldiers on the ground.
juliab:That was a very good documentary,which I did see. I don't remember that particular incident, but I do remember one where someone was tortured by I think the Pakistani government, and they did receive valuable information. But that is not always the case, and I still view torture as unacceptable.
Both Ben and Tom have good points on the issue of torture. I would have to say that I'm on the fence on this issue, and the direction I lean tends to influenced by current events. BUT, I also think there is a difference between torture and humiliation. I think as torture as intense physical coersion associated with pain. Humiliation is different, and to me it deals with more of the mind. I don't think hurting someone's ego is "torture". There are cases at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay in which detainees were forced to wear pictures of scantily clad women around their necks and listen to Christina Aguilera music. I don't understand how this could be classified as torture, and I think that it's an acceptable way to get information out of people IF IT WORKS. If one person could be put in a situation of mental or physical distress to prevent another 9/11, I would do it in a heart beat. I tend to lean towards the military on issues such as these, and that definetly effects my opinion.
On another note, I think that outright torture sinks to the level of the terrorists, and it should be avoided. HOWEVER, there are certain situations in which it might be necessary. I don't like the idea of torture as much as anyone else, but there are certain situations in which it MIGHT be necessary when other, gentler methods have failed. Thinking about the horrible things they've done to our troops helps me justify this.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ok you guys, there is something happening here that I have just become aware of and I think you should be too. Sorry to be off topic, but here is a post from Will.
"TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT!
Hope I got your attention, this is very IMPORTANT.
I have an URGENT message. Today in AP Gov, Meyer brought up a very interesting bill called the DELETING ONLINE PREDATORS BILL, despite the nice title, the bill will destroy what we and the Arapahoe High School staff have attempted to create. Please research this bill. The gist of the bill is that all access to chat rooms, BLOGS, myspace,and perhaps even simpler pages that might allow students to display any kind of personal information will be denied to students.
This bill will be extremely detrimental to the education, will destroy everything we have worked hard to establish, and eliminate the benefits to internet in the classroom that many of you enjoy. THIS BILL PASSED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY A VOTE OF 410-15. Our time window is incredibly short to take any kind of action against this bill before it is passed by the Senate and it WILL be passed. We must take action now, IF THERE IS A WAY TO ORGANIZE A MEETING FOR CONCERNED STUDENTS I WOULD BE GRACIOUS FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO GET A ROOM AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Any strategies on how not to get this bill passed would be greatly appreciated, I have a few, but I would prefer one in which I don't have to be suspended or expelled :)."
Here is a good link to learn about the bill.
Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006
Hope you don't mind me adding this here, but, as I said on a different blog, there may not be a "here" soon.
To join the discussion, go to the learning and laptops blog.
In response to karib: in some cases mental torture can be even more degrading than physical torture. You said "detainees were forced to wear pictures of scantily clad women around their necks and listen to Christina Aguilera music". The key word you used was "forced". I'm not sure I would want pictures of near-naked women around my neck either. Torture is used to send a message stating who is in power. Obviously the detainees are forced to believe that their captors are the ones in power, otherwise they would never divulge the "information".
I would opt for physical torture as the lesser of two evils. If one trains, they can learn how to resist physical pain through pyschological exercises. But being degraded mentally can have a much higher toll on one's physical being. Neither physical nor mental torture should be used by the U.S. government to get information, however.
In response to benh and jimmym: the bill sounds interesting, but I doubt it will have much effect. Many students lie about their age on Myspace and other such websites--so how can the government control the ages of the members? If you ban schools from using these websites, students will write on them from home. They can't shut down these websites completely because others will rise to take their place. So how do they plan to enforce this bill?
Sure, we can work on them at home, but that completely strips the educational value that can be used at school. Also, a lawyer could make a good case a school sponsored blog is "providing access." What I think really matters is how they define adult supervision.
karib: The Muslim religion is very different than Christianity. That music and wearing things around your neck like that, not to mention being piled in naked heaps and tied with leashes around their necks (some other examples of "humiliation" from Abu Ghraib) are terrible for Muslims. Far worse than we can imagine with our western values.
I agree with benh's comment at the very top. I think that if we let our government torture our prisoners, then it justifies our enemie's actions. Therefore, we couldn't really put an end to that kind of terrorism. I also think that torture is something that America isn't. When someone thinks of America, they dont think of torture, they think of freedom.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Responding to Ben, I didn't say anything about being piled in naked heaps. I hate what happened there more than most people. I have a very military-oriented family. One of my extremely close cousins is currently a military officer, and he's been to both Iraq and Bosnia multiple times. I think that the bad choices made by the soldiers at Abu Ghraib make those loyal and moral soldiers look bad, and causes them to endure criticism that's not theirs to endure.
