Does evil justify this?

[ACougar]

Yes, torture is immoral. Unless we want to allow this great country to stoop to the level of North Korea, China, Israel and Iraq. Sometimes you just have to have faith that God will protect us and do the right thing. The end never justifies the means.

As for the differance between Polls, that is due in part to the way the question is worded and the available responses.  Some might say it's only justified after someone has been convivted of terrorism, others that it's only justified if we know the information a certain terrorist has could save hundreds or thousands of lives, others might say that both conditions must be met.  Polls, especialy 2 question polls like you saw on CNN are rarely very good tools for understanding Public opinion. 

 

 

[webboffin]

Today at 02:26 PM ACougar said this in Post #21

As for the differance between Polls, that is due in part to the way the question is worded and the available responses.  Some might say it's only justified after someone has been convivted of terrorism, others that it's only justified if we know the information a certain terrorist has could save hundreds or thousands of lives, others might say that both conditions must be met. 
 

A poll is really a summary of public opinion. It is impossible to catagorise every single circumstance   

 

[coastie]

I disagree with torture on a less philisophical basis and more on a legalistic basis.

Torture is an effective means to get someone to talk, yes. However, the point of torture is to get someone to give up information in orer for the torture to stop. However, if the person gives up information, any information.

Therefore, if the person says "ok ok, Osama's in Tora Bora," and that person is lying just to stop the toture, your tactics have failed and you have wasted time.

However, there are other more mind numbing ways of getting a suspect to talk such as asking them the same questions over and over, not allowing them to see a clock and keeping them in a well-lighted room, waking them up every couple of hours while they sleep in hopes to catch them unprepared and mentally vulnerable, and other mental games.

These methods have proven (especially after vietnam and Cold War games) to be much more effective than physical torture and, believe it or not, less time consuming, and less stressful on the interviewers.

 

[Annabel Lee]

http://www.stoptorture.org/home.html

''He had a pair of pliers in his hand. He kept asking where the mobile was. I told him I had not seen it. He then told me to bring my thumb forward. He got hold of my thumb and placed it between the pliers. He pressed it hard and crushed my thumb. I do not remember what happened next.''
A nine-year-old boy from Bangladesh describes his treatment by a policeman

Twenty-two-year-old Gülderen Baran was detained at the Police Headquarters in Istanbul in August 1995 and allegedly beaten, hosed naked with cold pressurized water, kept blindfolded and deprived of sleep, sexually molested and repeatedly hung by the arms which left her with a loss of movement in both arms.

As Gülderen Baran reported at the time "...they dragged me inside by my hair ... From now on I was blindfolded ... they stripped me naked and started to hang me up. They brought my shoulders to a beam and hoisted me up ... They held me under cold pressurized water ... They did not let me sleep ... For days they subjected me to countless hanging sessions. They made an unsuccessful attempt to rape me." http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/EUR440092003?OpenDocument&of=THEMES\TORTURE

''They told me to lay down on the concrete slab, it's a bed made out of concrete. There are four rings at each corner... They told me to lay on my stomach and when I asked what for, [an officer] pushed me down and put the shield on me and electrocuted me. I couldn't move my muscles. They handcuffed my hands to the rings and then they put shackles on my feet and put handcuffs around the shackles on my feet to insert them in the rings. They hit me with the shield one time and left it on. I thought I was being killed. Then they left me for about 17 hours. When I told them I need to urinate they told me 'when you were a child did you never **** on yourself.' And that's what I had to do.''
(Extract from an affidavit given by a detainee transferred from Jackson County Correctional Facility, Marianna, Florida, USA, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), following allegations of torture and ill-treatment at the facility in 1997 and 1998)

.

 

[Annabel Lee]

http://www.notorture.org/torture.html

What is Torture?

The psychosocial and health consequences of violence and traumatic stress have emerged as one of the public health problems of our time. Torture constitutes one of the most extreme forms of trauma, with the potential for long-term psychological and physical suffering. The term torture has been defined in different ways by different organizations and for different purposes. The two most commonly used definitions of torture were formulated by the World Health Organization (WHO) and by the United Nations (UN). The United Nations definition, developed in 1975 and revised in 1989, includes the legal and political responsibilities of governments. It states:

"the term `torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or, a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

The WHO, which governs professional standards and ethics for physicians, developed its definition in 1975, also; it is frequently called the ``Declaration of Tokyo,'' and it represents a popular definition among the medical community. It defines torture as:

"the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason."

