Prison without trial

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Philistine

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

And beyond that even... the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war. Perhaps there is a place for severe intelligence gathering methods, but is there a line you cross when interrogation becomes humiliation and deprivation of reasonable and basic treatment??

[Soldier]

As I said: My only point is that it is proof that frequently, torture does work. I'm not saying always, and I doubt any of us is in a position to say whether it works more often, or doesn't work more often.

And yes, there is a fine line between severe methods of intelligence gathering, and torture. I am rather glad that the current administration defined that line.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Soldier

And yes, there is a fine line between severe methods of intelligence gathering, and torture. I am rather glad that the current administration defined that line.

I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about in this post, so I'm really asking a question when I ask

Didn't the Geneva Convention define that line?

[The Armourer]

... step back, read the question, discard your current profession/belief/training and just think - question the proposal. Where is all this going? How many 'chips' do we have to keep throwing into this 'game' - it cannot be right to detain people as proposed (ask Terry Waite).

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Armourer

... step back, read the question, discard your current profession/belief/training and just think - question the proposal. Where is all this going? How many 'chips' do we have to keep throwing into this 'game' - it cannot be right to detain people as proposed (ask Terry Waite).

...what are you talking about?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about in this post, so I'm really asking a question when I ask

Didn't the Geneva Convention define that line?

For regular prisoners of war, yes. The definitions provided in the Geneva Conventions, however, don't apply well to the people being detained from Iraq.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

For regular prisoners of war, yes. The definitions provided in the Geneva Conventions, however, don't apply well to the people being detained from Iraq.

The problem with the Geneva conventions is that they assume that it is state vs state warfare. NGO's against states are a different thing. The specific point of the Conventions is to minimize the impact to the indigent civilian populace when state actors have violent disagreements. As such, they assume that only soldiers fight soldiers. When soldiers act like civilians they are considered saboteurs and spies, open to very harsh treatment. Terrorists can be considered as such and therefor treated as such. The point of treating them seperately is to discourage states from using them and from punishing the innocent populace trying to find them.

The problem with the "insurgents" in Iraq as seperate from the terrorists is that they fall into the nebulous category of not enemy combatants but not civilians either. The US, therefor, has a choice in how it interprets their actions as they can be considered militia if the common uniform is recognized or terrorists if it is not. How they are treated is certainly open to legal limbo and what a state actor does with them reflects directly upon the culture of that state.

The US espouses a belief in the democratic process, the rule of law and the basic decency of human beings. It's treatment of its prisoners in limbo reflects upon how deeply it actually holds those beliefs. If it advocates torture then it rejects the concept that human beings should be treated decently. If it applies laws to its citizens that are different then those laws applied to enemy prisoners then it rejects the rule of law as paramount. If it imposes its will on other nations then it rejects the democratic process. I heard the US described thusly:

"Internally, the US is democratic: its citizens vote and elect representives without prejudice. Externally, the US is dictatorial: its actions are unilateral and without regard for popular sentiment."

Torture is a matter of principal as much as it is a matter of expediency. If you are poor, you can rob a store or get a job. Both are effective at getting money. If you are crushingly poor and can't get a job, robbing a store makes moral sense, doesn't it? Nobody says that robbery isn't effective, even store owners. However, nobody says it is the preferred means of doing business either.

Hope this helps.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The problem with the "insurgents" in Iraq as seperate from the terrorists is that they fall into the nebulous category of not enemy combatants but not civilians either. The US, therefor, has a choice in how it interprets their actions as they can be considered militia if the common uniform is recognized or terrorists if it is not. How they are treated is certainly open to legal limbo and what a state actor does with them reflects directly upon the culture of that state.

The Geneva Conventions (4th and 3rd, especially) give protection to combat prisoners ONLY if they themselves are abiding by the rest of the rules of combat. You do NOT get protection if you're not playing by the same rules.

To get POW treatment, a combatant must have done ALL of the following (among other things): (1) be part of a chain of command, (2) wear a uniform [with certain exceptions], and (3) bear arms openly.

