The Use Of Torture

[Moderate Centrist]

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the use of torture on prisoners on either the international scene ex: Saddam or Bin Ladin if he's ever caught or on the domestic scene on Canadian prisoners.

I don't support many rights for prisoners but the right to remain free from torture is one that must be upheld.

For one thing torture doesn't guarantee a prisoner will give you the correct information. In fact many people will tell you whatever you want to hear they think you will stop.

For another torture of prisoners degrades those who do it. It is sadistic.

Torture is commonly used to extract confessions from innocent people and it is routinely used by corrupt regimes the world over. If we allow for its' use we are lowering ourselves to the level of the worst offenders.

Any thoughts?

[Neal.F.]

In times of war, in order to save lives you must use ANY means at your disposal to minimize the enemy's ability to inflict damage on your side, and to inflict maximum incapacitation, preferably sparing civilian life , on his.

Your enemy will not be playing by Queensberry Rules, and will be ruthless in his attempts to subdue your side.

To avoid using every means at your disposal to defeat your enemy is the height of irresponsibility.

Once the war is over, and pacification complete, then you put away the scopolomine, sleep deprivation ( a real form of torture) and whatever other means you had to use.

Generally, drugs and sleep deprivation techniques and psychological tactics have been perfected to the point where savage beatings, and other physical torments are not needed, at least at higher levels, but in the trenches, all you might have at your disposal is the butt of a rifle, and a pair of pliars.

War is not a game. I consider the war on terror to be real war too, so arrested suspects may also be subject to scopolomine, sleep deprivation etc as well.

One day, it might make the difference as to whether First Canadian Place remains standing or not.

[righturnonred]

The CIA has refined it's interrogation techniques over the years to be highly effective without the use of brute force to extract information. As Neal said, Sleep deprivation, psychological manipulation, coupled with the use of "truth agents" subjugates the need for harsher measures.

Saddam and others with information are currently being subjected to such tactics:

U.S. officials have confirmed that the former dictator was at an undisclosed location in Iraq.

The CIA, which was put in charge of interrogating Saddam by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is showing the deposed leader videotapes of rallies against him, of prisoners being tortured and executed under his regime and of the unearthing of mass graves his regime created.

The goal is to provoke him into making unguarded statements by confronting him with evidence that could be used in a war-crimes trial, two officials receiving reports on the interrogation -- one in the administration and one in an intelligence agency --

As for the conduct of Colonel West, his actions were absolutely appropriate under the circumstances. Clearly the military has realized this as they have reconsidered his punishment.

Namby pambies should keep in mind that the life of some blood sucking militant sociopath isn't worth jack, especially when stacked up against the life of even one US soldier.

[Morgan]

Moderate Centrist said:

If we allow for its' use we are lowering ourselves to the level of the worst offenders.

Ever think that if you forbid its use under any circumstance, you may be allowing yourself to be manipulated by murderous maniacs like Saddam and Al Feyadeen operatives who are holding back information that could save innocent lives?

Ever think that if you forbid the use of torture under any circumstance you are lowering yourself to the level of psychopathic mass murderers by becoming an accessory to their ongoing crimes against humanity?

Ever think that post modern left wing ever shifting "lines in the sand" about what's moral and what's not are examples of shameless arrogance at best or at worst, unadulterated deceit?

[Moderate Centrist]

"Ever think that if you forbid its use under any circumstance, you may be allowing yourself to be manipulated by murderous maniacs like Saddam and Al Feyadeen operatives who are holding back information that could save innocent lives?"

Morgan

Quite frankly no. I do not buy into torture as the life and death issue that many make it out to be in saving lives. So this arguement doesn't sway me.

"Ever think that if you forbid the use of torture under any circumstance you are lowering yourself to the level of psychopathic mass murderers by becoming an accessory to their ongoing crimes against humanity?"

Morgan

Again no. As you yourself have said,

"...torture is a morally acceptable, albeit an inefficient method..."

Morgan

So we're really gaining very little from using torture and politically losing quite a lot. To make that connection is a bit ridiculous.

"

Ever think that post modern left wing ever shifting "lines in the sand" about what's moral and what's not are examples of shameless arrogance at best or at worst, unadulterated deceit?"

Morgan

Again no. As far as I'm concerned anyone who tosses around words like "post modern" and "left wing" as losely as they appear on this board isn't worth taking too seriously.

I believe there are absolutes in morality but they are specific to each situation rather than one right and wrong for all situations.

Morality can be relative in some cases as well.

For example:

I oppose the death penalty and would actively try to block it's reinstatement in Canadian law if that should come about.

You support the death penalty.

