Prison without trial

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Because ultimately, when friendly forces are doing it to you, you know and they know they are not going to do permanent harm to you. And you know it's going to stop--and exactly how long it can possibly last.

Your argument would seem to suggest that someone who was raped shouldn't complain, because, hey other people have consensual rough sex all the time, so what's the big deal....

--Philistine

So it's a psychological thing, then? It's not that what's being done to you (including sometimes broken digits) that's bad, just whether you know it's going to stop or not?

That's a load of crap.

Your second statement, by the way, is as offensive as it is wrong.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Gav

Soldier: Because it makes you as bad as them? What right do you [or the country you represent on the battlefield] have to claim that your way is better; if you do the same or worse on your enemy? That's hypocrisy young man.

Do you study ethics at all?

We're not doing the same or worse to the enemy by any means.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

Great quote, great idea. And, just what does it mean in the context of torture and prison without trial? I don't think it means "make excuses".

I've made absolutely no excuses for torture or prison without trial; I condemn them completely (though I am unfortunately not in much of a position to do anything about it).

What I have been doing, is suggesting that the world's definition of torture is perhaps too wide, and that many forms of coercion are not evil.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

So it's a psychological thing, then? It's not that what's being done to you (including sometimes broken digits) that's bad, just whether you know it's going to stop or not?

To an extent, yes--in that much of the psychological aspect of torture is that the only way to get it to stop is to give the information, and if that doesn't happen, it will either continue indefinitely, or result in death, disfigurement and/or severe injury.

The other part is that the actual violence is measured (broken digits being generally accidental) and threats of severe violence, death or maiming are empty.

Your second statement, by the way, is as offensive as it is wrong.

I apologize if you found it offensive--it was not directed as a personal attack, or to suggest you felt that way--but as an analogy for your line of reasoning.

You seem to be arguing that because you (and others) voluntarily subject yourselves for training in which enemy questioning is simulated--including some of the techniques which people are finding objectionable--that use of those techniques isn't really all that serious.

I still think the rape analogy is apt--in that just because someone submits themself to conduct which may be unpleasant in circumstances where they know the conduct is subject to limits, doesn't mean that where there are no agreed-upon limits, the conduct isn't bad.

As a less offensive analogy--consider fraternity hazing. Kidnap your fraternity brother, force-feed him alcohol and lock him in a room naked, and all fun and games. Do it to a stranger.... and you're looking at doing 10 years in jail.

--Philistine

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Philistine

To an extent, yes--in that much of the psychological aspect of torture is that the only way to get it to stop is to give the information, and if that doesn't happen, it will either continue indefinitely, or result in death, disfigurement and/or severe injury.

The other part is that the actual violence is measured (broken digits being generally accidental) and threats of severe violence, death or maiming are empty.



I apologize if you found it offensive--it was not directed as a personal attack, or to suggest you felt that way--but as an analogy for your line of reasoning.

You seem to be arguing that because you (and others) voluntarily subject yourselves for training in which enemy questioning is simulated--including some of the techniques which people are finding objectionable--that use of those techniques isn't really all that serious.

I still think the rape analogy is apt--in that just because someone submits themself to conduct which may be unpleasant in circumstances where they know the conduct is subject to limits, doesn't mean that where there are no agreed-upon limits, the conduct isn't bad.

As a less offensive analogy--consider fraternity hazing. Kidnap your fraternity brother, force-feed him alcohol and lock him in a room naked, and all fun and games. Do it to a stranger.... and you're looking at doing 10 years in jail.

--Philistine

There is only so much training can simulate, I know.

My point is that if there is nothing wrong with the physical things they do to us in training, why is it wrong to do to the enemy? I understand your analogy, but still do not agree. The difference between training and the real thing is whether or not it is effective (though it's effective, many times, even in training). The idea isn't to be nice to them, the idea isn't for it to be fun and games.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I've made absolutely no excuses for torture or prison without trial; I condemn them completely (though I am unfortunately not in much of a position to do anything about it).

What I have been doing, is suggesting that the world's definition of torture is perhaps too wide, and that many forms of coercion are not evil.

I think you are, naively, making excuses for torture, on this thread and the other one running now. By trivializing it, saying "it's not so bad", saying "the other guys do worse", you specifically are making excuses. Remember that it's bad enough that people have died (take a look at references from news I posted last night), and recently convicted. I don't accuse you of malice, just naivete.

[Masterurethane]

When you say that there is nothing wrong with the things they do to you in training, you are assuming that others will agree. I wouldn't want myself to be subjected to any kind of torture/interrogation, you might be cool with it, but there is a big difference between consent and force. I mean, if it was your thing you might want to be tied up and whipped by a woman in leather, but someone else might find this a harrowing and unpleasant experience, and it all comes down to consent, and knowing how far it can actually go.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

I think you are, naively, making excuses for torture, on this thread and the other one running now. By trivializing it, saying "it's not so bad", saying "the other guys do worse", you specifically are making excuses. Remember that it's bad enough that people have died (take a look at references from news I posted last night), and recently convicted. I don't accuse you of malice, just naivete.

Accuse all you want.

I know some of what is going on over there. I am not by any means condoning all of it. My points, in fact, are quite independent of what is currently going on.

1. Coercion is not bad, and is different from torture.

2. Much of what is considered "torture", I do not think is.

I am not saying that things like sodomy, burning, dog attacks, electrocution, fill-in-the-blank - are alright, by any means.

