[CMichael]

A chief Al Qaida operative has been captured.

Should he be tortured to gain information about future attacks? If the US doesn't want to do it should they have a country that has no problem with it do it?

Suppose the information gained would stop an imminent attack?

[KMKeller]

At the very least, they should pluck out his nostril hairs, one by one, and keep his hands tied so he can't rub his nose.

[Jeeper]

If this guy is really the kingpin for planning then he would know the locations of a lot of others. I say beat his *** until he gives us the info and then beat him some more.

[Chris Rhines]

Should he be tortured to gain information about future attacks? No, never.

If the US doesn't want to do it should they have a country that has no problem with it do it? No. This is no better morally than performing torture yourself.

Suppose the information gained would stop an imminent attack? Still no. Torture is never justifiable under any circumstances, no matter how desperate.

[Boats]

Torture is easy to justify in utilitarian terms. . . .

[Sergeant Bob]

Should we use torture to get information from a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans?

Should we use torture on a man with plans to kill Thousands more Americans?

I don't think he's going to give up the information if we're just really insistant. The next attack could kill someone I know or love. Yes, torture is inhumane and barbaric, but so are the people we're dealing with. I say do whatever it takes to get the information. He would have no reservations at all about doing the same to you.

[Grin&Barrett]

I listened to some ex command sgt maj of the Seals who said their interogation methods without torture was more effective.

If the first 48 hrs is so important, before his contact go underground, I wonder just how effective the usual methods are?

[Bainx]

I'll bet the farm that this guy is already doped up with truth seriums galore.

[Dannyboy]

I, personally, don't think torture works very well. The subject will just tell the person what they want to hear to get them to stop and you can never trust what they say. However, I believe that, in some cases (any captured Al-Queda) it should be used for recreational purposes.

[seeker_two]

Physical torture is unreliable at best. The subject will tell the interrorgator what they want to hear to stop the pain.

Psychological torture is better, but risky. When a subject's mind starts to lose hold w/ reality, information becomes more unreliable.

Chemical interrogation is much more reliable and verifiable. I'm all for it.

Now, after the interrogations are done, I'm all for using the subjects as targets in live-fire excercises...:evil:

[Leatherneck]

This guy is smart and tough and highly motivated. Torture to the extent needed to get him to say anything in the short term would be counterproductive: you couldn't be sure he wasn't simply saying what he needed to get the torture to stop. Long-term, different problem. :banghead:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Soap]

On a torture thread on TFL my take simply was:

The Hobbits didn't torture Gollum for information, but Sauron did.

[Hutch]

Physical torture? Nope. Never. I can't help but believe we have more effective methods.

[DeltaElite]

They will get what they need without torture.
Remember, he is a POW, so the BoR doesn't apply to him. :D

[benewton]

I'd bet on the drugs, myself.

Still, Dannyboy has a very valid point.

When disposal time comes, though, I think JP4 in a closed room should be used.

[Zander]

This guy is smart and tough and highly motivated.All this is interesting speculation [at least we aren't burdened in this instance by the supposition that this cold-blooded murderer is an American "citizen" as was Padilla], but torture is not only unneccesary but counterproductive.

This sub-human doesn't know where he is, doesn't know how he got there, is bereft of any physical or emotional support, is aware of all the supporting evidence that was captured with him and that the "game" of planning further murders of his "enemies" is extinguished.

He'll talk...willingly...and his revelations will be most helpful. It's highly likely that our capture of lower-level operatives in al-Quaeda led to his eventual arrest. Simply put, that's how it works.

Let's celebrate the fact that one of America's most dedicated enemies is in custody. This is a huge win...and we don't have to compromise any principles to get what we want from him.

[Ian]

If we start dividing people into human and sub-human groups, we've got a waaaay bigger problem on our hands than terrorism.

Torture is wrong, plain and simple.

[redneck2]

gotta do what you gotta do....

[Kaylee]

One more time...


everyone please look at the flag header up at the top of this page. See there where it says "The High Road?"

Advocation of torture for "recreational purposes" and particularly discussions of various means of torture WILL STOP NOW.

We are NOT here to show off how devious and barbaric we can be. A goodly part of the mission of THR is to provide a positive example of and for the firearms community at large.

Discussion of EFFECTIVENESS and MORALITY of torture -- on topic.
Discussion of HOW TO torture will get this thread closed. Quickly.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

-K

[King]

I don't think we should physically torture this guy either. i think we have reasonable methods of getting information. True, he'll be a tough nit to crack but it can be done.