Which one of us is moral? Which one of us is immoral?

Can we both be moral?

[Mr Farrius]

While extreme measures of torture are inhumane, some level of discipline and methods of extracting information are necessary. You cannot capture a terrorist, ask him questions, smile and say "PLEEZEE." If there are some "refined" methods as some of those listed in previous posts, there is no reason why some measures of discipline are not to be required. After all they are not receiving a tenth of the pain they might have caused others. Of course, I have a hard time imagining American GIs depriving Saddam of sleep and pumping him up with drugs to get information when they have a strong urge to send a swift kick to the tyrant's head.

[KrustyKidd]

I have a hard time imagining American GIs depriving Saddam of sleep and pumping him up with drugs to get information when they have a strong urge to send a swift kick to the tyrant's head.

I do. There is probably only about two people on the whole planet not watching for that. I doubt not that there is every homo leftist government agency in the galaxy standing just outside his cell making sure that nothing of that sort of thing happens. Wonder why the US allowed the photos to be taken upon capture so liberally? Simply to show what he looked like upon capture and that's how he's going to look like when he goes to trial.

The worst nightmare for the US is that he suffers a heart attack or something. It would fuel rhetoric for decades to come. The US has videos, doctors, lawyers, dentists and who else knows what probably not twenty feet from him.

[Neal.F.]

The worst nightmare for the US is that he suffers a heart attack or something. It would fuel rhetoric for decades to come. The US has videos, doctors, lawyers, dentists and who else knows what probably not twenty feet from him.

Memories of Hermann Goering, who, hours before he was to hang, swalwed a vial of cyanide that someone had somehow smuggled into him.

I assure you that Saddam will be the loneliest man in the world between now, and the day he swings from a Baghdad lamppost.

And Moderate Centrist, just where are the Americans politically losing in this (unless you are referring to Dumbocrud Presidential candidates ) ?

Nobody gives a rat's patooty what Gaul and Prussia think anymore.

[KrustyKidd]

Memories of Hermann Goering, who, hours before he was to hang, swalwed a vial of cyanide that someone had somehow smuggled into him.

Exactly what I was thinking of. You would never hear the end of it. Why he was killed by the French/Israelis/NKoreans/Russians/US/Kuwaitis/Egyptians/Joprdinians etc. Mainly though, the US would be the ones that did it to hide something. No, I think Mr Hussein will have better medical care than the President himself for the next year of so. Rubber room with styrafoam floors. Lots of rice so he can't choke on a piece of meat and using those paper knives and forks!

[Neal.F.]

Here's a website I've set up as part of a larger historical survey (in the works) that gives an eyewitness acount of the executions at Nuremburg.

It also has an account of the last days of the prisoners by the US army chaplain who was charged with caring for their spiritual needs during their captivity.

Some interesting stuff there, especially on Hermann Goering.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear all,

Does the end justify the means? That seems to be the crux of this thread, and the majority seem to say yes. I would then submit that the use of torture as a means puts one in a class with Stalin and Hitler. Only the end is desired to be different. But it cannot.

What some here seem to be saying, is that the methods of 'Nazi Germany' were acceptable, just as long as America applies them, for American ends, and not Germans for Aryan ends. Torture and eradicate your enemies. The only problem, then, is keeping a close check on who defines 'enemy'. That is what Big Brother is for.

[KrustyKidd]

Lonius, that's not what we were discussing. Torture in the west is a lot different than torture in the east. More physcological, less trumatic, some would be hard put to call it torture. To force sleep deprivation on a POW to extract an answer or two is not torture even by the standards of a POW that happens to be American. Neither is drugs and loud music, all of which are favorites of the CIA. Not even in the same galaxy as your comment of:

I would then submit that the use of torture as a means puts one in a class with Stalin and Hitler.

Methods that are not used in mainstream US interrogations such as beatings, dismemberments, raping of relatives and children in front of prisoners, electrocution, burning, acid poured on genetilia, blinding, being lowered into paper shredders are commonly reffered to as torture and are hardly what the US carries out on high profile prisoners who have been photographed by the international press.

What some here seem to be saying, is that the methods of 'Nazi Germany' were acceptable, just as long as America applies them, for American ends, and not Germans for Aryan ends. Torture and eradicate your enemies. The only problem, then, is keeping a close check on who defines 'enemy'. That is what Big Brother is for.