I am not saying that we can justify anything we do, simply because they do worse. We are certainly not as bad as they are. But neither should we allow ourselves to become so. I am not making excuses for anything.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Masterurethane

When you say that there is nothing wrong with the things they do to you in training, you are assuming that others will agree. I wouldn't want myself to be subjected to any kind of torture/interrogation, you might be cool with it, but there is a big difference between consent and force. I mean, if it was your thing you might want to be tied up and whipped by a woman in leather, but someone else might find this a harrowing and unpleasant experience, and it all comes down to consent, and knowing how far it can actually go.

True enough.

Let me expand a bit, then - I do not think what they do to us in training is too bad, nor do I think it is too much for our enemies. Disagree, if you like. It is not your decision. I am not asking you to agree with me; I am only stating where I stand.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

Soldier: Because it makes you as bad as them? What right do you [or the country you represent on the battlefield] have to claim that your way is better; if you do the same or worse on your enemy? That's hypocrisy young man.

Do you study ethics at all?

And just a little way further down this road is institutionalized pacifism and enslavement, or extinction.

Because, you know, killing too is wrong. If "they" kill us, we must not kill them in return, because that makes us "as bad as them". How can we defend ourselves without lowering ourselves to their immoral level? So we just submit to those who are more ruthless than we are willing to be? Is that the answer? Carry our smug sese of superiority with us into the grave, happy in the knowledge that at least we were "better" than our murderers?

[Gav]

Ah Inq' I never suggested pacifism - you have extrapolated to a position I haven't defined. Have another read.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And just a little way further down this road is institutionalized pacifism and enslavement, or extinction.

Because, you know, killing too is wrong. If "they" kill us, we must not kill them in return, because that makes us "as bad as them". How can we defend ourselves without lowering ourselves to their immoral level? So we just submit to those who are more ruthless than we are willing to be? Is that the answer? Carry our smug sese of superiority with us into the grave, happy in the knowledge that at least we were "better" than our murderers?

I too don't think we move into a pacifist state. But I don't think we should have tried to use our conventional methods of conflict and war with extremists and terrorists. Going into this conflict the way we did was where we got on the wrong path. Not by treating the prisoners and other victims of war humanely.

[Gav]

Oh, I nearly forgot to say this as well. Inq' it's unlike you to pull out the slippery slope fallacy. So by treating the prisoners of your enemy with respect automatically leads to a pacisfist state? Acting with hypocrisy will maintain your inalienable rights?

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

In my opinion torture and coersion are not so different, I think of torture as pretty much anything that will put a person in a situation where they will give up information [or whatever they're being "asked" for] in the hope that what is being done to them stops. Sleep depravation or being cut by an angry Mexican, it is done for the same reason in this context.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by LordTofuDog-jnr

In my opinion torture and coersion are not so different, I think of torture as pretty much anything that will put a person in a situation where they will give up information [or whatever they're being "asked" for] in the hope that what is being done to them stops. Sleep depravation or being cut by an angry Mexican, it is done for the same reason in this context.

Corecion and torture are most certainly different things. I "coerce" the enemy to leave their trench by bombing the hell out of it. Torture, however, requires an exploitation of the weak by the strong in a manner that goes beyond mere information extraction. It is the abject humiliation that goes beyond that which is necessary to get the information. Torture is extremely limited in that any information extracted under it is sketchy at best. If you attach an electrode to my nuts, I'll tell you anything you want to hear. Because of that, how do you know if it is the truth or not?

Coercion, on the other hand, is the compulsion to action (or inaction) by force. It has compliance as its primary motivation, not sadism. This too is no good for extracting information since the person will generally do only what you want them to do and can make them comply with.

Intelligence gathering from prisoners is an art. It requires the ability to break down mental barriers and form a rapport of trust with the questioner. It is most often done by subjecting the prisoner to extreme discomfort, then giving opportunities to exchange accurate information for relief. The key is discomfort, not damage. After all, you can only cut off a big toe twice and once you've done that, how much worse can it get? What's the incentive to give in?

Good democracies realise that the most accurate intelligence is gathered by ensuring that those giving the information have something to gain by doing so. You treat prisoners well so that the enemy has an incentive to surrender. If you torture them or abuse them, you just fuel the seeds of dissent and cause yourself more pain in the long run.

Hope this helps.

[Soldier]

...nobody has yet responded to the fact that the victims themselves have attested to the effectiveness of torture.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

...nobody has yet responded to the fact that the victims themselves have attested to the effectiveness of torture.

Sorry, missed that. Are you actually saying that the people that were tortured said it was a good idea? Strikes me as odd.

Interviewer: "Is torture ok?"
Nervous prisoner: "Is torture ok?"

Interviewer: "That's what I want to know."
Prisoner: "Yes?"

Interviewer: "Yes!?"
Prisoner: "No?"

Interviewer: "No."
Prisoner: "No, yes!"

Interviewer: "Then it is yes, right?"
Prisoner: "Right..."

[Soldier]

They said it was effective.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

...nobody has yet responded to the fact that the victims themselves have attested to the effectiveness of torture.

Probably because it is anectodal at best, self-selecting and not readily verifiable.

There are also numerous reports of people giving false confessions or implicating others to avoid torture. Think Salem, for a historical precedent. Then there are those who died under torture--not a particularly good example of information extraction.

No one is saying torture doesn't ever work. Clearly it can, against many people. Just that as a systematic method of intelligence gathering it is not necessarily effective.

--Philistine

[mrbiggs]

For the record, Lincoln also imprisonned many without trial, including Democratic members of some state's congress during the Civil War.

(Nothing really relevant, I'm just studying for midterms...)