Rhetorical Question on "Torture"

[Sonny]

I was talking about this with someone the other day and thought I would open it up here for discussion......

If torturing a non-American (to extract information) who was under military arrest after attacking some part of our military somewhere in the world meant saving one US Military life - would it be worth it?

What if it meant saving one US private citizen's (non military) life abroad?

What if it meant saving one innocent US private citizen's life here domestically?

[scooter]

how do you measure who's life is more valuable???

Doesn't torturing a man (whether he be innocent or guilty) make us no better than our supposed enemies?

I wish no harm upon any of our troops our anyone around the world, but supporting the torture of another human being is somethin i personally cannot do

[Hugh Nunn]

Without trying to sound sarcastic, this precise situation is where it comes in handy to have allies (such as Isreal) who are not members of the Geneva Convention.

Where these matters are concerned, the intended victim is never a solitary figure. I would think that killing one infidel for Allah does not have the headline-worthy panache of say...Bombing of the USS Cole.

Not torturing someone to save one life is fine and I'm definitely on board. But Let's just say you knew there was a 9/11 type event happening tomorrow. Still squeamish?

[Sonny]

That's where I was heading with it Hugh.

[cjwilhelmi]

My personal thought is that if you are a terrorist or act in a terroristic way then you forfeit your right to be treated humanly.

Let me explain it differently. I am all for extending the rights that all are created equal and so forth. However, I am ok with the act of torture if it protects national security or the security of the world. Therefor I am ok with torture of Al Quada, Hezballa, etc agents if it protects the security and the rights of the world wide community. I would not be ok with the torture of a captured soldier of a soveriegn nation (World War II against the Germans for instance).

To answer Hugh's theoretical - I would be ok if it prevented another 9/11 or USS Cole.

Its a difficult subject and all of us are going to have different opinions.

I will not comment further on this topic.

[Hugh Nunn]

My personal thought is that if you are a terrorist or act in a terroristic way then you forfeit your right to be treated humanly.

Let me explain it differently. I am all for extending the rights that all are created equal and so forth. However, I am ok with the act of torture if it protects national security or the security of the world. Therefor I am ok with torture of Al Quada, Hezballa, etc agents if it protects the security and the rights of the world wide community. I would not be ok with the torture of a captured soldier of a soveriegn nation (World War II against the Germans for instance).

To answer Hugh's theoretical - I would be ok if it prevented another 9/11 or USS Cole.

Its a difficult subject and all of us are going to have different opinions.

I will not comment further on this topic.

Well said.

[LaxRef]

Toruturing anyone makes us into the animals that we detest. It may occasionally provide information that saves lives, but it makes us like them. It certainly puts us in a position where se cannot take the moral high ground, although the ship may have sailed on that front.

In addition, we have shown an ability at all levels to get the wrong person—how many innocent people have been executed in our country—and so you can be sure that we sometimes torture innocent people as well. What if they had tortured that guy from Washington state that they were so sure had been involved in the Madrid bombings (but it later turned out to be a mistake).

So, is it worth saving lives to torture some guilty and some innocent people? What percentage is acceptable? Are you banking on the fact that a lot of the terrorists don't look like you or your family to keep yourself safe?

If we're willing to torture people we suspect of being terrorists to save lives, what about invading their privacy? If you give the government ever-expanding powers like this, they'll eventually use them against an ever-expanding class of people until eventually they're listening in on your phone conversations and e-mail in case you're doing something they don't like. Maybe we should just let them put cameras in every room in our houses right now. Haven't you people been reading Coach Graff's signature? The thing that makes this country beautiful is that we have civil liberties. Tossing those in the garbage because you're afraid of terrorists is pathetic.

I've heard it proposed that we detail what torture is allowed—since we know it occurs now and just pretend that it doesn't—with the idea that someone has to be willing to admit what we're doing. Furthermore, they proposed that only the president could call for torture by signing a "torture warrant" so they can't pass the buck to some schmo who is only following orders but takes the fall when things leak out. I think there's some merit there.