Michelle, I think of it this way: would I rather wear a picture of a naked person around my neck and listen to bad music or have my fingernails pulled out, be burned by cigarettes, shocked with batteries, etc.? I would personally choose the first option.
LIKE I SAID EARLIER, I DO NOT LIKE TORTURE, BUT I THINK THAT IT IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY. That is MY basic philosophy.
Sorry I deleted this comment so many times. I kept deciding to change things.
karib: I absolutely agree about how some soldiers at Abu Ghraib tarnished the reputations of others. That makes their crimes even worse. It is always terrible when a bad few make the rest look bad.
So karib, could you give me an example of when torture is necessary? Is there truly a situation in which the only option left is to torture prisoners?
And wearing a picture of a naked woman around your neck may not bother some people, but like benh said, their culture makes some things much worse than we view them. Perhaps they would prefer to be burned by cigarettes or shocked by batteries rather than live with the shame and humiliation suffered by wearing this picture. Social stigma in this culture can last a lifetime or more, and some prize their name above their life. Cigarette burns will fade over time--humiliation sometimes does not.
juliab: I don't think you can really know that for sure. You would have to be part of that culture to know what it is really like for them. And that culture is very alien to us westerners.
In response to julia b: please keep in mind that if I had a choice, I would choose to abolish both forms of torture. I guess the form of torture more tolerable to certain people (not that anyone would choose to tolerate torture) would be physical as opposed to emotional, and for others it is easier to endure emotional rather than physical torture. In the short term the most harmful is the physical torture, but in the long run emotional torture can never truly be reversed. I think it all depends on the person in question.
Michelle, you wanted a scenario, so you've got one:
Say special forces operators in Afghanistan detain a prisoner. He's a close associate of Osama Bin Laden and he's known to be plotting another terror attack on the US, as most terrorists generally are. THERE IS PROOF he has detailed knowledge of the plot, and the safety and security of American citizens depends on the information extracted from him. All other SOFTER methods of interrogation have failed, and there is EVIDENCE that an attack of some kind is imminent.
And the million dollar question: What comes first; his comfort or the lives of Americans? Now, I know the answer to this question depends a lot on personal circumstances. MY answer as an AMERICAN would be to obtain the information using the softest EFFECTIVE method.
As I have said on all of my posts, I DO NOT LIKE TORTURE, but I believe that in situations like these, it might be necessary. Our soldiers have been tortured just because they are Americans, and not for any valuable information they might possibly posses. I think that is morally wrong in all cases. Just because is not (shouldn't be) nearly enough to warrant torture, by anybody to anyone, neither are petty problems that don't matter much in the scheme of things.
I forgot to say this on my earlier post.
Julia B., I have the EXACT same thoughts on that issue.
To juliab and karib: your arguments are strong--nice job. One of your main points is that the safety of the American people is more valuable than the comfort of a terrorist.
If you don't mind, juliab, I'd like to quote you: "I think they [Middle Easterners] must think torture as a horrible thing, because if they didn't why go to such lengths to do such horrible things?"
If both America and the Middle East thinks that torture is so horrible, why do we have the right to torture them? If they use torture to extract information to "protect" their own country, does that give us the right to do the same? Are Americans more entitled to human rights than terrorists?
Also, what happens if the prisoner is tortured, and the information still is not obtained? To the rest of the world that act will bring us down to the level of our enemies. Do we truly want to take that risk?
Also, if one prisoner is tortured for information, will it stop there? Might the act make it in the mind of the U.S. more acceptable?
I understand that terrorists who intend to harm America and its people simply for the sake of satisfaction endanger the safety of our country. I do not disagree that there are terrorists who have committed horrible crimes in the name of their religion or their country. But the ends do not justify the means. Even if we do get the information, America has still committed a crime.
Again I agree with Julia. Here is another thought:
What is the difference between being humiliated and being tortured? In my mind there is a big difference, and humiliation is not the same as torture. The world is a nasty place, and not everyone plays by the rules. I know the US has an obligation to play by those rules, but when do lines have to be crossed?
Michelle, on your comment you refered to "protecting their country". For most Muslims, this is not a matter of national pride. They see the conflict as Muslims vs. Christians, not Iraqi's vs. Americans. A large portion of the insurgents we are fighting right now in Iraq and Afghanistan are originally from other countries such as Syria or Jordan. They believe they are fighting for the glory of Allah and for their share of his kingdom. They want the US out of not only Iraq and Afgranistan, but the ENTIRE region and the earth.
You also asked what torturing one prisoner would lead to. I believe the point that Julia and arguing for is for the use of "torture" based on extenuating circumstances. I don't think it would become rampant due to the fact that most people in the world find it morally unacceptable. Any abuses would readily be crushed. Julia, I hope I got that right and you can rephrase that if you wish.
Post a Comment
<< Home