What Is Torture?

[Long Horn Hookah]

Well its 6 am and I shouldn't be awake. Found this a little interesting :
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player...tid=20047560001

Video of a playboy journalist (still NFW) submitting himself to waterboarding. Kinda freaky to realize this happened to people. Despite if you approve of it or not, its still worth a watch and a ponder.

[ColibriDon]

Interesting little video. To answer the question as to whether it's torture or not, it is.

The real question is, do you think our country should utilize this technique on people to find information? Answer, in my opinion, no. The use of torture is primitive, degrading to our nation, and a step in the wrong direction for our legal system. By utilizing torture, our country takes a step back from the accusatory system of justice we have now (Innocent until proven guilty) and into an inquisitorial system (Guilty until proven innocent). We, as a civilization, evolved out of an inquisitorial system because it bred fear and false verdicts, why would we step back to this?

I do not condone torture in anyway. It's wrong and inaccurate. If you started torturing me and asking me if I was a woman--I would say whatever you wanted to get the torture to stop. This is the problem with torture, it's unreliable.

[Johnny_D]

I allmost agree Don.

But certain torture technique's HAVE shown positive results and have no doubt help to prevent some activities.

It's a shame that modern technology and psycology have not got us beyond 'throwing water at someone' but it's one of many techniques.

I am almost sad to say that, occasionally, the ends justify the means. The problem, of course, is ensuring the person you are torturing is the right person in the first place and herein lies the real problem in my humbles.

JD

[Vladimir]

I'm not an interrogator so I don't know. I don't believe it is good/bad, effective/ineffective just because Anderson Cooper says so. Which right there means it should probably remain an option to degrees so that the interrogator has the tools he needs to save lives. Waterboarding is a little stickier, things like light deprivation and getting thrown in a refrigerator sound more like college life than torture. Obviously I would be against more extreme stuff. I guess what I am saying is if an interrogator feels like waterboarding is going to save lives, he should have that option.

[AKammenzind]

That guy in the mask... kinda really looks/sounds like edward norton.

[Long Horn Hookah]

Personally, I feel really mixed about the issue. I think there will always be torture, if the Government acknowledges it is one thing. Sure waterboarding is horrible but its still physically safer then other alternatives of the same extremity.

[jeremyk]

that was insane crazy video he gave up in like 4 seconds

[Rani]

Considering the quantity of different psychotropic drugs available for questioning, why on earth would anyone even need to utilize torture? Not only is it inhumane and reduces you to the level of the terrorist you might be interogating, but it's just plain stupidly inefficient when a host of pharmaceuticals are available.

'Rani

[Vladimir]

Considering the quantity of different psychotropic drugs available for questioning, why on earth would anyone even need to utilize torture? Not only is it inhumane and reduces you to the level of the terrorist you might be interogating, but it's just plain stupidly inefficient when a host of pharmaceuticals are available.

'Rani

People do not all respond to pharmaceuticals the same way, that would be my first guess for why they aren't used as much. Plus I think it might just be you (and I'm sure many others but you get my drift), personally I would have a way bigger issue with my government injecting people with things versus pouring water over their face.

[Canon]

i dont think that water boarding is torture. i never have and i dont think i ever will. as far as the drugs go.. there is no truth serum. there never will be.

as far as using water boarding to extract information putting us down to the terrorist level.. thats just absurd. how can you compare that to cutting peoples heads off and blowing people up using a suicide bomber (some of which are mentally challenged or children)?

[Vladimir]

i dont think that water boarding is torture. i never have and i dont think i ever will. as far as the drugs go.. there is no truth serum. there never will be.

as far as using water boarding to extract information putting us down to the terrorist level.. thats just absurd. how can you compare that to cutting peoples heads off and blowing people up using a suicide bomber (some of which are mentally challenged or children)?

Because it is harnessing fear. I am not fond of the practice. But history shows you don't win wars by following the rules. Look at the revolution, had we played by the rules back then, we would have been slaughtered. But we fought a guerrilla style war and ever since then we have known you have to make your own rules if you want to win. The trick, of course, is finding the happy medium.

[AKammenzind]

as far as using water boarding to extract information putting us down to the terrorist level.. thats just absurd. how can you compare that to cutting peoples heads off and blowing people up using a suicide bomber (some of which are mentally challenged or children)?

Hrm, you like your herrings red eh? That does somewhat misrepresent the whole issue. I mean it's not like all America does is waterboard. The US has made a habit out of occupying countries, bombing the living hell out of people, and generally shitting where others eat... all with money stolen under threat of violence from the people who live within the US. Personally I think that's well enough to put the US Govt on a level footing with terrorists, but that's not what this thread is about at all.

