Torture
Comments
-
clanton wrote:dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:teagar wrote:It's never the case that torturing one man will save lots of lives.
I diagree. I've seen a man tortured to give up infomation about enemy positions, weapons placement, weapons storage, and it all turned out to be true.
How did that NOT save lives?????
Jesus. Every heard of the Geneva Convention?
Jesus, you ever been to a warzone, let alone served in one ?
Not relevant. Being in a war situation does NOT justify any or all means.
Didn't ask you if it was relevant. You wouldn't be spouting pat little soundbites if you had. The media reply was just a wind up you bit at. The tabloids scream sensation all the time, I know this, just a little tease. Oh, and Tony Blair condemning Guantanamo bay ? Thats a bit of a lump to swallow isn't it ? He was pretty responsible for a lot of the inmates going there, If I remember correctly ?0 -
Having been to a war zone or not is not relevant to morality or ethics.
Tony Blair is a hypocrite, that isn't the point - the point is that even he believed what was going on at Gitmo amounted to torture.
Angola? I assume you're a mercenary?0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:softlad wrote:
Cider!
Gravy0 -
clanton wrote:Having been to a war zone or not is not relevant to morality or ethics.
Tony Blair is a hypocrite, that isn't the point - the point is that even he believed what was going on at Gitmo amounted to torture.
Angola? I assume you're a mercenary?
Nope. Not a mercenary. You assume wrong. 8)0 -
There was a UN peace keeping force in Angola wasn't there...Complicating matters since 19650
-
IIRC the UN were famed for never leaving their compound in Angola ;-)0
-
I think that was a wise decision on their part, the UN Peacekeeping force were good targets for being taken hostage for the most part.Complicating matters since 19650
-
clanton wrote:IIRC the UN were famed for never leaving their compound in Angola ;-)
Another example where good men and women had the means to save lives but were prevented from doping so by people with no on the ground experience or perspective, just oxbridge educations and a less than real expectation about what was going on. The number of amputees in Angola is sickening and the world looked on as much of this war carried on regardless.
Even in the Balkans when it couldnt be denied, attrcocities happened under the noses of UN troops whilst the sort of views expressed here were expressed in Govt. Appaling at times.
Give me action anyday.0 -
clanton wrote:IIRC the UN were famed for never leaving their compound in Angola ;-)
FFS, first you think I'm a mercenary, now you "remember" a fact about the UN in Angola.
OK.
Where were the british Army contingent based ?
what was our ORBAT ?
Where was the RFA ship Sir Galahad harboured ?
Who were the main 2 other forces out there under the UN mandate ?
See if you can "remember" any of that without googling.......maybe you were too busy cycle touring at the time to "remember" correctly.0 -
clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:teagar wrote:It's never the case that torturing one man will save lots of lives.
I diagree. I've seen a man tortured to give up infomation about enemy positions, weapons placement, weapons storage, and it all turned out to be true.
How did that NOT save lives?????
Jesus. Every heard of the Geneva Convention?
The Geneva Convention???? Noble ideas, to be sure. Whats the reality??? Angry, tired, frustrated, terrified, solders slogging thru the mud watching their buddies get killed by snipers, hidden mines, etc. Right or wrong, after a while, you might not even care what someone does to the enemy. A B-52 strike, a little torture, roadside bombs. It all becomes the same thing.0 -
dennisn wrote:clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:teagar wrote:It's never the case that torturing one man will save lots of lives.
I diagree. I've seen a man tortured to give up infomation about enemy positions, weapons placement, weapons storage, and it all turned out to be true.
How did that NOT save lives?????
Jesus. Every heard of the Geneva Convention?
The Geneva Convention???? Noble ideas, to be sure. Whats the reality??? Angry, tired, frustrated, terrified, solders slogging thru the mud watching their buddies get killed by snipers, hidden mines, etc. Right or wrong, after a while, you might not even care what someone does to the enemy. A B-52 strike, a little torture, roadside bombs. It all becomes the same thing.
Spot on Dennisn. Unfortunate but true.0 -
dmclite wrote:It becomes a moot point when the enemy you face doesn't play by the rules
As the US have specifically stated that the Geneva Convention does not apply in their wars "against terrorism" and the UK are their major allies - I'd be very careful about making that statement.0 -
dmclite wrote:dennisn wrote:clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:teagar wrote:It's never the case that torturing one man will save lots of lives.
I diagree. I've seen a man tortured to give up infomation about enemy positions, weapons placement, weapons storage, and it all turned out to be true.
How did that NOT save lives?????
Jesus. Every heard of the Geneva Convention?