That might be the impression you see but you know as well as I do that this is not the case even in the loosest reality. "Torture and eradicate your enemies?" Wow, Lonious, do you even know who the enemy is? Bet you would say the Arab world if I let this post go. It's not. It's oppression, ignorence. The kind of oppression used by dictators and religious leaders in the third world, the kind of ignorence they keep their people in by not allowing freedom of speech. The freedom of speech that lets them see Saddam being captured, US sodiers being killed by insurgents, bombs going off in Baghdad, schools being built in Basra. You know, bad and good.

Hitler and Stalin? Let's try and keep this on a level of reality. Just for one moment try to think of what a 21st century Hitler or Stalin does. Is it anything like USA building a school in Basra or freeing a country of a regieme firmly entrenched for 30 years by taking extra ordinary efforts to inflict minimum civillian casualties? Nope, Hitler would have levelled the place with a few A bombs as would Stalin and dropped a couple on Iran to send a message to be scared and stay away. Then started pumping using slave labor. Simultaniously they would have adjusted a few nukes towards France to let them know they wern't welcome and then prepared to move onto Saudi. Kuwait would just surrender. This is not even fasisim in the loosest sense however the comparisson of Hitler and Stalin is indicitive of the leftist rhetoric that makes them look like idiots. It's akin to the right saying that Saddam is a bum buddy of Danny Glover and he and Sean Penn pray together on Saturdays. It's just ridiculous, has absolutly no foundation in reality and just makes serious dialogue impossible.

Hitler - 6 million deliberate deaths would have killed more if not stopped.

- purpose, to be a poster child of every Liberal in Canada

Stalin - 20 million deliberate deaths would have taken over the planet if allowed

- purpose, to take over the planet and to force Liberals to love him at the end of a gun

Bush - 3 - 7 thousand unintentional deaths faces an election and may not be leader in a year.

- purpose, to remove a breeding ground for terrorists in at least one corner of the ME, and to make Liberals look really really dumb

- purpose - free Iraq and place a democratic Arab country complete with industiral complex in the heart of the ME

[Lost in Manitoba]

What if we could subdue or crumble terrorists states by using their tactics against them? Why not train young men to fly their planes into their buildings? Wouldn't public sentiment of that terrorist state by so overwhelming that they must rise up and change their ways? Get real. Their are some things that one should not do. Torture is one of them. Either you believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, or you don't. The thinking of tribes (or countries) must stop. It's funny that many people who find death so easy to dish out are usually the same ones who are staunchly anti-abortion. Well, which is it, is life sacred or not?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Lost in Manitoba,

are some things that one should not do. Torture is one of them. Either you believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, or you don't. The thinking of tribes (or countries) must stop.

Well said.

Dear KK,

Methods that are not used in mainstream US interrogations such as beatings, dismemberments, raping of relatives and children in front of prisoners, electrocution, burning, acid poured on genetilia, blinding, being lowered into paper shredders are commonly reffered to as torture and are hardly what the US carries out

On the contrary, the US has used some of these methods in Central America. They trained people on torture methods such as blowtorches to the feet (a favorite of 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, Brutal Dictator and US flunky) etc. The raping of relatives was used as a ruse only, dating back to WII. The 'victim' of interrogation was placed in a room where he was led to believe that his spouse was being raped and tortured in the next room, and only by 'confessing' could he end HER torture. Only the Brits in WWII did not resort to torture.

Hitler - 6 million deliberate deaths would have killed more if not stopped.

Actually, some 10-20 million perished in concentration camps or from slave labour. Hitler killed more Russian POWs and so-called 'degenerate Slavs' than Jews.

Stalin - 20 million deliberate deaths would have taken over the planet if allowed

China lost some 20 million civilians in WWII alone.Mao killed many more millions bot deliberately and through ignorance. Yet his regime and policies are 'most favoured' as a trading partner for the US. Slave labour is an excellent source of profit.

Bush - 3 - 7 thousand unintentional deaths faces an election and may not be leader in a year.

- purpose, to remove a breeding ground for terrorists in at least one corner of the ME, and to make Liberals look really really dumb

- purpose - free Iraq and place a democratic Arab country complete with industiral complex in the heart of the ME

Actually, Bush is a chip off the ol' block. Desire: world domination.

Method: Use righteousness as a facade for control through military might.

[KrustyKidd]

On the contrary, the US has used some of these methods in Central America. They trained people on torture methods such as blowtorches to the feet (a favorite of 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, Brutal Dictator and US flunky) etc. The raping of relatives was used as a ruse only, dating back to WII. The 'victim' of interrogation was placed in a room where he was led to believe that his spouse was being raped and tortured in the next room, and only by 'confessing' could he end HER torture. Only the Brits in WWII did not resort to torture.