Whether waterboarding is torture really depends on your definition of torture I suppose. It's cruel, potentially harmful and certainly not nice, but in some cases it's probably more than deserved. Either way, I'm sure the US govt will continue to use tactics like this to maintain control so I think it's really a moot point.

[Vladimir]

Either way, I'm sure the US govt will continue to use tactics like this to maintain control so I think it's really a moot point.

Maybe this is why the government get's away with all the things, even against its own people, that it does . Nothing is moot!

[Canon]

as far as using water boarding to extract information putting us down to the terrorist level.. thats just absurd. how can you compare that to cutting peoples heads off and blowing people up using a suicide bomber (some of which are mentally challenged or children)?

Hrm, you like your herrings red eh? That does somewhat misrepresent the whole issue. I mean it's not like all America does is waterboard. The US has made a habit out of occupying countries, bombing the living hell out of people, and generally shitting where others eat... all with money stolen under threat of violence from the people who live within the US. Personally I think that's well enough to put the US Govt on a level footing with terrorists, but that's not what this thread is about at all.

Whether waterboarding is torture really depends on your definition of torture I suppose. It's cruel, potentially harmful and certainly not nice, but in some cases it's probably more than deserved. Either way, I'm sure the US govt will continue to use tactics like this to maintain control so I think it's really a moot point.

to respond to your off topic remark..
so the united states coming into a country, bombing it then rebuilding it and spending money to help out the country is shitting where others eat? what happened after we nuked japan (after pearl harbor)? we helped them rebuild their country. same thing goes for iraq and afganistan. we are spending money to give them food, help build hospitals, schools and help them develop a government.

as far as waterboarding being potentially harmful, yes it is if you are not trained to do it the right way, but the person in the video and everyone that works for the us military and does waterboarding is trained to do so without inflicting harm on the person being waterboarded.

[Rani]

i dont think that water boarding is torture. i never have and i dont think i ever will. as far as the drugs go.. there is no truth serum. there never will be.

as far as using water boarding to extract information putting us down to the terrorist level.. thats just absurd. how can you compare that to cutting peoples heads off and blowing people up using a suicide bomber (some of which are mentally challenged or children)?

Point of fact, I never said "truth serum". I don't believe a universal truth agent exists either, but I spent some time puttimg myself through college working in a mental health facility (along with about a hundred other dumb jobs) and I saw what changes psychotropic drugs combined with hypnosis can do. I have absolutely no doubt it can be utilized - assuming there's time. And honestly.....

Nobody gets up from a wonderful family life and says "Hey, I think I'll go try and desroy such and such country today since there's nothing on television!" People do what they do for a reason. Whether that reason is based on lies they've been reared on, or personal experience something causes them to act and believe as they do. All torture is going to do is confirm their assessment and when they are eventually released - because we generally end up releasing them unless we can try them in court to maintain our "good guy image", we've made a much more dangerous enemy who now has personal reason for his hatred. I would much rather administer psychotropic drugs combined with hypnosis (in the hands of a skilled interrogator) and possibly change their way of thought. Waterboarding, etc. never will.

'Rani

[judgeposer]

I thought that we'd benefit from a definition of torture, provided by the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), which defines it as:

[a]ny 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.

(emphasis mine). Disregarding a bunch of other considerations (like whether the US government has another definition of torture, whether the government acknowledges waterboarding as torture, whether the government admits to using torture, whether torture will always exist, whether torture or waterboarding sinks us to the level of terrorists, whether waterboarding US detainees is met with international rebuke, whether torture or waterboarding produces more enemies, etc.), as an definitional question, we're still left with: What is torture? This definition goes a long way in answering that question. As I see it, all of those other considerations are just that -other considerations- that do not help answer this question. We have ample codifications, in US and International law, that define "torture," none of which here (or elsewhere, for the most part) been dispatched with.

Can we agree on this definition of torture? To the extent anyone here disagrees with this definition, Why, and To what extent? Seeing as the OP had a link to a video of someone submitting to waterboarding, given this definition, our next question is Whether waterboarding constitutes torture, keeping in mind that the OP didn't ask a question of ethics, but of definition. Put more directly, using this definition, Does waterboarding inflict severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, for the purpose of obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession?

It seems to me, generally speaking, waterboarding inficts severe suffering, particularly of the mental kind, to such an extent, in fact, that the person waterboarded fears of drowning, and therefore fears for his life. It is of no consquence that no -or relatively little- physical harm befalls the waterboarded person. What matters is his exhibition of objective indicators that show pain or suffering.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding...e_United_States), here's something I found instructive and nuanced (enough):

Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils".^[33] Nevertheless, McCarthy in the same article admits that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture" and that "[t]here shouldn't be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture".^[33]

[judgeposer]

i dont think that water boarding is torture. i never have and i dont think i ever will. as far as the drugs go.. there is no truth serum. there never will be.

as far as using water boarding to extract information putting us down to the terrorist level.. thats just absurd. how can you compare that to cutting peoples heads off and blowing people up using a suicide bomber (some of which are mentally challenged or children)?