The Geneva Convention???? Noble ideas, to be sure. Whats the reality??? Angry, tired, frustrated, terrified, solders slogging thru the mud watching their buddies get killed by snipers, hidden mines, etc. Right or wrong, after a while, you might not even care what someone does to the enemy. A B-52 strike, a little torture, roadside bombs. It all becomes the same thing.
Spot on Dennisn. Unfortunate but true.
And that's why application of the Geneva convetion is so very important. soldiers make poor judgement when in the heat of battle. Senior officers should always make it clear where the line of legailty is. As I understand it - this ha been the way things were for 60 years until GWbush, the neo-coons and Blairs corrupt and morally bankrupt government started muddying the waters.0 -
Porgy wrote:dmclite wrote:It becomes a moot point when the enemy you face doesn't play by the rules
As the US have specifically stated that the Geneva Convention does not apply in their wars "against terrorism" and the UK are their major allies - I'd be very careful about making that statement.
Its a tough one indeed. Its a tough situation though when normal people walk onto public transport and blow it up. No warning, no uniform and no boundaries. When suicide bombing becomes a staple weapon then new rules may have been brought in to combat this.
This isn't a new phenomenon. The SAS shot 3 PIRA players in Gibraltar who were going to bomb a parade. They were hauled over the coals, but at the end of the day the PM sanctioned it. Different games and different rules.0 -
dmclite wrote:dennisn wrote:clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:teagar wrote:It's never the case that torturing one man will save lots of lives.
I diagree. I've seen a man tortured to give up infomation about enemy positions, weapons placement, weapons storage, and it all turned out to be true.
How did that NOT save lives?????
Jesus. Every heard of the Geneva Convention?
The Geneva Convention???? Noble ideas, to be sure. Whats the reality??? Angry, tired, frustrated, terrified, solders slogging thru the mud watching their buddies get killed by snipers, hidden mines, etc. Right or wrong, after a while, you might not even care what someone does to the enemy. A B-52 strike, a little torture, roadside bombs. It all becomes the same thing.
Spot on Dennisn. Unfortunate but true.
it's a key issue. i think that for those of us who've never had to fight, then it is easy to be absolute in an opinion against torture. i am against it, but that doesn't mean that i can't understand that the reality is a lot greyer....humans naturally value some lives more than others.
another grey area (in the real world - i know the fact that torture is illegal isn't grey at all) is the difference between torturing for preventative intell, rather than cruel punishing torture, committed say by a dictator to subdue/scare enemies....0 -
dmclite wrote:Porgy wrote:dmclite wrote:It becomes a moot point when the enemy you face doesn't play by the rules
As the US have specifically stated that the Geneva Convention does not apply in their wars "against terrorism" and the UK are their major allies - I'd be very careful about making that statement.
Its a tough one indeed. Its a tough situation though when normal people walk onto public transport and blow it up. No warning, no uniform and no boundaries. When suicide bombing becomes a staple weapon then new rules may have been brought in to combat this.
This isn't a new phenomenon. The SAS shot 3 PIRA players in Gibraltar who were going to bomb a parade. They were hauled over the coals, but at the end of the day the PM sanctioned it. Different games and different rules.
By your reasoning, if the enemy does it, so can you . So do you plan on blowing yourself up, with the intent to kill plenty of civilians? Didn't think so. Where do you draw the line then?Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:dmclite wrote:Porgy wrote:dmclite wrote:It becomes a moot point when the enemy you face doesn't play by the rules
As the US have specifically stated that the Geneva Convention does not apply in their wars "against terrorism" and the UK are their major allies - I'd be very careful about making that statement.
Its a tough one indeed. Its a tough situation though when normal people walk onto public transport and blow it up. No warning, no uniform and no boundaries. When suicide bombing becomes a staple weapon then new rules may have been brought in to combat this.
This isn't a new phenomenon. The SAS shot 3 PIRA players in Gibraltar who were going to bomb a parade. They were hauled over the coals, but at the end of the day the PM sanctioned it. Different games and different rules.
By your reasoning, if the enemy does it, so can you . So do you plan on blowing yourself up, with the intent to kill plenty of civilians? Didn't think so. Where do you draw the line then?
That was the least convincing of your arguments Teagar, comon admit it the world is a nasty place at times and there are no morall absolutes.0 -
markwalker wrote:teagar wrote:dmclite wrote:Porgy wrote:dmclite wrote:It becomes a moot point when the enemy you face doesn't play by the rules
As the US have specifically stated that the Geneva Convention does not apply in their wars "against terrorism" and the UK are their major allies - I'd be very careful about making that statement.
Its a tough one indeed. Its a tough situation though when normal people walk onto public transport and blow it up. No warning, no uniform and no boundaries. When suicide bombing becomes a staple weapon then new rules may have been brought in to combat this.