In all likiehood, some of the items that he had in his possession may yield more than he will tell (his computer, etc).

[Zander]

If we start dividing people into human and sub-human groups, we've got a waaaay bigger problem on our hands than terrorism. -- IanIt would be most helpful if you actually read my reply before adding your counter.

I took great pains to explain that "torture" isn't necessary...indeed, it is counter-productive.

As to the label 'sub-human', I stand by my characterization. Those who conspire to murder my peers, associates and friends as they did on September 11th are, IMO, the scum of the civilized world.

The only reason that such sub-humans as Osama bin Laden's #2 terror-agent are still alive is that we find it helpful to interrogate them instead of administering a round of 9mm to the back of their skulls.

[pax]

No.

No torture.

We are better than they are ... not least because we don't stoop to that level.

At least, we used to be and we didn't used to...

pax

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. -- Nietzsche

[cordex]

Torture is a relative term, is it not?

Many of you (Chris and friends excepted) would not consider imprisonment to be torture. Might look different on the other side of the bars.

Granted, a quick execution is the ideal solution to someone who initiates deadly force, but - moral or no - if someone has forfeit their lives (justified their own execution) and my own life or the lives of those I cared about could be saved by torturing the perpetrator, I would be reluctantly willing.

Dan,
Morality has little to do with fictional characters except where they embody the moral structures of the author. Sauron's character was made evil by his actions, not the other way around.

[Baba Louie]

Torture?

Hmmmmm. What's the worst thing I can think of?

24/7 Rosie reruns? Old Tammy and Jim Baker shows on constantly?

Yeah, thats the ticket.

Adios

[Boats]

My problem with using the term torture is how expansively meaningless some people make it.

Is feeding only pork sandwhiches at Camp X-ray torture?

Is sleep deprivation torture?

Is solitary confinement or sensory deprivation torture?

Some people think harsh language in a confined space is torture. Others usually wait for specific tools to be employed on an unwilling subject before the term is bandied about.

So what is torture in international agreements prohibiting its use? I do not care for the fate of our enemies enough to look it up.

[TheLastBoyScout]

For informational purposes, chemicals would probly work better...
--Edited to comply with the moderators' orders--

[Pendragon]

You should know that in this country, the use of "truth serum" is considered torture and is banned by the USSC.

The whole argument boils down to utility vs. principle.

We fear torture because we fear the slippery slop of it being used on common criminal to elict "confessions".

Note that the Constitution specifically bans "cruel and unusual punishmen".

I think that in this case, I am reluctantly for "torture" (although not the grotesque physical maiming kind).

My reasoning is that:

1. Our intent is not to "punish", it is to acquire information.
2. Our need for information is not to acquire a conviction.

Yes, I am uncomfortable with my reasoning, but what would scare me more is "torture" for punishment or to make a conviction. If we are just trying to secure strategic information, then perhaps it is warranted.

However, we should remember that turnabout is fair play :evil:


edit: I wanted to mention that while I was getting ready today, I decided that if someone had kidnapped my son, there is absolutely no limit to the horrors I could inflict on them to get them to tell me where he is. But then, if you are a parent, I think you would agree. :evil:

[Soap]

Cordex,

Morality has little to do with fictional characters except where they embody the moral structures of the author. Sauron's character was made evil by his actions, not the other way around.

I suppose I just have a lot of respect for the morality that is in LOTR. In turn, I have that sort of respect for Tolkien's moral code. As for Sauron's morality, couldn't it be said that torturing Gollum is simply another way in which Sauron made himself more evil?

[Chris Rhines]

Torture is easy to justify in utilitarian terms. . . . Only if you are a utilitarian. I am not.

Regardless of the relative effectiveness of torture vs. other methods of interrogation, torture is still wrong. This is a universal constant.

tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

1.) a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2.) Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3.) Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Interesting that this definition includes severity; I don't agree that causing 'only a little' pain is somehow not torture. But anyway, by this definition sleep deprivation is torture, solitary confinement and sensory deprivation are question marks. Pork sandwiches? Doubtful, but it does represent a level of petty sadism that I had hoped we as a country had evolved above.

- Chris

[jrhines]

Hmm...Let's see, the morality in LOTR

...A group of good guys meets up with a group of bad guys, kills them all, places the leaders head on a pike, piles up the bodies and torches them!
Sounds like a warcrime to me, last seen in the Balkans, only I was told it was the badguys that walked away. The only way that LOTR gets away with this is by pre-defining who is absolutely good (even thou sometime weak and sometimes stupid) and who is absolutely evil. Given those circumstances the choices are easy to make. May they be so clear and so true in our lives...