[DanGenck]

What if the person to be tortured was you? Or someone you care about? What if someone said, "Dan, we need to torture your wife, but it will save thousands of lives..."

I'm not sure I can justify that line of thinking. I'm not saying either way is right, but trading lives does not sit well. It seems fundamentally wrong in a way that I cannot explain.

[LaxRef]

What if the person to be tortured was you? Or someone you care about? What if someone said, "Dan, we need to torture your wife, but it will save thousands of lives..."

Or, more accurately, "it might save thousands of lives."

[DanGenck]

What if the person to be tortured was you? Or someone you care about? What if someone said, "Dan, we need to torture your wife, but it will save thousands of lives..."

Or, more accurately, "it might save thousands of lives."

Touche.

[StrykerFSU]

If you give the government ever-expanding powers like this, they'll eventually use them against an ever-expanding class of people until eventually they're listening in on your phone conversations and e-mail in case you're doing something they don't like.

I don't believe in torture and if Sen. McCain is against it too, then that's all the justification I need. I don't think that the prisoners should be given equal protection or are protected by the Geneva Convention but I will agree with others who have said that torturing brings us down to their level. I'm no interrogator but I don't think that the Jack Bauer approach really works.

I quoted the above statement from LaxRef because it reminded me of something I was reading about affirmative action last night. In a nutshell, it said that the argument for affirmative action was that there was "institutional racism" in America. Essentially whites are incapable of treating blacks fairly without the help of the government "leveling the field". I find this relevant because in order to believe what LaxRef is saying you would have to believe that our government and elected officials are inherently evil, that is there is "institutional malevolence" within our government. You would have to believe that any intelligence gathering by the government would inevitably lead to abuse. I don't believe that our government is out to spy on us and am willing to give a little leeway while we are fighting terrorists.

[Zeuslax]

I don't believe that our government is out to spy on us and am willing to give a little leeway while we are fighting terrorists.

I tend to agree with this statement. However, once they take.......we never get it back.

Lastly, there's multiple none abusive techniques that work to extract information. They don't necessarily fall under the category of torture, but we could probably all agree that they are relevant. IE) sleep deprivation.

[laxfan25]

I don't believe that our government is out to spy on us

Warrantless wiretapping? Data mining of millions of phone records? Data mining of credit card transactions? A very slippery slope there.
As I mentioned in another thread, there was a program called COINTELPRO that led to the implementation of the FISA court, which was designed to provide oversight over intelligence gathering. Being related to someone that was one of the subjects of the COINTELPRO program, it's a little closer to home.

COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) is a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen) to non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference to violent racist and segregationist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these dissident movements and their leaders.

The Final report of the Church Committee concluded:

"Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs" surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous -- and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations -- have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity. Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed -- including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform. "

This is from 35 years ago, but the essence of the report seems very pertinent today. Yes, ferreting out terrorists is very important, but we have many procedures in place that allow this to be done in a manner consistent with our laws and constitution.

[laxfan25]

Another story related to this thread. Several weeks ago, 3 Arab-Americans were arrested for suspicion of plotting to blow up the Mackinac Bridge. The proof? They bought a bunch of cell phones and had pictures of the bridge on their digital camera. A little suspicious? Yes. Should it be investigated? Absolutely. The result? All three were released yesterday with no charges being filed - I guess you could call that innocent.
What if they had been spirited out of the country after their arrest and held in one of our secret prisons and questioned with "alternative" methods? Could they have been held for five years without any charges being brought, without legal recourse, and made to "confess" that they were planning an attack? Might be a possibility. I know that if you waterboarded me to the point where I thought I was going to die, I might be inclined to tell you anything in order to get it to stop. Many interrogation experts have stated that torture is not a reliable method of gaining information, and I think Sen. McCain understands this as well.

[Zeuslax]

Laxfan25 wrote:

Warrantless wiretapping? Data mining of millions of phone records? Data mining of credit card transactions? A very slippery slope there.

In addition, the searching of student loan data bases by the FBI.....