Military Power

What are your opinions on torture? You can take this as torture in general, What goes on in Gitmo, ect, just let me know how you are taking it. Please go into as much detail as possible, not just "I don't like it".

'Torture', I think had its purpose many years ago. However, it's obsolete (or at least should be considered obsolete). Of course, what is a true solid definition of torture?

Torture can be anything from physical, emotional, and right down to bribery. The physical torture methods should not be used by any country who tries to make a difference. It is inhumane, and not necessary for what a specific country or group wants to accomplish. Now if you are trying to get information out of a detainee, the best option would be to strike their emotions or try to trick them with bribery. But what would that be considered torture to use bribery? Because you are then trying to attack what they want and give it to them.

I believe it to be OK to attack a detainee's emotions, that is more humane and justified and really the only scars left are within the brain and memory of that individual, which in more circumstances can be forgotten and forgiven. But using painful methods of retrieving information out of a detainee, really is pointless because at that point YOU are the terrorist and if that person is trained to withstand pain and not give any information out to their holders, then you are wasting your own time and energy and getting nowhere.

General Forestry wrote:Of course, what is a true solid definition of torture?

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "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 is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or 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."

General Forestry wrote:'Torture', I think had its purpose many years ago. However, it's obsolete (or at least should be considered obsolete).

I have to disagree with you there, but I do think that it should be a last resort.

I ask you, if someone took your child, and they would die in 3 hours if you didn't get their location, but the person who had them wanted nothing but to see you suffer, would you be asking them nicely where your child was or would you be on the other end of the waterboard? (I dare say if you claim you wouldn't be torturing them to get the information then one of three things is true, you are lying, you don't have children and thus don't understand, or you are a sick and uncaring person) That is the problem here, these terrorists haven't chosen specific people and said they are the ones they will kill, so no one has a since of "this affects me and my family" and therefore don't care (that is the way Americans are, if it doesn't affect them or their wallet they don't care if it affects anyone else).

I understand what you are saying Max, and I honestly completely agree on the scenario you have provided. But I believe I was referring to military torture methods (and not in any relation to family or civilian torture methods).

General Forestry wrote:I understand what you are saying Max, and I honestly completely agree on the scenario you have provided. But I believe I was referring to military torture methods (and not in any relation to family or civilian torture methods).

Then I'm not entirely sure you do understand (no offense intended). I believe what he is saying is that all those people that are against the use of torture, would be singing a different tune if they were Directly affected by the information the terrorist has. What they don't understand (or have forgotten since 9/11), is that the soldiers overseas aren't the only ones affected, you, or a family member could be killed in a terrorist attack at any time (at home, at work, at school, while traveling, ect).

CrazyCatman wrote:Then I'm not entirely sure you do understand (no offense intended). I believe what he is saying is that all those people that are against the use of torture, would be singing a different tune if they were Directly affected by the information the terrorist has. What they don't understand (or have forgotten since 9/11), is that the soldiers overseas aren't the only ones affected, you, or a family member could be killed in a terrorist attack at any time (at home, at work, at school, while traveling, ect).

OK. I understand what you mean NOW. Let's expand this. Take away 'terrorism', it is kind of a boring word anyways...you hear it in your sleep sometimes. Let's talk about a conflict which has nothing to do with terrorism, it just happens to be a war between two countries where things got out of control, and it is a fair fight from both sides. Is torture necessary for any prisoners?

Torture is a way of getting somebody to say what you want them to say, not neccessarily tell you the truth. Even when they do tell the truth, it's down to the indvidual character of the torturer whether or not they believe them. People will say anything you want them to say if you torture them enough, true or not.

While I don't think that torture to get people to admit to something is right, I think that there may be cases where torture to get information might be. For instance, if you know that so and so is smuggling an active Nuke into the U.S. (or the U.K., or France, ect) and this guy was the one who made the arrangements, torturing them to get the information to stop the bomb might be acceptable (depending on the questions asked) because the authenticity of the information can be checked.

Deimenried wrote:Torture is a way of getting somebody to say what you want them to say, not neccessarily tell you the truth. Even when they do tell the truth, it's down to the indvidual character of the torturer whether or not they believe them. People will say anything you want them to say if you torture them enough, true or not.

OK, I see you're point here. But what about CCM's post:

For instance, if you know that so and so is smuggling an active Nuke into the U.S

At this point you are trying to get the information that is correct so the least amount of lives is lost. You are not trying to get the information YOU want to hear.

However, now that I see these different arguments, I can see the necessary uses of torture. Because sometimes National Security depends upon using whatever-means-necessary in order to prevent disasters and huge losses of life. So I am all in favor for it now

Disagree-Once you start using torture as a normal action in interrogation you break the one fundamental proposition of Law. That all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Otherwise you might just as well give up the purpose of the Law courts and resort entirely to the rule of the lynch mob.

Hobilar wrote:Disagree-Once you start using torture as a normal action in interrogation you break the one fundamental proposition of Law. That all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Can you define that? Does it mean no incarceration until found guilty in a court of law? Does it mean that if you were in charge of the security of England and someone said they had hidden 15 nuclear devices around England on timers which will set them off sometime between now and 5 years from now you would just ask politely where they were and how to disarm them?

Goliath wrote: Can you define that? Does it mean no incarceration until found guilty in a court of law? Does it mean that if you were in charge of the security of England and someone said they had hidden 15 nuclear devices around England on timers which will set them off sometime between now and 5 years from now you would just ask politely where they were and how to disarm them?

No, of course a suspect can be held on remand awaiting trial if there is sufficient evidence against them BUT (under our legal system) you can not hold someone based on mere hearsay (which is what you are suggesting). It is called Habeas corpus in Law (but perhaps your criminal code is not based on the Magna Carta as ours is)

Ask any Police Officer.

Hobilar wrote:It is called Habeas corpus in Law (but perhaps your criminal code is not based on the Magna Carta as ours is)

I know about Habeas corpus, and about England suspending and restricting the right/privilege thereof. The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the 18th and 19th centuries. Although internment without trial has been authorized by statute since that time, for example during the two World Wars and the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the procedure of habeas corpus has in modern times always "technically" remained available to such internees. However, as habeas corpus is only a procedural device to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention, so long as the detention was in accordance with an Act of Parliament, the petition for habeas corpus would be unsuccessful.

In the U.S. in 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Quirin that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. Terrorists are classified as unlawful combatants.

Goliath wrote:
The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Actually on only three occasions -In 1715, 1745 and 1794. The first two during the Jacobite rebellions and the last during the French Revolutionary Wars.

Good discussions guys , I like the responses and input . I like where this is going.