[Mastrogiacomo]

Have him listen to Barbara Streisand -- singing and talking. Then throw Rosie at him -- take it any way you want...:evil: Force him to watch the re-runs of her show, and if there's any nude photos of Rosie on the Internet -- that should get him screaming pretty good.:p :neener:

[Blackhawk]

Torture serves no useful purpose. The North Vietnamese proved that with the American POWs.

Besides, any organization with 3 functional brain cells operates as though everything a captive knows is compromised so it adjusts accordingly.

In this case, Al Qaida may not have the ability to crank up the planning process anew.

Nevertheless, this turkey will start talking about all kinds of things, some of which will be useful.

[Sir Galahad]

Fictional books are not something to base governmental policy on. Submitted for your approval: "It Takes A Village..."---need I say more? Well, I will.

First off, the book is fiction. It drew upon SOME prexisting mythos and/or preexisting religious structure, but it is NOT a religion. It's a fictional book; not the Bible, Torah, Koran or the Rig Veda. No matter how many people wait a week in line for tickets to the movie, it is not a religion and, so, cannot draw upon the wellspring of a traditional set of beliefs that have stood the test of time. Nor is LOTR held to have been the words of a God or Gods. That's for the morality end of it. For the government end, again, works of fiction are NOT something to base government on. "Mein Kampf" immediately springs to mind as to why you don't base these things on fictional books.

Now, also, I submit that basing governments on religions can also not be a very good idea. See also "fanaticism". Therefore, basing a governmental decision on the morality of a fictional book is not safe practice by any stretch of the imagination. The forces of Mordor certainly were evil enough, but Sauron is not threatening us with biological, chemical, and/or nuclear weapons here and now. For that matter, neither is Jehovah, Allah, G-d, or Indra. With that perspective, the greater morality is in what you feel absolutely necessary to protect your people. Is the greater moral good served if 200,000 people fry in a nuclear fireball to save one terrorist from torture (who already killed 3,000 people), well, that's all well and good in, again, FICTIONAL books. But in real life, the dead are just as dead. And 200,000 Americans are not worth that exercise in asserting how "good" we are. We're not in this to be "good". We should be in this to win. We can afford to be good when these people are not holding swords of Damocles over the heads of our people. Until then, whatever it takes to win is what is necessary.

[Sean Smith]

Torture isn't justifiable on moral OR utilitarian terms. It doesn't work for crap.

Assuming you assume I'm not lying :) , you can read about why I might know more about this than most here:

http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/me.html

I can illustrate why torture is pretty useless with the following hypothetical scenario...

Assume you are the interrogator, and you've got a terrorist that you are going to torture for information. Let's make a few assumptions:

1. The terrorist knows some things, and not others, that you want to know.
2. You will have to ask direct questions; punishing somebody with torture for not giving the answer you want to a vague, open-ended question would make no sense.
3. You will torture the subject whenever he doesn't answer a specific question, or provides a seemingly dishonest or absurd answer. This will continue until you get an acceptable answer.
4. You don't know exactly what the terrorist does and doesn't know, otherwise you wouldn't need to interrogate him.

The outcome of all of this should be fairly obvious: the terrorist will answer ALL of your questions, in as much detail as possible, wheter or not he knows the answer, in order to avoid being tortured. Since we know the terrorist doesn't know everything we want, a large proportion of what he tells you will be pure fiction, and you really won't have any way to tell the good from the bad. You can't really use a lie detector while torturing somebody, both because it would be impractical & because the torture would hopelessly ruin the readings. You can't extensively re-question the subject or use control questions to catch them in any lies, because there is a limit to how much torture you can do at any one time before the person passes out or becomes a raving idiot. You could make up alternative torture scenarios, but none of them actually work reliably.

Torture isn't a viable way to gain information from anybody. It just isn't functional from a practical point of view. Torture isn't used to gain information, it is used as an act of terror and revenge against the opposition in general.

Of course, there are things that have been dubbed "mental torture," which is a gigantic gray area. Good interogation uses alot of psychological techniques and manipulation of the subject. It isn't "nice" in the usual sense of the word. But it isn't "torture" in any sense that matters, either.

