Torture complex found in Iraq

[DogOnPorch]

Because "good interrogators" use methods like "forced wearing of panties on your head?" Just how much useful information did that bring about?

However, I guess it's just par for the course around here. And heck, even Foxman isn't against it - as he said - it worked so well for the Nazis!! Not to mention how well it worked confirming the guilt of witches and warlocks during the inquisition!! Ah yes - brutal torture of other humans is such a necessary thing!!

How would I know the information provided was accurate? The whole point of torture is to inflict pain until the tortured says something I want to hear. Torture is used to confirm what is already suspected. In fact, suppose the tortured person says something I have no knowledge of? Why would I believe what he says? The problem with torture is that its impossible to tell truth from fiction.

How quickly we all turn the tables...

I'll remind you all of the obvious point that this enemy torture complex in Iraq was doing a job that had nothing to do with information gathering...and it was doing it very well...and for over a year at least.

------------------------------------------------------------

I thought using the Ayatollah's money to support the Nicaraguan resistance was a neat idea.

---Lt. Col. Oliver North

[Wilber]

So you've had to do something so repulsive to you, something against your moral standards? I've never had to. So I guess I, for one, would be someone who hasn't had to do something which was repulsive to me but necessary.

No, I have been lucky enough that I have never been put in that position. I have however had to do things that I found very unpleasant but necessary.

My question to you is, if you have a choice between holding to your strict moral standards and saving someones life, what is the real moral thing to do? Which is more important, your standards or their life?

[bush_cheney2004]

....My question to you is, if you have a choice between holding to your strict moral standards and saving someones life, what is the real moral thing to do? Which is more important, your standards or their life?

It's not even that complicated. As a matter of policy, we are perfectly willing to kill and maim for the same "human rights". Frankly, I am not impressed by a small moral oasis along the violence spectrum just so someone can feel superior. Interrogate....definitely. Interrogate with prejudice...whenever necessary.

How about some French "magneto torture"?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/ar...n_style/?page=3

[jbg]

Are you naive enough to think that if one of your or my government agencies ever stopped a massacre by getting information under torture they would hold a press conference and tell everyone?

Well, it is true that Israel revealed that a big help in stopping a massacre by Idi Amin, at Entebbe Airport, of Israeli hostages was the fact that Israel had the architectural plans for the airport and knew which way doors opened, and exact dimensions. Source of that knowlege; it built the airport for Uganda before a madman took control.

But I digress.

[Guest American Woman]

Frankly, I am not impressed by a small moral oasis along the violence spectrum just so someone can feel superior.

Seems to me you're the only one bringing up "feeling superior." No one who has said they are morally against torture has made claims of superiority. Your reference to it just shows that it's your problem, that you feel defensive about supporting torture.

So far no one has been able to come up with a single instance where torture has saved lives. No one has come up with one "ticking bomb" scenario to prove the relevance of that argument.

People have, however, come up with instances where false information was gathered at great time and expense, and then led people on a wild goose chase taking up more time and expense.

When we condone torturing our prisoners, we are condoning the act of torture, putting our soldiers at more risk of being tortured. As long as we condone it and make light of it when we engage in it, we are putting our troops at risk, along with our reputation. We are gaining more enemies, less support. I think that costs us lives in the long run.

[Peter F]

How quickly we all turn the tables...

I'll remind you all of the obvious point that this enemy torture complex in Iraq was doing a job that had nothing to do with information gathering...and it was doing it very well...and for over a year at least.

Okay, the enemy torture complex had nothing to do with information gathering. What were they hoping to achieve and why should the USofA use the same technique?

Edited January 4, 2008 by Peter F

[DogOnPorch]

Okay, the enemy torture complex had nothing to do with information gathering. What were they hoping to achieve and why should the USofA use the same technique?

Now, Peter...I won't 'strawman' you if you won't do it to me. If you've read my posts you'll know I'm already against torture.

That aside, the torture complex described was used to terrorize the local population into submission. Something that it did very well (re: is torture effective?). It would be pointless and very 'un-American' for the Allies to engage in like-wise behaviour.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Look, Fred, I may speak with an accent, but I don't listen with one!

---Ricky Ricardo: I Love Lucy.

[myata]

I only want to point out that as usual, the conservative crowd here, consciously or not, is assuming the moral absolutism position, i.e. "it's disgusting when they do it, but acceptable for us because we're morally superior".

Aside from justification for the superiority claim, this position is logically flawed because anybody can claim moral superiority and privileges associated with it. There's simply no absolute authority, that will appoint one side as superior, unquestionally and without contention from the other side.

