POLL: Torture

Hey all. Im usually posting on chitty chat subjects on bts, but i'd like get serious for a moment.

I feel that torture is a vital tool in taking down al quida and a possible end to the war in iraq.

Think about it this way, as some cnn guy said....

If there was a ticking nuclear bomb in some where in the world, and we needed to know where it is to deactivate it. And the only group of people that knew wehre its location lies, wont talk. We need to be able to torture.

Isreal uses physological torture to get there info. And others, use more physical methods.

So whats everyones opinion.

Torture or no torture?

-Jared

Originally posted by theshadowknows
Hey all. Im usually posting on chitty chat subjects on bts, but i'd like get serious for a moment.

I feel that torture is a vital tool in taking down al quida and a possible end to the war in iraq.

Think about it this way, as some cnn guy said....

If there was a ticking nuclear bomb in some where in the world, and we needed to know where it is to deactivate it. And the only group of people that knew wehre its location lies, wont talk. We need to be able to torture.

Isreal uses physological torture to get there info. And others, use more physical methods.

So whats everyones opinion.

Torture or no torture?

-Jared

I think we should do to the enemy what they would do to us, which in the middle eastern case, is every sick thing you can imagine.

I hear we do use certain limited forms of torture. For example, not feeding suspects and playing loud eminem music over and over.



[edit on 24-11-2005 by killirl]

Much as I don't like it, feeding them scones and tea and asking them 'pretty please tell us where the bomb is' is just not going to get us anywhere.
The thing is that we have to lower ourselves to a level where we are practically as bad as the thing we are fighting, but there is the point that we have to look after ourselves first and protect innocent people.

I think the best thing I can say, or ask, is anyone that thinks we must NOT use torture in any circumstances - what are your suggestions to get the information instead? Remember that hundreds of innocent civilian lives may be at stake and you are dealing with people that will happily kill themselves for their cause.

I don't think that the use of torture should be an official policy of the US Government.

So when it is used on terrorist, it must be done secretly by trusted officers, and with absolutely no frigging cameras around

No torture.

Torture isn't going to get you any meaningful information. It seems to me that the torture is done just for the satisfaction of sadistic members of the military. Though it seems that all militaries have such types within their ranks. Its a shame to know it takes place with the USA.

[edit on 24-11-2005 by heelstone]

Torture apparently doesn't work very well as a means of extracting information, the subject just tells the torturer whatever he thinks he wants to hear. The real purpose of torture is to make the torturer and those he represents feel powerful and "dominant", which is why the crazies love it so much.

[edit on 11/24/05 by xmotex]

Exactly xmotex

Also, when we torture our enemies the same as they do, doesn't that make us as bad as them?
To fight evil we have to become evil?

Information needed makes Torture OK?...........NO it does not.

Torture....real torture has no place anywhere. The problem is the use of the term is all screwed up.

Panties on the head does not equal torture. Sawing off a head is torture. What info did the terrorist gain?

Originally posted by Umbrax
Exactly xmotex

Also, when we torture our enemies the same as they do, doesn't that make us as bad as them?
To fight evil we have to become evil?

Certainly not, our enemy purposely kills thousands of innocent women and children. Torturing terrorists would not make us evil at all. In my opinion they almost deserve it. Look at what they did to Jessica Lynch and the men in her company. They raped her, broke her bones, and castrated and killed the men.

The problem is that it would never stand with the majority of the American people and the rest of the world. Everyone seems to hold us to a higher standard even though we are one of the few countries that doesn’t torture.

Originally posted by Umbrax
Also, when we torture our enemies the same as they do, doesn't that make us as bad as them?
To fight evil we have to become evil?

Do you not fight fire with fire?




seekerof

No actually, you fight fire with water.

That's why firetrucks have hoses instead of flamethrowers.

Obviously you never work on a backfire break line, xmotex.
A forestry thing, you know....?




seekerof

[edit on 24-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Nope, but thats not how most fires are fought, is it?

Besides the obvious holes in the analogy, by adopting terror tactics, we destroy whatever we have worth protecting.

Wars are moral battles in the minds of human beings that are won or lost before the first shots are ever fired. By embracing torture, we embrace defeat. We defeat ourselves.

xmotex, stop reading about the days of Chivalry.
They are long gone.
Come down from your moral high-ground soapbox and back to human reality as it relates to the nature of war.
There are no true morals or morality in war.
Morals and morality come into play only with friends, comrades, and allies, not with the enemy.
War, in all respects, is amoral.
War is won by any means needed, required, and deemed necessary.
In not using all means at ones disposal to win, we defeat ourselves.

If in a fight, I kick you in your gonads or simply dislocate your kneecap, you would deem me doing so as what? Evil? Torture? Unfair? Not according to codes of honor?

No, xmotex, its called fighting to win, by any means determined needed, required, and necessary.