[Joe Demko]

The whole lot of them have been consistently overestimated since 9/11. They weren't the tough, dedicated fighters their hype portrayed. They weren't the crafty will o' the wisps their hype portrayed. They haven't been ANYTHING their hype portrayed since 9/11. The whole question of torture is a moot point since this guy is singing like a canary in all probability. Just like the rest, because (guess what?) they aren't the tight-lipped religious fanatics grimly refusing to answer questions that their hype portrayed either.

[Lennyjoe]

Unfortunately the military will have nothing to do with the possible torture of this individual.

We are legally bound by the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and the Geneva Convention to the humane treatment of prisoners.

As a military man if I am captured I will only give my name, rank and serial number. The Code of Conduct is specific. I will resist at all means even if I have to die trying to escape.

Now the CIA, thats a different story. But I think Pakistani guys that caught him might of ruffed him up a bit.

[goosegunner]

To those of you who support torture:

Where will you draw the line, is torture okay on "evil" people, on non Americans, on "terrorists", on anyone, on muslims, on arabs or maby gun-owners (there are people who think we are a treath to anyone around us). And who do you think shall deside who is in the "okay to torture" group?

[Soap]

J. Rhines,

I suppose you have a point regarding that aspect of the books. As you stated, in LOTR there is an extreme oversimplification that every single last bad guy is indeed a bad guy. It would be quite nice if it worked out that way in reality.


Sir Galahad,


First off, the book is fiction. It drew upon SOME prexisting mythos and/or preexisting religious structure, but it is NOT a religion. It's a fictional book; not the Bible, Torah, Koran or the Rig Veda. No matter how many people wait a week in line for tickets to the movie, it is not a religion and, so, cannot draw upon the wellspring of a traditional set of beliefs that have stood the test of time. Nor is LOTR held to have been the words of a God or Gods. That's for the morality end of it.

What does religion have to do with anything here? Does something have to be based in religion to be moral or deemed immoral?

For the government end, again, works of fiction are NOT something to base government on. "Mein Kampf" immediately springs to mind as to why you don't base these things on fictional books.

When things are true, they are true, regardless of if they were penned in a poem, a song, a work of fiction, a biography, a textbook, et al, ad infinitum. The medium doesn't really matter. For example, if I wrote a comprehensive work of fiction that dealt with the history of the 2nd Amendment and it was dead on, should we disregard it just because it is fiction?

Is the greater moral good served if 200,000 people fry in a nuclear fireball to save one terrorist from torture (who already killed 3,000 people), well, that's all well and good in, again, FICTIONAL books.

Regardless of one's views on religion, once a person, or a government, resorts to evil things, they in turn become evil. Taking the HIGH ROAD is what allows us to be called good people. For example, if a SWAT team is doing a raid on a drug house and they hear someone racking a shotgun in the adjacent room, can they just simply shoot through the walls? No. Why? Because not doing that is part of being a Good Guy.

We're not in this to be "good". We should be in this to win.

Remind me never to do business with you. ;)

Until then, whatever it takes to win is what is necessary.

I suppose there are some of us that would rather be dead and good than alive and evil. YMMV of course. BTW- Take a look at Nazi Germany. Would it be better for you to be stuffing ovens or would it be better for you to be dead?

[Mastrogiacomo]

I'd say it's acceptable to use it on any group that uses it on their victims. I don't have sympathy for people that don't care about others -- women and children are tortured daily with verbal, sexual, or phyical abuse by these people who claim they have a right to treat them this way since they're male, and God puts them in his grace to beat or have sex orgies as they wish. It doesn't matter to these men that the people they're hurting are Muslim too -- because they're not AS Muslim as they are, and therefore of no value or importance in their society.

I don't have a problem doing unto others to let them know how those they've hurt or killed have felt. If this makes me sound cold-hearted, so be it. One of my biggest faults is that I sympathize too much with the victims of terrorists.

[jrhines]

Lennyjoe -
Unfortunately the military will have nothing to do with the possible torture of this individual
Why unfortunately? Should we have a raffle for chances to get to play? Post a sign-up list next to the one for the bowling league? Let me see if I can recast what the warfighter meant to say. "FORTUNATELY, cooler military heads have prevailed, and they will have nothing to do with ANY torture of this individual." Is that more along the lines of the intended message? Or did I just misread what you said? Probably so! I apologize.

Secondly, I believe the individual in question is not a combatant and has no standing under Geneva. If I am wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected forthwith.

Thirdly,
Now the CIA, that’s a different story.
I'll say, and one that you are probably not conversant with. Pay no attention to the TV shows, the movies and the legends and sea stories. It ain't like that, go with me on this one.