[White Doors]

I only want to point out that as usual, the conservative crowd here, consciously or not, is assuming the moral absolutism position, i.e. "it's disgusting when they do it, but acceptable for us because we're morally superior".

Aside from justification for the superiority claim, this position is logically flawed because anybody can claim moral superiority and privileges associated with it. There's simply no absolute authority, that will appoint one side as superior, unquestionally and without contention from the other side.

And as usual the far left feels perfectly comfortable with comparing Abu Ghraib with what happened here.

Why is it that the far left has to hate the west in order to be far left? Or is it, you have to hate the west in order to be far left? Or is this like the chicken and the egg?

[Wilber]

I only want to point out that as usual, the conservative crowd here, consciously or not, is assuming the moral absolutism position, i.e. "it's disgusting when they do it, but acceptable for us because we're morally superior".

Aside from justification for the superiority claim, this position is logically flawed because anybody can claim moral superiority and privileges associated with it. There's simply no absolute authority, that will appoint one side as superior, unquestionally and without contention from the other side.

Nothing to do with moral superiority. I don't think anyone has maintained torture is moral. It is pure pragmatism. Sometimes circumstances can force you to prioritize your immoralities. Life is full of choices and choices always have consequences.

[Guest American Woman]

And as usual the far left feels perfectly comfortable with comparing Abu Ghraib with what happened here.

Why is it that the far left has to hate the west in order to be far left? Or is it, you have to hate the west in order to be far left? Or is this like the chicken and the egg?

A better question is why does anyone who criticizes our country when we do wrong "hate the west?" Since when is being critical synonymous with "hate?" I thought we were supposed to enjoy freedom of speech in the west. I thought one of our 'luxuries' in our democracies was freedom of speech. Yet when we practice it, we are accused of "hating the west." That's about as ridiculous as it gets.

[White Doors]

A better question is why does anyone who criticizes our country when we do wrong "hate the west?" Since when is being critical synonymous with "hate?" I thought we were supposed to enjoy freedom of speech in the west. I thought one of our 'luxuries' in our democracies was freedom of speech. Yet when we practice it, we are accused of "hating the west." That's about as ridiculous as it gets.

It's only ridiculous if you feel that people who hate the west shouldn't enjoy freedom of speech. I don't recall anyone saying that and i certainly didn't. I also certainly did not say criticizing the west was hating the west - far from it. You can see what I DID indeed say by reading it over and not seeing what you wish to see.

I also never thought you were a denizen of the far left - are you here to say that you are?

Anyways, can you try and stay on topic please?

[Guest American Woman]

It's only ridiculous if you feel that people who hate the west shouldn't enjoy freedom of speech. I don't recall anyone saying that and i certainly didn't. I also certainly did not say criticizing the west was hating the west - far from it. You can see what I DID indeed say by reading it over and not seeing what you wish to see.

I also never thought you were a denizen of the far left - are you here to say that you are?

Anyways, can you try and stay on topic please?

I am staying on topic. YOUR topic. So if you don't want something discussed or commented on, don't bring it up. Futhermore, I have no "wish" to see anything other than your views, so I suggest you lose the tired, overused, inane "what you wish to see" accusation/response.

You seem to be saying that anyone who is critical of the torture at Abu Ghraib is "the far left" and "hates the west." If that's not what you're saying, perhaps you could post more clearly exactly what it is you are saying.

[White Doors]

I am staying on topic. YOUR topic. So if you don't want something discussed or commented on, don't bring it up. Futhermore, I have no "wish" to see anything other than your views, so I suggest you lose the tired, overused, inane "what you wish to see" accusation/response.

You seem to be saying that anyone who is critical of the torture at Abu Ghraib is "the far left" and "hates the west." If that's not what you're saying, perhaps you could post more clearly exactly what it is you are saying.

"And as usual the far left feels perfectly comfortable with comparing Abu Ghraib with what happened here"

I'm not sure I could make myself anymore clear.

You are most assuradly putting words in my mouth.

perhaps you didn't bother to read the OP or your attention span won't allow you to stay on subject and hence misinterpreted my post? Or you are trolling.

You pick.

Edited January 4, 2008 by White Doors

[Guest American Woman]

I pick none of the above. Sorry, but I mistook you for someone who is capable of carrying on a civil, intelligent discussion. My mistake.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems to me you're the only one bringing up "feeling superior." No one who has said they are morally against torture has made claims of superiority. Your reference to it just shows that it's your problem, that you feel defensive about supporting torture.

No, it just shows that I am approaching the issue logically while also being glib. Such is my way.