This isn't a new phenomenon. The SAS shot 3 PIRA players in Gibraltar who were going to bomb a parade. They were hauled over the coals, but at the end of the day the PM sanctioned it. Different games and different rules.
By your reasoning, if the enemy does it, so can you . So do you plan on blowing yourself up, with the intent to kill plenty of civilians? Didn't think so. Where do you draw the line then?
That was the least convincing of your arguments Teagar, comon admit it the world is a nasty place at times and there are no morall absolutes.
The day I try and explain that to you Teagar, is the day you stand up for what you say on these forums. next time you see taxi drivers abusing asian counterparts and you are aware of it, and you walk away with your tail between your legs (morality still intact ?) instead of putting actions where your mouth and indulged intellect is.
We're done here.0 -
I am quite torn on the torture issue.
Some of you have eloquently (others not) stated some aspects of both views..(or a range of views rather)
On the one hand, I do believe that it is morally wrong to torture people.
I doubt the quality of the information gained.
I worry that it becomes a replacement for good investigation and gathering of facts through intelligence.
On the other hand....
The Jack Bauer nuclear bomb scenario. it doesn't really matter if this has ever happened before....it only needs to once..
So somewhere in between for me.
I wouldn't want soldiers on the ground making the decision....I believe that they make decisions for the safety of them and their team ahead of any reason for being there...I would too.
I don't believe that finding out where enemy are hiding with a couple of rifles and an exploding goat are good enough reasons for torture, but in the situation...who knows what becomes acceptable.
Also, for me..any mass torture (lets face it..none of us has a clue what happened at GTB) seems mostly specualtive...lets slap them a bit and see if they know anything etc...Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
cee wrote:I lets face it..none of us has a clue what happened at GTB
that's not true - there are lots of clues - whistleblowers, partial admissions by politicians and intelligence running GTB, and a fairly consistent testiment from those being released that governments have tried to suppress or ridicule.
Plus I've seen an interview with the guy who developed the techniques being used at GTB. He knows what's happening there.
If you haven;t got a clue, then it's because you don't want to, as I think I have a pretty good idea.
As for the bomb scenario - unless that scenario is realisticallty likely to happen then it is not a very good example to use to justify torturing people. It's better to pick a scenario likely to happen such as what went on daily in Afghanistan and Iraq through 2003 to 2005/06. And it becomes clear that torture does not work. You get innocent people naming other innocent people, or telling tales of fictional plots, so the forces there were running round caputring more innocent people, killing a few, and reporting fiction back to their superiors in Washington. Sounds like a good way to run a war to me. :roll:
Also - if a terrorist has planted a bomb what makes you think they'd crack under torture - aren;t they fanatical and irrational?0 -
Torture is a really, really unpleasant idea, never mind being subjected to it, but I suspect there may be times and places where it produces a very necessary result.
I'm not sure it's *justifiable*, if we mean 'excusable' - but if we mean 'explainable', I might feel differently.0 -
in answer to the original question
it depends on the circumstances. for example, I could easily justify, without a second thought, torturing someone, anyone, for a piece of information that would prevent harm to anyone I believe I have a duty to protect. selfishly, if I believe its not my duty to protect them, then I cant justify it.
I don't see any problems with using torture against someone who has thrown human rights straight out the windowCrafted in Italy apparantly0 -
Some food for thought here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/intelligence_science_board_vie.htmlIntelligence Science Board Views Interrogation
January 15th, 2007 by Steven Aftergood
The current state of scientific knowledge regarding the conduct of interrogation and related forms of intelligence gathering is limited by numerous gaps in theoretical and practical understanding, according to a new book-length study (pdf) from the Intelligence Science Board, an advisory panel to the U.S. intelligence community.
The study was prompted by “concerns about recent U.S. interrogation activities, subsequent investigations, and the efficacy of contemporary tactics, techniques, and procedures.”
The ISB report is somewhat artfully titled “Educing Information,” a term that encompasses interrogation as well as other forms of eliciting information.
The study notes that an accurate perception of the realities of interrogation has been impeded by erroneous preconceptions shaped by wish-fulfillment or popular culture.
“A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation, and especially to the conduct of interrogation in field operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the discipline.”
“Most observers, even those within professional circles, have unfortunately been influenced by the media’s colorful (and artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of force — be it physical or psychological — by the interrogator against the hapless, often slow-witted subject.” (p. 95).
A detailed literature review, expert interviews and consideration of the historical record present a more qualified and uncertain picture.
Fundamentally, “there is little systematic knowledge available to tell us ‘what works’ in interrogation. We do not know what systems, methods, or processes of interrogation best protect the nation’s security.”