What Are Some Symptoms of Torture?
Torturers today are able to create conditions, which effectively break down the victim's personality and identity and his/her ability to live a full life later with and amongst other human beings. The worst consequences of torture for the survivors are the mental affects. Torture victims experience, what is known as "post-traumatic stress disorder"-- the same disorder suffered by many Vietnam veterans, and by victims of rape and child abuse, which is the most widely recognized psychiatric syndrome resulting from torture. The symptoms of torture may include:

Anxiety
Drug and/or alcohol abuse
Sexual Disfunction
Depression
Low self-esteem
Paranoid Thoughts
Frequent nightmares and other sleep disorders
Difficulty in remembering and concentrating
Detachment and withdrawal
Self-hatred and guilt about having survived and participated in torture
Avoidance of situations that might arouse memories of torture
the inability to form and maintain meaningful relationships
Frequent thoughts of suicide
Fatigue and headache All these reactions we consider normal in ordinary people who have been exposed to something as abnormal and cruel as torture. The following types of cases are common:
Clients who sleep in chairs so they won't dream
Clients who cannot eat without vomiting
Clients who experience panic attacks when they hear an automobile backfire
Clients who cannot turn off the lights at night because in the dark they see the uniformed men who raped them night after night

What Makes Torture a "Hidden" Problem?
Torture tends to be a "hidden" problem because is existence is often denied by the victims themselves, either because they cannot bear to speak about what happened to them, or because they are un-documented refugees who fear deportation if they openly seek assistance.

The existence of torture is also frequently denied by health-care professionals who, because the problem is beyond their range of experience, do not know how to face it or how to treat its victims.

Finally, it remains hidden because torture itself is ignored by a general public that becomes uneasy thinking about it, or about the connections between the American government and those foreign governments who are engaging in the practices of torture.

The victims of torture are not only those who have been directly subjected to physical abuse. Those who have witnessed torture, discovered tortured bodies, been forced to engage in torture, have lived in an environment where torture is an unrelenting danger -- all are torture's victims.

http://www.notorture.org/

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 10:15 PM nikolai_42 said this in Post #1 Would you support torture in interrogation? Why or why not? 

When I was a child and I saw a movie on TV where they beat someone with a whip, it really upset me.

Even to this very day, I can not see torture as something they would do to someone else. I can only see it as something that they would do to me.

So if you support torture, do you support that they would do that to you? Or to your children or a member of your family? In the end, do we not end up being treated the way we treat others?

My question then is, do you think we should allow them to torture you, or someone you love and care about, for whatever reason? Because I think it is absurd to say it is alright for one person but not someone I love or care about.

If there is one person in this world that it would be wrong to torture, then it is wrong to torture anyone in this world. I do not care what the crime is, or how worthy you think they are of it.

This does not even begin to address the issue of what sort of a demented person would do this to others.

Romans 2:4
    Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?




 

 

[Annabel Lee]

I did not speak...
"First they came for the Communists;
I did not speak because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews;
I did not speak because I was not a Jew.
Then they came to fetch the workers, members of trade unions;
I did not speak because I was not a trade unionist.
Afterwards, they came for the Catholics;
I did not say anything because I was a Protestant.
Eventually they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak ..."

Martin Niemöller,Pastor
Dachau, 1942.



"The greatest tragedy is not the brutality of the evil people, but rather the silence of the good people."
—Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Michael0701]

Today at 04:39 AM Lacmeh said this in Post #18

Leaving all moral and religious arguments aside, torture is still impractical.
A person in pain will of course do everything to stop it. So the person will reaily agree to being a terorist and happily sign off anything the torturers want. Wether it´s the truth or not.
Any information getting out of tortured prisoners is highly suspicious.

 

well......... not exactly.  A good (not in the moral sense of course) torturer knows when he has broken a man/woman and that said person is revealing a hidden truth as opposed to a "story" that may have been created.  And I'll stop right there.