So far no one has been able to come up with a single instance where torture has saved lives. No one has come up with one "ticking bomb" scenario to prove the relevance of that argument.

There are many more relevant scenarios that a silly ass "ticking time bomb" from a TV show. Do you think all bombs have ticking clocks or digital displays too?

People have, however, come up with instances where false information was gathered at great time and expense, and then led people on a wild goose chase taking up more time and expense.

True, but doesn't discount the discovery of actionable intel from interrogations with "torture".

When we condone torturing our prisoners, we are condoning the act of torture, putting our soldiers at more risk of being tortured. As long as we condone it and make light of it when we engage in it, we are putting our troops at risk, along with our reputation. We are gaining more enemies, less support. I think that costs us lives in the long run.

Good for you... I don't live in the long run when tasked with intelligence gathering. Please explain your logic to Daniel Pearl's severed head.

[Guest American Woman]

There's a reason I put "ticking time bomb" in quotes, so your moronic question in response to my comments is just that-- moronic. Guess that's the best you can come up with, eh?

As for "Daniel Pearl's severed head," suppose you explain to me how your condoning torture helped him. Or go one better and cite me one instance where torture saved a "Daniel Pearl's severed head." That's all I'm asking. So far no one has been able to come up with a single instance.

No wonder you're getting so testy.

[White Doors]

I pick none of the above. Sorry, but I mistook you for someone who is capable of carrying on a civil, intelligent discussion. My mistake.

Ahhh, you took door #4.

Look, you are the one who jumped on me and made wild accusations about something I did not say. I was responding to Myata's post so not sure where you came from, but whatever. You got it wrong from the first and are still wrong and god love ya, you are still pleading innocence and accusing me of wrong doing.

If you can't discern that I said the comparison of Abu Ghraib and this torture prison are very very different things then that is fine, say so and I will try and clear it up. Or, if you really DO think that the goings on at Abu Ghraib and this torture chamber are really the same things then that is fine too.

Just have the courage to say what you really want to say and the decency to not misrepresent what it is I am saying.

good day

[Wilber]

As for "Daniel Pearl's severed head," suppose you explain to me how your condoning torture helped him. Or go one better and cite me one instance where torture saved a "Daniel Pearl's severed head." That's all I'm asking. So far no one has been able to come up with a single instance.

There are those who follow the Geneva convention when treating each other's prisoners and there are those who don't. Whether or not the US used torture had no bearing on Daniel Pearl losing his head. Pearl was American Jew and he was killed in such a gruesome fashion to make a point, peroid.

So far you have not answered my question.

[M.Dancer]

There are those who follow the Geneva convention when treating each other's prisoners and there are those who don't. Whether or not the US used torture had no bearing on Daniel Pearl losing his head. Pearl was American Jew and he was killed in such a gruesome fashion to make a point, peroid.

So far you have not answered my question.

I find posts that quote a previous post but leave out the name and time stamp absolute torture. I go "who said that?"....and in fact, and I am surprise by my reaction, that this kind of torture it keeps me from talking.

[Wilber]

I find posts that quote a previous post but leave out the name and time stamp absolute torture. I go "who said that?"....and in fact, and I am surprise by my reaction, that this kind of torture it keeps me from talking.

See, torture does work.

The question was asked of AW but here it is again.

My question to you is, if you have a choice between holding to your strict moral standards and saving someones life, what is the real moral thing to do? Which is more important, your standards or their life?

A hypothetical question but a simple one. Besides, this whole thread is hypothetical because chances are, no one on this forum will find themselves in such a position. There are others to do it for us.

[margrace]

Don't we base most of our laws on the biblical laws. And they are, watch for it, tuda, Thou Shalt not kill, Revenge is mine says the lord and love your neighbour as yourself. Killing and torturing others to stop them from torturing and killing others has never worked. But we just go on doing it. Like some of our psychopathic killers we get our kick from torturing and killing others no matter what reason we come up with.

[Guest American Woman]

The question was asked of AW but here it is again.

My question to you is, if you have a choice between holding to your strict moral standards and saving someones life, what is the real moral thing to do? Which is more important, your standards or their life?

A hypothetical question but a simple one. Besides, this whole thread is hypothetical because chances are, no one on this forum will find themselves in such a position. There are others to do it for us.

First I want you to answer your own question. I'll give you a hypothetical, and you tell me which is more important.

We'll take your hypothetical. You've got in your custody someone who could give you information that would save someone's life. But. This person, and it's been proven that there most definitely are people like this person in the hypothetical, will not cave. No matter what you do to him, this person will not cave. Nothing you could do to him would make him talk. But. If you were to torture his little child, he would eventually cave. Do you torture the child? Do you start cutting off fingers? Do you do what it takes to his child to make him talk?