[trooper]

This is as much a war of principles and ideals as of weapons. If we do something to them because they would readily do it to us AND it is a violation of our most basic principles (which are written down in numerous documents such as constitutions, multilateral treaties etc.) than we have dropped down to their level and have no reason to view us as any better then them.

Utilitarity is the least important point to think about regarding this issue because it touches the core values upon which our civilization is built.

Therefore I oppose torture for any reason though I can understand the feelings of those who advocate it.


Regards,

Trooper

[KMKeller]

Kaylee said:
Advocation of torture for "recreational purposes" and particularly discussions of various means of torture WILL STOP NOW.

We are NOT here to show off how devious and barbaric we can be. A goodly part of the mission of THR is to provide a positive example of and for the firearms community at large.

Discussion of EFFECTIVENESS and MORALITY of torture -- on topic.
Discussion of HOW TO torture will get this thread closed. Quickly.


So my whole nosehair plucking scenario is verboten?:scrutiny: :evil: :D

[buzz_knox]

Torture per se doesn't work, generally, unless it is of such a nature that it punches through psychological and physiological defenses nearly instantly. But, that isn't a subject for discussion here.

But physical discomfort combined with psychological interrogation does, but takes a bit of time to work, time which we may not have before the information becomes invalid.

From both a legal and moral point of view, I've got no problem with screwing up someone's sleep schedule so they loose track of time and interrogating them with deception.

[cordex]

When things are true, they are true, regardless of if they were penned in a poem, a song, a work of fiction, a biography, a textbook, et al, ad infinitum. The medium doesn't really matter. For example, if I wrote a comprehensive work of fiction that dealt with the history of the 2nd Amendment and it was dead on, should we disregard it just because it is fiction?
Good point.
However, saying "evil character #1 did this, and good characters #2 and #3 did not, thus and therefore, the action is evil" does not follow. It merely gives us insight into what the author considered moral or immoral. That you agree with the author is immaterial when trying to prove something.
I suppose there are some of us that would rather be dead and good than alive and evil. YMMV of course. BTW- Take a look at Nazi Germany. Would it be better for you to be stuffing ovens or would it be better for you to be dead?
There absolutely are principals that should be defended with one's life. However, I don't know that industrial strength genocide of millions of noncombatants can be compared with the torture of murderers to learn about and prevent future atrocities they have planned.

To me, those who state that torture is in all cases wrong are somewhat akin to those who state that killing is in all cases wrong. I can respect them without agreeing with their viewpoint.
Admittedly, it is messy, it is a measure of absolute last resort and no pleasure should be taken in it. But in defense of innocent lives, it is just as morally defensable as shooting an assailant. Torturing an innocent indiviudal is another story altogether. As such, torture is an invalid method of "proving" guilt, and only justifiable once guilt has been established.

As to "stooping to their level", one must first establish that torture is in and of itself immoral - and why it is immoral - before one can make that assertion. Many of the individuals involved in assorted Jihads against The Western Devils do not eat pork products. Neither do I. This doesn't mean I am "stooping to their level" because the decision of whether or not to eat pig flesh is morally neutral. Dropping a bomb on a military target is not stooping to the level of suicide bombers - regardless of the fact that people are being killed. Thus, homicide is not automatically "evil". Similarly, torturing someone for the sake of saving innocent lives can be moral.

If there are other, less distasteful methods that would be as or more effective, they should obviously be used first - and if torture is truly ineffective, there is no defense for it. However, if it is stipulated that it can work, it is acceptable in extreme cases.

[Sir Galahad]

How can something in a work of FICTION be "true" when the author defines that truth? There are any numer of people currently opposing the war whose arguments rest solely on quotes from a song by John Lennon and sayings off bumper stickers.

Remind you never to do business with me? Funny. Show me a business that's in the long haul to be "good" and not make money. The antis seem to think the greater good would be served in firearms manufacturers all stopped making guns and started making toys or kitchenware instead. So, for Ruger, S&W, etc. to become "good", they would have to stop making guns and start making cheese keepers. But Ruger and S&W want to make money and, therefore WIN, so they make guns. If they made kitchenware, they wouldn't make near the amount of money they make from guns. So, they keep making those "evil" guns that kill "the children". And we're glad they do because we know that works of FICTION (like the recent anti-gun movie where a guy holds a firearms company CEOs daughter hostage to show how "evil" guns are) are NOT things to base government on!! And we know that doctored "documentaries" like "Bowling For Columbine" are NOT things you base government on either. Neither is Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Captain Corelli's Mandolin.