The exception to the uniform requirement is expressly waived by the Third convention (article IV) for Guerrillas, but ONLY if they acted ONLY as Guerrillas. That is, if they tried to blend in with the civilian population or otherwise not identify themselves as members of an organized fighting unit, then they do NOT get POW status.

Those who are not entitled to POW status include spies, civilian combatants [except those repelling an invasion], terrorists, guerrilla-type combatants who blur the line between civilian and organized troops, and the like.

If a prisoner has himself obeyed the rules, then the rules will apply to him. He cannot be tortured, his identity must be made available to his superiors so they know you have him and can exchange for him, and he can only be required to give his identifying information (so you can tell his superiors you have him).

There is an incentive to treat POWs decently, for a few reasons. 1) You want the other side to treat your men decently, and don't want to give cause for retributive treatment. 2) You want the other side to know you treat prisoners well, which induces surrender, which leads to less killing and more intelligence. 3) A well-treated prisoner isn't always fighting you from within.

There is little incentive to give the same treatment to combatants who did not obey the rules. Apart from their pure chutzpah of flouting the rules then claiming they apply to them, there is zero likelihood that their side will reciprocate by treating your prisoners well (if they even take prisoners). There is minimal likelihood that they will afford your prisoners the same protections afforded to POWs. Because they don't have prisoners to exchange, they're not going to have any prisoners repatriated until the end of hostilities, so they're not going to learn how well they're treated, so there's little chance of them learning firsthand that you treat prisoners well.


There is no reason to release such prisoners, because you don't get anything in return, until the end of hostilities.

Some would argue that there is no reason to keep them alive, either, unless they've got good intelligence or other utility. And there have been instances where that indeed was taken into consideration by certain countries. But the USA does not go around killing people for convenience's sake.

Anyway, I do not see any problem with the indefinite detention of those who have been caught in the act of bearing arms against our soldiers while refusing to obey the rules of combat. If you return them while hostilities continue, they will jump right back in shooting at our men. We don't mistreat them, we don't torture them. Some would say they're damn lucky to still be breathing.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about in this post, so I'm really asking a question when I ask

Didn't the Geneva Convention define that line?

No.

If someone is protected under the Geneva Conventions, what can be done to them is much, much less than what is commonly referred to as "torture."

There is a seperate U.N. Convention on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment which the US has ratified (with some reservations).

The US has also enacted a statute (as was one of the requirements under the Convention) which outlaws "torture" by those acting on behalf of the US when done on others (whether US citizens or not) when outside the US.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

If you are crushingly poor and can't get a job, robbing a store makes moral sense, doesn't it? Nobody says that robbery isn't effective, even store owners. However, nobody says it is the preferred means of doing business either.

I think you've struck on a very apt analogy. No one, indeed, claims that robbery ( or embezzlement, or drug sales, or what have you ) aren't effective means of obtaining money; we proscribe them not for that reason, but because they are immoral and/or illegal. With torture, though, there seems to be a need to paint it as ineffective as well as immoral/illegal. Unless it's just political correctness at work I can't see why: it does seem to have it's uses for those without scruples, being at least as effective as robbery in attaining its practical goals...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I think you've struck on a very apt analogy. No one, indeed, claims that robbery ( or embezzlement, or drug sales, or what have you ) aren't effective means of obtaining money; we proscribe them not for that reason, but because they are immoral and/or illegal. With torture, though, there seems to be a need to paint it as ineffective as well as immoral/illegal. Unless it's just political correctness at work I can't see why: it does seem to have it's uses for those without scruples, being at least as effective as robbery in attaining its practical goals...

Are you saying then that robbing individuals of their material possessions is immoral/illegal. Robbing them of their dignity/humanity/body parts isn't immoral or illegal?

[Inquartata]

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that. The law has to have concrete boundaries. If you start criminalizing ( the creation of ) subjective states of mind, you are stepping into quicksand, I think...because what's to stop a prisoner from making such claims about ANY treatment? "You put me in a cell with a bed and a toilet, I am offended and humiliated!" "My principles proscribe confinement of any sort, just detaining me is humiliating, you must let me go!" It all becomes a matter of what the individual claims to "feel", not a definable violation of a broadly applicable standard.