 

[Auntie]

Today at 01:13 PM coastie said this in Post #23 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=690046#post690046)

However, there are other more mind numbing ways of getting a suspect to talk such as asking them the same questions over and over, not allowing them to see a clock and keeping them in a well-lighted room, waking them up every couple of hours while they sleep in hopes to catch them unprepared and mentally vulnerable, and other mental games.

Hi coastie!


This reminds me of what Clinton's A.G. did to the people at Waco. It didn't work very well.

 

[David Gould]

I am morally opposed to torture.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Today at 12:25 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #26 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=690173#post690173)


Even to this very day, I can not see torture as something they would do to someone else. I can only see it as something that they would do to me.

That is it exactly. I couldn't figure out how to put in words, but you did.

 

[Hank]

I am an anarchist thus against government per se.

... but I voted pro torture. Torture as depicted in movies is very much different then current interrogation methods. In our fine (I am speaking about the Canadian) Justice System one terrorist who blew up a jet which killed 329 people got five years in prison. Now he was not interrogated (not allowed in Canada), he made a plea bargain. Meaning he provided information about his buddies, leading the capture of the team, in exchange for an extreme mild sentence. (This is justice? 5.5 days for each person murdered?)

A trained psychologist with sufficient freedom can get that information as well, and get this terrorist behind bars for ever. (I'd prefer the death penalty.) Now I know all you nice folks out there saying: How can you even think this? This is uncivil. Yes, it is. Please show me one wild animal which can be house trained.

We are worried to become our terror fighting terrorists. What do we want; encourage terrorists to grow in numbers or do we have enough courage to confront them head on? They are willing to go on suicide missions and we are concerned about hurting them; if they happen to survive their missions that is. Ah yes, what about the innocent? What about them? Innocent suffer on both sides. Pampering terrorists simply generates more innocent on one side. So which innocent should we worry about?

 

[David Gould]

Today at 11:14 AM Hank said this in Post #32

I am an anarchist thus against government per se.

... but I voted pro torture. Torture as depicted in movies is very much different then current interrogation methods. In our fine (I am speaking about the Canadian) Justice System one terrorist who blew up a jet which killed 329 people got five years in prison. Now he was not interrogated (not allowed in Canada), he made a plea bargain. Meaning he provided information about his buddies, leading the capture of the team, in exchange for an extreme mild sentence. (This is justice? 5.5 days for each person murdered?)

A trained psychologist with sufficient freedom can get that information as well, and get this terrorist behind bars for ever. (I'd prefer the death penalty.) Now I know all you nice folks out there saying: How can you even think this? This is uncivil. Yes, it is. Please show me one wild animal which can be house trained.

We are worried to become our terror fighting terrorists. What do we want; encourage terrorists to grow in numbers or do we have enough courage to confront them head on? They are willing to go on suicide missions and we are concerned about hurting them; if they happen to survive their missions that is. Ah yes, what about the innocent? What about them? Innocent suffer on both sides. Pampering terrorists simply generates more innocent on one side. So which innocent should we worry about?

What checks and balances would you put in place to ensure that ONLY those guilty of the heinous crimes you describe are 'persuaded'?

What methods of redress would you put in place for innocent people who are 'persuaded'?

Who would have the authority to decide to 'persuade' someone?

I probably have some more questions but those will do for starters.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Click here for rest of Declaration.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

 

[Hank]

Today at 07:18 PM David Gould said this in Post #33

What checks and balances would you put in place to ensure that ONLY those guilty of the heinous crimes you describe are 'persuaded'?

What methods of redress would you put in place for innocent people who are 'persuaded'?

Who would have the authority to decide to 'persuade' someone?

I probably have some more questions but those will do for starters.

Thanks for actually asking.

To first, based on real evidence.

To second. None. It's not like the Wild West TV shows. If I have evidence pointing in one direction I do not deal with an innocent. It is highly unlikely for a wrong terrorist to be captured. For this to happen a terrorist group would need to place misleading evidence pointing to an innocent. Thus in my train of thought is that they (innocent) just happened to played as if they would have been blown up or killed by a terrorist.

To three. By professionals, i.e. trained military personnel and appropriate support staff. It's a war type scenario not a civilian one. The last thing we need to bureaucracieze(word?) it. This should be done quickly, not drawn out into a media circus with human rights experts and ACLU in a civil court. They want war, thus they should be treated as warriors.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 01:36 PM Hank said this in Post #35

Thanks for actually asking.