“For example, we lack systematic information to guide us as to who should perform interrogations. We do not know what benefits would result if we changed the way we recruit, train, and manage our interrogators.” (p. 8 ).
Dr. Paulette Otis, a contributor to the study (though not an ISB member), summarized her view of its practical conclusions as follows: “(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that ‘educing’ information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable.”
And, of course, “‘more’ research is necessary,” said Dr. Otis, who is Outreach Coordinator at the Center for Irregular Warfare and Operational Culture in Quantico.
The unclassified ISB study was sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Counterintelligence Field Activity, among other U.S. intelligence entities.0 -
Porgy wrote:cee wrote:I lets face it..none of us has a clue what happened at GTB
:
Also - if a terrorist has planted a bomb what makes you think they'd crack under torture - aren;t they fanatical and irrational?
I think you're believing what others tell you. Of course they are fanatical and irrational and for two reasons. Your government says so(justifies the fight) and Hollywood says so(they use whomever is the current villain-works best that way for them). All enemies
are pictured as basically crazies. And who doesn't want to fight the crazies. After all, the whole enemy country is full of them. Every single one. Sorry, that got a bit tongue in cheek, but you get my point?
As for "cracking" under torture. Once you get past the idea that these people are only human and not some super race you'll quickly discover that stopping the pain and the terror will soon become even the most fanatical and irrational persons main goal. Oh, there may be a few out there who can resist but.......0 -
dennisn wrote:[As for "cracking" under torture. Once you get past the idea that these people are only human and not some super race you'll quickly discover that stopping the pain and the terror will soon become even the most fanatical and irrational persons main goal. Oh, there may be a few out there who can resist but.......
That is exactly the point though. Leaving the morality issue aside for now, if you find some enemy combatant (and even identifying them as enemy combatants is problematic in modern "warfare" and you start torturing them they will say ANYTHING to stop the pain. They will try to tell you what they think you want to hear. This "intelligence" you gain that way is going to be suspect by virtue of the way you gained it.0 -
dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:IIRC the UN were famed for never leaving their compound in Angola ;-)
FFS, first you think I'm a mercenary, now you "remember" a fact about the UN in Angola.
OK.
Where were the british Army contingent based ?
what was our ORBAT ?
Where was the RFA ship Sir Galahad harboured ?
Who were the main 2 other forces out there under the UN mandate ?
See if you can "remember" any of that without googling.......maybe you were too busy cycle touring at the time to "remember" correctly.
Bit touchy aren't you mate? As it happens my father is an exploration geologist and did lot of work in Angola in the 90's. He has some very hairy stories to tell. Amongst them though was the fact that the situation was so bad that even the heavily armed UN forces didn't dare venture outside of their compound and they became the butt of a joke as a result.0 -
clanton wrote:dennisn wrote:[As for "cracking" under torture. Once you get past the idea that these people are only human and not some super race you'll quickly discover that stopping the pain and the terror will soon become even the most fanatical and irrational persons main goal. Oh, there may be a few out there who can resist but.......
That is exactly the point though. Leaving the morality issue aside for now, if you find some enemy combatant (and even identifying them as enemy combatants is problematic in modern "warfare" and you start torturing them they will say ANYTHING to stop the pain. They will try to tell you what they think you want to hear. This "intelligence" you gain that way is going to be suspect by virtue of the way you gained it.
Lying under torture would seem to me to be part of the game and both sides know this. Only problem is that if you're lying it's kind of probable that you will be found out. Just like in everyday life. Gets hard to remember those lies you told, especially under torture. At least that's how I see it.
You tell them something that isn't true, they find out it isn't true. You're already in a lose/lose situation and you just made it worse. Just like the evil genius's of Hollywood
films say " you WILL tell use what we want to know".0 -
clanton wrote:dmclite wrote:clanton wrote:IIRC the UN were famed for never leaving their compound in Angola ;-)
FFS, first you think I'm a mercenary, now you "remember" a fact about the UN in Angola.
OK.
Where were the british Army contingent based ?
what was our ORBAT ?
Where was the RFA ship Sir Galahad harboured ?
Who were the main 2 other forces out there under the UN mandate ?
See if you can "remember" any of that without googling.......maybe you were too busy cycle touring at the time to "remember" correctly.
Bit touchy aren't you mate? As it happens my father is an exploration geologist and did lot of work in Angola in the 90's. He has some very hairy stories to tell. Amongst them though was the fact that the situation was so bad that even the heavily armed UN forces didn't dare venture outside of their compound and they became the butt of a joke as a result.
YOUR touchy CLANTON
please mr moderator ban mr crankmeister for having an opinion.0 -
Oh dear. He's back.
Everyone else is having a reasoned if slightly heated debate. Try it sometime.0