I also think if you read history, most morality is based in religious frameworks. I need not defend that. It defends itself.

[Soap]

Cordex-

That you agree with the author is immaterial when trying to prove something.

Good retort!

Basically I think the difference in your viewpoint and my viewpoint is that you believe that doing things, no matter how distasteful, for the benefit of good is a Good Thing.

Whereas I take the stance that one must promote goodness only through good actions. Any other way is simply promoting evil, even if it benefits good people.

Also, we simply disagree on the morality of torture in the first place. Would you say that torture in and of itself is morally neutral? And that it depends on who is doing the torture and what their reasons are for performing torture?

[Soap]

Sir Galahad- I can deduce from your replies that you believe in no objective reality. If you want to believe in relativism, that is fine with me. But don't expect either of us to waste our time since arguing with a relativist is silly.

[Joe Demko]

After some consideraton, I'm squarely against the use of torture for purposes of gathering information. I still haven't decided about the morality of its use as punishment, following a fair trial, of course. In many ways, it would be superior to incarceration in both economic and moral terms.

[buzz_knox]

Here's how I look at it. Is torture an evil thing? Yes. Would I do it under the right circumstances? Probably. Does that make me an evil person? Not on its own.

The totality of a person's actions and the intent behind those actions is what defines the character of the person. I would never torture someone to obtain information about wealth, business secrets, etc. But would I torture someone to obtain the information necessary to save a city (i.e. the scenario set forth in "24"), or the life of a loved one? Yup, if it was the only way to accomplish the goal. I would, of course, submit to judgment later but I would much prefer the burden of committing a wrong rather than seeing a city burn or a loved one die.

[cordex]

Basically I think the difference in your viewpoint and my viewpoint is that you believe that doing things, no matter how distasteful, for the benefit of good is a Good Thing.

Whereas I take the stance that one must promote goodness only through good actions. Any other way is simply promoting evil, even if it benefits good people.
Hmm ...
I would actually agree with your position for the most part. Our actions define who we are. But I would add that there are times when "good" actions are distasteful. Before we can define which actions are good and just, we have to discuss the moral absolutes which relate to torture.
Also, we simply disagree on the morality of torture in the first place.
Here is the true rub.
What causes torture to be unethical in your mind?
Sir Galahad- I can deduce from your replies that you believe in no objective reality. If you want to believe in relativism, that is fine with me. But don't expect either of us to waste our time since arguing with a relativist is silly.
I love arguing with relativists. No matter how silly I get, my ideas just as valid as anyone else's.

[Sean Smith]

I think it is immoral to whine about the morality of torture when it has no practical use anyway. :D

But hey, some of you guys watch TV shows, so how can I compete with that?

:neener:

[MeekandMild]

1) I believe that non-torture interrogation can give as much information as torture.

2) I don't believe in using torture as it is morally wrong.

3) Is it torture to put him in the regular prison population with Tyrone, Marcell, Germaine and a jar of vasaline?:uhoh:

[Diesle]

I guess I just assume that there are more sophisticated methods of torture now. I.E. drugs that have a much higher success rate than pain....

Lets face it.... many people feel that simple sleep depravation and repeated questioning are torture. So yes, under those guidelines, I do believe in torture!

Diesle

[Dannyboy]

Physical torture doesn't work. Contrary to popular belief, drugs don't work. So, that leaves one option. "Torture" him with kindness. Treat him so nicely and so well that he will tell us everything we want to know. Give him access to whatever he wants; favorite foods, women, drugs, booze, whatever. That's all we have to do. Just be nice. I mean, wouldn't that really be taking the high road? While we're at it, we can start bombing Iraq with cluster bombs of flowers.

:rolleyes:

Like I said, I don't think physical torture works but something has to be said for it when lefties like Alan Dershowitz(sp?) are advocating its use.

[Sean Smith]

Alan is an intelligent fool. Why listen to him on terrorism when everything else he says is drivel? In general, when somebody who is 99% wrong about everything agrees with you on 1% of the issues, you probably need to reconsider that 1%.

Sean "UtopianHippieFlowerPower" http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/hippy.gifhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/colours.gifhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/silly.gifSmith

P.S. I'm not accusing you of being a Dershowitzite. ;)

[telewinz]

It is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is against civilization and any moral code. What are you going to do when they take an American (GI?) and torture him in response? We are opening a can of worms we will reget. We should take the HI-Road and stay there even when the chips are down.