Do I agree with the blantant and rampant use of torture? No.
But if it is one method deemed needed, required, and necessary to win a battle or war, then so be it.





seekerof

You are missing the point.
It's not about chivalry.

How do the revelations about torture help us "win" - and what constitutes "victory"?

I would say undermining the radicals to the point where they no longer constitute a threat would constitute victory. Our actions seem to be producing the opposite effect, and undermining our own position instead.

How are we going to defeat violent Islamic radicalism by driving more fence sitters into the radicals' camp? Which is exactly what adopting torture, in the end, really accomplishes.

We cannot win this "war" (far more complcated than a traditional military conflict anyway) by simply being more brutal than our opponents. We can't descend to that level of brutality without destroying ourselves in the process. We need to outsmart them, not just outfight them. We need to undermine their political support. Otherwise, we will continue to face two new opponents for every one we kill.

How exactly am I missing the point when war is amoral in the first place?

This is exemplified within and throughout History itself.

The only thing moral about war is the excuses and arguments that got us into the war in the first place.





seekerof

Torture is wrong, whatever the reason it is used for.

The fact that this subject is open to debate is evidence that our moral compass is askew.

War is amoral, no doubt.

The people that participate in war however, are still driven by moral judgements. War is not merely a physical process but a reflection of human psychology and "moral" calculation. Those who join the insurgency do so, not because they are some kind of cartoon villians, but because they believe that we are wrong and they are right. The more we allow ourselves to be seen as agressors, the more people will come to fight us. In the end raw tactical superiority isn't going to matter - apparently it doesn't now. We are clearly capable of outfighting the insurgents, yet somehow support for the insurgency grows as our own support weakens. Clearly there are other considerations that must be weighed than simple tactical expediency.

If we are seen as less moral than our opponents, we guarantee them victory.


[edit on 11/24/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
If we are seen as less moral than our opponents, we guarantee them victory.

I have tendency to somewhat agree with what you have mentioned, xmotex [well said, btw ], but I have issue with your above quoted mention.

There are no moral highgrounds [ie: we are more or less moral than they, etc] in a conflict, battle, or war.
Moral highground arguments are better used and served by politicians, armchair generals, and non-military citizens.

The problem as I see it here, is that the issue of torture has become a moral or moral highground issue. Yes, I concur, a soldier is a human being, and as a human being, we are inherently imbued with discerning right from wrong, consciously or sub-consciously. Nations and countries are bound by international laws, which are also moral-based in nature. My contention is that in war, in actual combat or combat situations, there are no morals, per se'. It is do or die and slit second decisions that can save your life or a number of others. In war and combat, morals are reserved for comrades in arms, friends, allies, and for moral-based arguments and excuses [ie: good versus evil, etc], not the enemy, especially an enemy that is amoral or continually professes to be moral, yet performs amoral or immoral acts deemed outright wrong and against morality and the moral-based laws of nations.

War has an outcome: win or lose. As such, how can you hold a soldier that is under a national flag to moral constraints, all the while seemingly condoning the immoral acts of those that are not [ie:insurgents, foreign fighters, etc.]? This may viewed as a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, but then IMHO, so be it. A soldier under a national flag fights to win, just as those insurgents and foreign fighters fight to win.

Is torture a moral thing to do?
As seen here and in many other like topics, it is certainly debatable and contested. This topic of torture and the use thereof always becomes one of moral highground, and IMHO, moral highground arguments amount to being ludicrous when applied to the nature of war itself. So basically, torture and the use thereof remains a debatable moral highground issue and argument.

Again, as I have openly stated here and in other like topics, do I agree with the blantant and rampant use of torture? No.

Is torture or the use thereof amoral? One could easily say that it is. If the use of torture is amoral, then it simply happens because it is deemed needed, required, and necessary.

Based on the above, do I feel that torture should be used if a significant number of lives are on the line, if it can be the determining or contributing factor in whether a battle or war is won or lost? Then so be it.






seekerof

[edit on 24-11-2005 by Seekerof]

War has an outcome: win or lose. As such, how can you hold a soldier that is under a national flag to moral constraints, all the while seemingly condoning the immoral acts of those that are not [ie:insurgents, foreign fighters, etc.]? This may viewed as a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, but then IMHO, so be it. A soldier under a national flag fights to win, just as those insurgents and foreign fighters fight to win.

Then you are left with the simple calculation, is a given method (in this case torture) likely to lead to victory, or to defeat. We have seen the strategic cost of torture. Where have we seen a benefit?

The distinction between war and politics is purely semantic. War is politics. Especially in a war such as this, where there is no enemy "army" to be defeated, no enemy navy to be sunk, no enemy aircraft to be downed.

Again, ask yourself, what constitutes "victory" in this war?
And what strategies are most likely to produce it?