To first, based on real evidence.

To second. None. It's not like the Wild West TV shows. If I have evidence pointing in one direction I do not deal with an innocent. It is highly unlikely for a wrong terrorist to be captured. For this to happen a terrorist group would need to place misleading evidence pointing to an innocent. Thus in my train of thought is that they (innocent) just happened to played as if they would have been blown up or killed by a terrorist.

To three. By professionals, i.e. trained military personnel and appropriate support staff. It's a war type scenario not a civilian one. The last thing we need to bureaucracieze(word?) it. This should be done quickly, not drawn out into a media circus with human rights experts and ACLU in a civil court. They want war, thus they should be treated as warriors.

1.) Who are the people who determines if the evidence is real?

2.) Is there any oversight of the evaluation of this real evidence?

3.) What makes it highly unlikely for an innocent person to be captured?

4.) What checks are there to ensure that people in the military are not deliberately torturing people who are not terrorists?

5.) Torture is recognised as being illegal in war. If it is a war situation and some of our people are captured and tortured should we recognise that as legitimate conduct on behalf of our enemies or should we try them for it?

6.) What limits are there on what types of torture can be employed and what checks are in place to enforce these limits?




 

 

[Hank]

Today at 08:47 PM Annabel Lee said this in Post #34

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Click here for rest of Declaration.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

From the Geneva convention #4
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
Section 31 – No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.


I think we should define torture. My girlfriend's constant inquisitive questions are torture too me.   I am not for thumb screws and electrical shock etc. It is primitive. But psychological interrogations should be allowed. It can be mentally painful, and be viewed as torture by civil courts and certainly is viewed as such by the ACLU. The Geneva Convention omitted it. It disallows (im)moral coercions. Taking one's daughter in the room and (use your imagination). No one gets physically hurt either, but it is immoral.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 02:08 PM Hank said this in Post #37

From the Geneva convention #4
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
Section 31 – No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.


I think we should define torture. My girlfriend's constant inquisitive questions are torture too me.   I am not for thumb screws and electrical shock etc. It is primitive. But psychological interrogations should be allowed. It can be mentally painful, and be viewed as torture by civil courts and certainly is viewed as such by the ACLU. The Geneva Convention omitted it. It disallows (im)moral coercions. Taking one's daughter in the room and (use your imagination). No one gets physically hurt either, but it is immoral.

I agree that we should define torture. If what you are talking about is interrogations by trained psychologists, they are perfectly legal and happen all the time in ordinary criminal cases.

 

[Hank]

Today at 09:45 PM David Gould said this in Post #36

1.) Who are the people who determines if the evidence is real?

2.) Is there any oversight of the evaluation of this real evidence?

3.) What makes it highly unlikely for an innocent person to be captured?

4.) What checks are there to ensure that people in the military are not deliberately torturing people who are not terrorists?

5.) Torture is recognised as being illegal in war. If it is a war situation and some of our people are captured and tortured should we recognise that as legitimate conduct on behalf of our enemies or should we try them for it?

6.) What limits are there on what types of torture can be employed and what checks are in place to enforce these limits?




 

You got some good questions, I got some for you here as well. I got to go. Back Wednesday, pending weather.


1) Annalists
2) No. The idea is to win. You are reprimanded in the military for making stupid mistakes as well. Capturing the wrong people is wasted time plus the real culprid are still out there. Loosing is no option!
3) Why would evidence point to an innocent?
4) Why would they do that? Except sadists, no one actually enjoys it.
5) In a fighting situation one really does not have time to go for coffee, or to be civil. There I would say, if I give my soldier permission to kill I do not see the logic hindering him to find out where more enemies are before killing the enemy.
6) What limits would you like?

 

[Hank]

Today at 10:10 PM David Gould said this in Post #38

I agree that we should define torture. If what you are talking about is interrogations by trained psychologists, they are perfectly legal and happen all the time in ordinary criminal cases.

No, they are not. I got to get my lawyer, but I know it is not acceptable to be interrogated, period. Some potential psych damage.

But I do got to go for tonight.