[Dannyboy]

P.S. I'm not accusing you of being a Dershowitzite.

That's good. We might have a problem, otherwise.:neener:

Seriously, though, I have no use for him or his ilk. My point was simply that if a "civil libertarian" such as he was advocating the use of torture then maybe, just maybe it ain't so bad.

Just for the record, I stand by my original statement about "recreational purposes." If that makes me a bad person then so be it. It just means that I don't need to find a ladder to get on my horse.

What are you going to do when they take an American (GI?) and torture him in response?

Oh, you mean like the Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis did? This reminds me of the way we treated German POW's in WWII. Yeah, let's follow the Geneva Convention to the letter and treat POW's as well as we treat our own soldiers. We did that with the Germans in the hope that they would reciprocate with our captured troops. Worked really well.:rolleyes:

[Soap]

Cordex-

I put torture in the same category as rape. When is rape okay? Never.

[Glock Glockler]

Dan,

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here for a minute.

Torture of Al Queda scumbag might result in information that can save the lives of myself and others. Rape, OTOH, can be used how to save lives?

[Gewehr98]

Washington Times
March 5, 2003
Pg. 19

Interrogating KSM

By Jack Wheeler

With the capture of top al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (known as "KSM"), getting him to disgorge the contents of his brain quickly and truthfully is critically necessary before his network has a chance to vanish undercover.

What, then, would the most efficient and effective form of interrogation be? In 1995, the Philippine State Police captured an al Qaeda agent. They knew he was planning some terrorist act, but didn't know what. So they tortured him — the old-fashioned way, right out of the movies with putting out cigarettes on his testicles, breaking his ribs, the whole brutal nine yards. It took two weeks and finally he broke, revealing a plot to hijack 11 airliners. By exposing and unraveling the plot, the torture saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, so it was clearly justified.

The ethics of torturing KSM should not be an issue. As a practical matter, the question is: How to torture him in such a way that it takes hours, not days or weeks, for him to break; and when he does, you know for sure he is telling the truth.

To start, you don't want to use a so-called truth serum like thiopental sodium. It acts by confusing your memory so much you forget who is your friend and who is your enemy. So you think the interrogator is your friend and you talk — except you can't think or remember clearly. No, you want KSM to be thinking and remembering with crystal clarity.

The best lie detector — although it's not used as such — would be a medical brain-scanning device called a functional MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). Light years in effectiveness beyond a polygraph, an fMRI scan can distinguish — instantly, in real time — when someone is lying as opposed to telling the truth, as different regions in the brain would light up.

So here's what to do.

Fly in from the United States and set up an fMRI at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where KSM is being held, and do three things: Place KSM under the fMRI brain scanner; put him on a mechanical respirator; and give him an injection of a paralytic drug called succinyl choline chloride (SCC).

SCC, used as a veterinarian anesthetic, causes muscle paralysis by blocking neuromuscular junction. It causes immobilization without affecting the central nervous system, such that KSM cannot move, yet he is fully conscious and there is no analgesia (pain relief). Injection by an M.D. anesthesiologist of SCC into the nerve tracts leading to the diaphragm will paralyze the muscles needed for breathing. KSM can think, remember, and talk, but he cannot breathe. The mechanical respirator breathes for him. Without the respirator, he would quickly suffocate and die.

The respirator is a CPAP, a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure unit used for treating sleep apnea, with a nasal mask. The unit itself is placed in an adjacent room with a long hose, as no metal can be around the huge magnets of the fMRI. The unit will force air via the nasal passageway into the lungs. His mouth is free and clear to talk.

Now the interrogation begins. KSM is asked a series of questions to which the answers are known (e.g., Are you a Muslim? Would you like a drink of pig grease?). If he lies, the respirator is turned off. Few experiences are more terrifying than that of suffocation. After a sufficiently terrifying period of suffocation, the respirator is turned back on, the question is asked again, and the process repeated until he tells the truth. Once you have the regions in KSM's brain clearly distinguished that light up when he is lying or telling the truth, the serious questioning starts. It will not take long, an hour or two at the most, before KSM is singing like a full chorus of canaries.

After all useful information has been extracted from his brain, KSM should be informed that he will now be killed after his body is smeared with pig fat, that his dead body will be handled by women, and all other actions taken that prevent a Muslim from entering heaven upon death so that he dies believing he will never get the heavenly wine and virgins, but will burn in Hell instead. Upon his execution, there should be no physical remains. The body should be cremated and the ashes scattered to the winds.