So here's your question-- "Which is more important, your standards or their life?"

[Wilber]

A hypothetical question but a simple one. Besides, this whole thread is hypothetical because chances are, no one on this forum will find themselves in such a position. There are others to do it for us.

First I want you to answer your own question. I'll give you a hypothetical, and you tell me which is more important.

We'll take your hypothetical. You've got in your custody someone who could give you information that would save someone's life. But. This person, and it's been proven that there most definitely are people like this person in the hypothetical, will not cave. No matter what you do to him, this person will not cave. Nothing you could do to him would make him talk. But. If you were to torture his little child, he would eventually cave. Do you torture the child? Do you start cutting off fingers? Do you do what it takes to his child to make him talk?

So here's your question-- "Which is more important, your standards or their life?"

To answer my question, the answer is an unqualified yes. I have no right to value my personal morality over some else's life. In fact, my own personal morality would prevent me from doing so.

Your question is much tougher. Now you are asking if I would approve of torturing an innocent to save another innocent. Without being put in that position, I can't honestly tell you. My question was far more simple. It is interesting that you find it necessary to complicate the issue rather than answer it. How would you answer your question? Would the possibility that you might be saving hundreds of lives by doing so instead of just one have a bearing on what you would do? You are getting the idea though. Such things are not always as cut and dried or "moral" as we would like them to be.

I would say something else. Anyone who would allow their child to be tortured in order that they could kill other humans should give you some idea of the kind of people you were dealing with. Totally ruthless who will not let get anyone get in their way including their own children. Not people who have ever pondered the morality of torture.

[Guest American Woman]

To answer my question, the answer is an unqualified yes. I have no right to value my personal morality over some else's life. In fact, my own personal morality would prevent me from doing so.

Your question is much tougher. Now you are asking if I would approve of torturing an innocent to save another innocent. Without being put in that position, I can't honestly tell you. My question was far more simple.

No, my question wasn't much tougher. It was the same question-- "Which is more important, your standards or the life at stake." In either hypothetical, it's your/my standards vs. someone else's life. So you are saying there are times when you think your standards might take precedence over someone's life. I'm saying I would hope that you wouldn't torture an innocent child; I'm saying as hard as it is, I think there are times when standards need to take precedence. My hypothetical, though, fits right in with this thread and people saying they would do 'whatever it takes to make someone talk.' In some instances, this is what it would/might take.

It is interesting that you find it necessary to complicate the issue rather than answer it.

My point is that it's a complicated issue. You claimed that it's a "simple question," but it's not. So I didn't "complicate the issue;" I merely showed by example that it's not a simple question.

How would you answer your question? Would the possibility that you might be saving hundreds of lives by doing so instead of just one have a bearing on what you would do?

My answer is I believe people have to live life by their standards. If they don't, what good are their standards? There's more to it than that, though, and I'll explain it more later in this post.*

You are getting the idea though. Such things are not always as cut and dried or "moral" as we would like them to be.

I'm not the one who's "getting the idea." I realized from the beginning that it's not "a simple question." Seems to me you are the one who's now getting the idea. You are realizing that it's not as cut and dried or as simple as you claimed.

I would say something else. Anyone who would allow their child to be tortured in order that they could kill other humans should give you some idea of the kind of people you were dealing with. Totally ruthless who will not let get anyone get in their way including their own children. Not people who have ever pondered the morality of torture.

I never claimed the people you are describing have ever pondered the morality of torture. I'm not them, though; nor do I desire to be. Nor do I desire any more people to be like them than already are. That's why I have pondered it. That's why I'm against torture. You cannot draw the line. If you torture, you cannot condemn anyone else doing it. If we torture, we cannot make laws saying our troops can't be tortured. We have to practice what we preach.

* (This is my further explanation of my answer/beliefs) I truly do believe that engaging in torture brings on more of it. Sure there are always those who will do it no matter what. But there are more people, I believe, sitting on the fence. People who could go either way, and I think if we do it, then they will too. I also believe our doing it might push some people over the edge. So I believe while in some instances torture may save lives, I think it also ends up being responsible for other lives lost. So I don't think ultimately there is anything to be gained from it. I don't think lives are saved that aren't lost elsewhere.

I do believe our mistreatment of prisoners puts our troops in more danger. I do believe it makes them more likely to be tortured. I believe in my/our nation(s) taking the high road. I believe in my/our nation(s) setting an example by doing. I think we, and the rest of the world, would be better off for it; and I think that's ultimately what would save the most lives.

Edited January 4, 2008 by American Woman