Moreover, there are some things which you should expect to lose if you engage in murder and beheadings, and I think "dignity" is perhaps not the greatest of them...

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Are you saying then that robbing individuals of their material possessions is immoral/illegal. Robbing them of their dignity/humanity/body parts isn't immoral or illegal?

Read the rest of what he actually said. He said that it can be effective, even if morally reprehensible.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that. The law has to have concrete boundaries. If you start criminalizing ( the creation of ) subjective states of mind, you are stepping into quicksand, I think...because what's to stop a prisoner from making such claims about ANY treatment? "You put me in a cell with a bed and a toilet, I am offended and humiliated!" "My principles proscribe confinement of any sort, just detaining me is humiliating, you must let me go!" It all becomes a matter of what the individual claims to "feel", not a definable violation of a broadly applicable standard.

Part of criminal proceedings is to quantify and objectify a feeling. Did you shoot that robber because you felt threatened or because you could? The essential difference between manslaughter and self-defense. One of the reasons for trial by jury is that a panel of people are likely to reasonably objectify what is and is not over subjective bounds.

The facilities used to hold prisoners need to be subjected to the same test of dignity. If a prisoner craps in a bag and then flings it against the wall, are they being detained in an undignfied manner? No, they are acting in an undignified manner. If they crap in the corner and sleep in the opposite corner because there is no bed and no toilet, are they acting in an undignified manner? No, the conditions are tortuous.

The basic rule for a "decent" prison cell (that a prisoner is expected to occupy for weeks) is that there is a bed, a sink, a toilet and enough room for the prisoner to stand up, sit down and do basic exercises. If the stay is longer, then additional facilities to combat boredom and lonliness need to be applied for prisoner health. The idea is that prison should be uncomfortable but not actively tortuous. The difference is that the prison cell should hold a prisoner securely (uncomfortable) but not hurt them (tortuous). A prisoner should be in good health without any injuries caused by the state when they are released.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

With torture, though, there seems to be a need to paint it as ineffective as well as immoral/illegal. Unless it's just political correctness at work I can't see why: it does seem to have it's uses for those without scruples, being at least as effective as robbery in attaining its practical goals...

For a couple of reasons:

1) We allow our government to kill and steal on our behalf because we feel it serves our greater good. Why not torture too?

2) The ethical dillema argument goes that if torture is moral in cases where it extracts information that serves a far greater good (ticking time bomb and a terrorist), then its effectiveness at extracting information is the only thing that determines whether it is moral in a grander sense. Is it right to torture a serial rapist/murderer/pedophile/kidnapper who has a child captive somewhere in order to find out where she is? Most people would say YES! emphatically. So why is torture categorically banned?

3) Torture is seductive for the torturer. You WANT to do it and so whether it's immoral or illegal is only a thin barrier.

The problem with each is that torture is not reliable at information gathering. If you take away that plank, then there is a valid moral case for using it and a bunch of people eager to give it a go.

Here's a Washington Post article (not sure if you guys call it liberal or conservative or accurate or what, but it's information at any rate.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The basic rule for a "decent" prison cell (that a prisoner is expected to occupy for weeks) is that there is a bed, a sink, a toilet and enough room for the prisoner to stand up, sit down and do basic exercises. If the stay is longer, then additional facilities to combat boredom and lonliness need to be applied for prisoner health. The idea is that prison should be uncomfortable but not actively tortuous. The difference is that the prison cell should hold a prisoner securely (uncomfortable) but not hurt them (tortuous). A prisoner should be in good health without any injuries caused by the state when they are released.

What's wrong with common bathrooms, and/or common times to use the bathroom? Why do they need their own sink? I fail to see how the denial of these constitutes "torturous".

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

What's wrong with common bathrooms, and/or common times to use the bathroom? Why do they need their own sink? I fail to see how the denial of these constitutes "torturous".

Because you assume that you can leave the cell.

[Soldier]

Hence, "common times to use the bathroom". Just like common times to be taken to a mess area, or that sort of thing.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Hence, "common times to use the bathroom". Just like common times to be taken to a mess area, or that sort of thing.

And what if you need to go at some time other then your "designated piss break"?