Then, the word can be spread. All members of al Qaeda must know that once captured, their terrorist brethren will betray their comrades and that their fate will be ashes and Hell. The only way to win the war against terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists into giving up their evil jihad.

Jack Wheeler is president of the Freedom Research Foundation and editor of ToThePointNews.com.

[Soap]

GlockGlockler- What if rape could be used to extract information that could save lives?

[Zander]

Only if you are a utilitarian. I am not. -- CRWell, no...you describe yourself as a "pragmatic" anarchist, eh?

Correct me if I am wrong, but your definition of the prohibition of torture would require that the #2 subordinate in OBL's al-Quaida be treated to a dry cot and three meals a day which don't "offend" his feigned religious "principles".

Frankly, I don't care if he is inconvenienced...he was the brains behind killing my fellow citizens, some of them who swore a sacred oath to protect us and died as a result of their dedication.

Let me repeat it one more time:

Torture isn't necessary and is, by and large, counterproductive. We'll get the intelligence we need to stem or prohibit the murder of me or my family by those who are sworn to further our destruction. He'll provide it because he is more interested in staying alive than in hiding his conspirators' efforts and locations.

On another matter...

As a human being, you have the inherent, God-given right to express your opinion on such matters.

So do I...the difference is that I have experience in such matters and you have none.

[Duke of Lawnchair]

No, no torture.

The High Road. 'Nuff said.

[Beorn]

I listened to some ex command sgt maj of the Seals who said their interogation methods without torture was more effective.

Aren't you getting your branches of the service mixed up there? I would believe Master Chief Petty Officer, but CSMjr?

I myself have high ethics, but my morality is none of anyone's business. It's a personal thing. As a teacher, it's not my job to teach morals, but ethics.

For example, I can say "murder is against the law." But it is not my place to say "Thou shalt not kill." Know what I mean? The parents and clergy around that child should have a hand in it, but not the state run educational system (but I do wish that this idiocy of removing "under God" from the Pledge would die off. 86% of the US is religious to some extent. The other 14% should just suck it up or not speak the words.)

Torture is morally questionable depending upon one's morals. Would I do it? Hmm, it would really depend upon the circumstances. Probably not, but that is a question that I will most likely never have to answer anyway.

This "we don't do it because we're better than they are" argument has only come into play since the Age of Enlightenment. That used to be the "it wouldn't be Christian" argument, but such a saying is not politically correct anymore.

I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but we all might be surprised at how we'd react in certain situations. For me, I want him as coherent as possible to spill as much of the information he's got.

Oh, and JRR Tolkien wasn't the religious one of his literary circle anyway. That was C.S. Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia). Best friends, and exact opposites in the formulation of fiction.

I wonder if our captured servicemen and women are treated as nicely by our opponents as we treat our captives. In a perfect world, they would be. But, in this mythical perfect world, would there be a need for violence in the first place?

[Malone LaVeigh]

The Hobbits didn't torture Gollum for information, but Sauron did.So did Aragorn.

[Al Norris]

I had to wade through the whole thread, just to find out that no one even has a clue.
Pax wrote:

No.

No torture.
I agree. But that's just me.
We are better than they are ... not least because we don't stoop to that level.

At least, we used to be and we didn't used to...
Now that's where everyone is just plain wrong. As a country, we have. We did. We probably still do.

It was used in Vietnam. This I know for a fact. I strongly suspect torture was used in just about every conflict we have ever been involved with.

Torture is most usefull when there are more than one person involved. Facts can then be checked by the answers given by multiple individuals.

Using torture on one lone person, is as several have already said, highly limited if usefull at all.

This jackel was not arrested alone. Therefore, certain facts can be ascertained through the use of modern methods. From that, and I mean that from a few usefull facts, the main person can be confronted and more information can be extracted.

Like it or not, it has been and most likely will be not only used, but usefull.

Regardless of how we tend to view ourselves, there are those whose job it is to be as evil as possible, but also to be invisible, so that our intell is up to date and our sensibilities are not inconvienced.

[Coronach]

This one is outliving its usefullness.

It has remained open as long as it has due to the tendency of posters to focus on the propriety of torture as an investigative option, rather than to dwell on the more lurid details of "what we're gonna do to the terrorists." However, several have not exactly taken the high road, here, and as such I'm going to pull the plug on this thread.

For those still involved in the debate, feel free to open a discussion via PM or email.

Thank you,
Coronach