Torture

[harkontume]

I told you EVERYTHING I KNOW>.. for the love of GOD ... STOP!

[Guest031411-2]

I'm with harkontume....

A quick search shows that according to the geneva convention posts by theaustinescorts is considered crimes against humanity in the vilest form, the most evil form of torture known to man, and is banned by every known country/kingdom/fiefdom/village/county/state in the world.

[mj2749]

I rest!

[theaustinescorts]

Okay Templar Knight of the Crusades:

Now that we are in agreement that people working for the US have used torture in the past what do you think about it?

As someone who has seen the effects of it [as well as having witnessed its use] I have voiced my view that the US should never condone it, but what do you think?
Intelligent people have voiced views on both sides. However, those who tend to oppose it [like John McCain] have often seen it's use firsthand, whereas those who tend to support it [like Allen Dershowitz] tend to have never actually experienced it.

This thread seeks to pose a normative question, not a historical one.

[mj2749]

Well, although I officially "rested" on this topic, your question seems harmless enough so I'll answer. I feel torture should never be official policy. Our country should publicly take the high road and as often as possible that road should be taken when covert action is called for as well. Having said that, I would never rule it out completely. Especially given the broad definition that torture is given today. To use torture to gather information that can be gained by other means is counter-productive in my opinion. But when you say torture should "never" be used or condoned? I'm not sure if agree with that. The "ticking bomb" example is often used as a circumstance where it may be of value although in our country's history I'm not sure it's ever actually occurred. If it should happen, let's say a terrorist cell plants some "dirty bombs" or other devices that could result in a massive loss of lives in the U.S., would I care if our intelligence agents used torture to prevent those bombs from going off? Probably not.
So my best answer is, in a very, very narrow scope I could see where it could at some time be useful and should therefore remain in the "toolbox" so to speak, but I don't think it should be our policy or our primary means of gathering intelligence and information. It should be an absolute last resort when all other methods have failed and when it's use can likely prevent the imminent loss of life for our citizens.

[theaustinescorts]

In theory there are many unsavory things which should not be prescribed policy but might have to be considered so long as they can be performed in a deniable or unacknowledged way.

However the reason why the torture debate has come to the for is because the US record of using covert action for purposes of deniability has such a checkered [if not wholly discredited] history. This is particularly the view of otherwise liberals such as Allen Dershowitz, who believes that any activities performed outside of official sanction will be abused. Therefore, he reasons, that torture should be made official policy and limited to certain extreme situations such as the ticking time bomb.

My personal experience and whatever history I've read makes me very cynical about the abilities of government workers to distinguish those very rare cases where torture might be justifiable. I believe strongly that if there's any leeway at all in the system that it will be misused, and there will be no accountability for the culprits, who may very well be acting in good faith, but not good judgement.

I just don't trust government to get it right. I believe government can perform some limited functions reasonably well. But the track record of national security agencies and figures in using wise judgement on behalf of the American people [in whose name they act] is just aweful. These are complex questions that are well beyond the shallow abilities of government workers, no matter how heroic their purposes. The people who work in national security are men of action, not of deep or reflective thought. They make up their minds about something first, usually based on little more than what everyone else thinks, and then they seek to fit all the evidence into that opinion. The result is misperception, cognative rigidity, etc. --- all well known cognative errors which plauge decision-makers and operators alike.

Here's an obvious recent example -- where are the weapons of mass destruction? Everyone in the government and media were certain they were in Iraq but they were not. Our media and government workers were completely, totally wrong - yet again. And as to why after nine years Osama bin-Ladin is still on the loose, well; could it be because we really don't do things all that well?

I've never been to Afghanistan, but spent months in Pakistan with the Task Force supporting the Islamic militants who were killing, raping, and torturing Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s. At that time we empowered these muslim fundamentalists, and now we are seeking to suppress them. There is a clear lack of consistency in this. In my time we supported the fundamentalists seeking to control Afghanistan because that meant keeping the Russians out. Now we oppose their control because it means keeping us out.

What everyone learns eventually about Afghanistan is that it can't be tamed.
They are a very savage people.