Yes, as I said, techniques that are not used in mainstream US interrogations. You see people disappear when they go to the local police station? How about police being charged with brutality? How about the Lt Colonel that was charged with torture? As I said, not in the mainstream US policy.

Actually, Bush is a chip off the ol' block. Desire: world domination.

Method: Use righteousness as a facade for control through military might.

And when his term is up in four years he gets to keep it? Where is your proof that he wishes to control the world? Where is your proof that a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq is not a good thing for peace in that region of the world? Why do you think that it is rigteousness rather than common sense? If you had said that he wishes the US control the world with him at the helm for the next four years, that wouldn't even wash.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq is not a good thing for peace in that region of the world?

That would be a tremendous, wonderful thing that may help change the entire world for the better. That is not the dogma of the US, however. The US wishes to create more wealth and power for the US only, and (to quote Metallica) "nothing else matters".

[KrustyKidd]

The US wishes to create more wealth and power for the US only, .

You don't know that, you think that. Recent events in Iraq point to the opposite. By the time the US has finished in Iraq, they will have spent almost five hundred billion dollars, an amount they can never recover from Iraq in the form of goods, oil or cash. Could it be that they were actually trying to stabilise Iraq so that it would be one less place for terrorism to ferment?

I suppose that yes, that if sucessful that has the indirect bonus of freeing up US assets to acomplish other things such as doing the same to some other country or even turning out more products at home to make more money. As a secondary effect, it benifits all mankind by taking out a dictator and replacing a non porductive country with a productive one.

As an initial effect however, it is not as you say. Furthermore, even if it was, is it not a government's responsibility to take care of it's own first?

and (to quote Metallica) "nothing else matters".

Let's see, pretend you were a superpower and din't give a damm. All you wanted was money and power. I would tell Saddam to leave or I was going to invade and then invade. No pretext, no reason, just go. If I saw a civilian or a soldier, I would shoot. I would drop a Nuke on a small city to show them I meant business and then using the former Regeime infastructure, enslave the population and start pumping oil into French tankers, pocketing the money. I wouldn't waste time trying to build anything resembling a democracy, wouldn't bother to form a police force or a military and I would be setting up to invade Canada as well to do the same to it's population. Britain would help us take over Scandinavia and we would just keep going from there. Might even drop a nuke on North Korea just so we could free up some troops in the South. Isn't it amazing how cheap things can be when you don't care?

Lonius

What some here seem to be saying, is that the methods of 'Nazi Germany' were acceptable,

Actually, some 10-20 million perished in concentration camps or from slave labour. Hitler killed more Russian POWs and so-called 'degenerate Slavs' than Jews.

China lost some 20 million civilians in WWII alone.Mao killed many more millions bot deliberately and through ignorance. .

Lonius, the US has not done this amount of human damage or suffering. Why do you equate them to the Nazis?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

the US has not done this amount of human damage or suffering. Why do you equate them to the Nazis?

It is the method, not the math that defines.

As to the wanton actions of a democratically elected leader, one must take care to keep oneself in office. You can't just 'go and nuke Canada', you have to manufacture consent first.

[KrustyKidd]

It is the method, not the math that defines.

So the US is like Hitler in that it gasses Jews? Only one or two though? Or are they like Stalin in that they purge a couple of people? What are you talking about, first you equate the US to Hitler and now you say that the numbers are wrong but they are like him?

[Debo]

Sleep deprevation and just enough food to keep you alive, maybe playing the Jackson 5's greatest hits in the back ground is cruel but not torture.

Getting your fingers cut off one knucle at a time, having a block lodged between your ankles then smashing them with a hammer are all examples of torture.

The definition today of torture seems to be little more than uncomfortable.

I too think the US showed pictures of Saddam simply so no one could do the accusation game later.

But I'm sure our boys got a little satisfaction out of the humiliation angle and I for one do not blame them.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

So the US is like Hitler in that it gasses Jews? Only one or two though? Or are they like Stalin in that they purge a couple of people? What are you talking about, first you equate the US to Hitler and now you say that the numbers are wrong but they are like him?

I never said anything of the sort you imply. Try to get it straight.

The US believes in military might to acheive its objectives, as did Hitler. They both believed that the world should be subjugated into service to the their ideals. No methods are taboo. They both believed that they were the 'culture-founders'. (Read Mein Kampf for clarification)

They both believed in the use of slave-labour to build their empires (a factory manager was sentenced to ten years for using SLAVERY in his factory in the south pacific last year, and his bosses included JC Penny, amongst other current examples).

They both also believed that propaganda was a tremendously valuable tool.

Most of all, they both believed that the rest of the world was in the wrong, and that military might will prove who is right. The 'victor'.