Point of fact, I never said "truth serum". I don't believe a universal truth agent exists either, but I spent some time puttimg myself through college working in a mental health facility (along with about a hundred other dumb jobs) and I saw what changes psychotropic drugs combined with hypnosis can do. I have absolutely no doubt it can be utilized - assuming there's time. And honestly.....

Nobody gets up from a wonderful family life and says "Hey, I think I'll go try and desroy such and such country today since there's nothing on television!" People do what they do for a reason. Whether that reason is based on lies they've been reared on, or personal experience something causes them to act and believe as they do. All torture is going to do is confirm their assessment and when they are eventually released - because we generally end up releasing them unless we can try them in court to maintain our "good guy image", we've made a much more dangerous enemy who now has personal reason for his hatred. I would much rather administer psychotropic drugs combined with hypnosis (in the hands of a skilled interrogator) and possibly change their way of thought. Waterboarding, etc. never will.

'Rani

Such as...sodium thiopental, aka Sodium Pentothal? It's used as a truth-agent.

[judgeposer]

I couldn't resist one last post. Check this Torture Timeline out: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php...891&print=1.

[Sonthert]

Well, the problem is that many of these truth therapies are circumventable. Sometimes the tortured person's neurons simply stop working and will tell you whatever you want them to, truth or lie. If they were trying to lie, they may start spilling the truth. If they were telling the truth, they will start lying. Torture is fine...as long as you yourself don't mind going through it. When I do X to you, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that somebody else for a number of reasons, might do X back to me?

William Shakespeare commented on the ineffectiveness of torture, essentially the information you received from torture was unreliable.

Where is the proof that torture works? I mean, we advocate it, we sanction it, but where is the proof that it works? Ask around, you'll get blanks stares and anecdotes. There is no scientific evidence I know of that information from torture is reliable...so why do it? If you get suspect information from torture, why use it?

[Vladimir]

Where is the proof that torture works? I mean, we advocate it, we sanction it, but where is the proof that it works? Ask around, you'll get blanks stares and anecdotes. There is no scientific evidence I know of that information from torture is reliable...so why do it? If you get suspect information from torture, why use it?

The people who know advocate for it. No university study is going to convince me otherwise.

[joytron]

I have the same issue with torture as I do with capital punishment.

1. Someone has to be the executioner/torturer, which is a responsibility that should not lie on anyones soul
2. Some people are have not commited a crime or no any information, no matter how you look at it innocent people have been forced into both. How many innocent people are you willing to torture/kill to justify the information we have reiceved.
3. Where is the line drawn, lets say you suspect someones brother is part of a terrorsit group, can you justify torturing him/her on the basis that you might recieve information that could be helpful. I cant imagine being placed in a situation, as i believe the world is not black and white but many shades of gray, where a member of my family was doing an act he considered valiant against an enemy that has gone against my countries wants. America is not the great savior of the world and has had many dark events that occured while its citezens turned a blind eye.

As someone who could not comprehend being on either side of the interrogation desk I can not condone an activity that goes against what my country stands for.


Although I have never experienced water boarding, i do know what it feels like when your mind thinks you are going to drown an i have a hard time believing that what happened in that video was much different. It was one of the worst things i have experienced and lasted only a few seconds. I can not imagine much worse psychologically than your brain telling you that you are going to die.

[Vladimir]

I agree with the capital punishment conclusions, but I disagree with the connection between the two. Only one takes your life from you, and is normally used as a deterrent/punishment/whatever. Meanwhile the other lets you keep your life, and is used to save other's lives.

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my reply.

I have the same issue with torture as I do with capital punishment.

1. Someone has to be the executioner/torturer, which is a responsibility that should not lie on anyones soul

The issue of capital punishment revolves around the question of whether a government can take the life of a guilty party for the sake of the common good. Despite the need for a personal executioner, the issue is one of public morality - the legitimacy of the state taking a life.

2. Some people are have not commited a crime or no any information, no matter how you look at it innocent people have been forced into both. How many innocent people are you willing to torture/kill to justify the information we have reiceved.

I agree with you that the end doesn't justify the means. We can, nonetheless, distinguish those on death row from those recently waterboarded in that those on death row have been charged, tried, and found guilty for a capital crime. Lest a successful appeal, by the time of their death, their guilt is a resolved matter - at least legally resolved to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas, those the military/CIA has waterboarded have not been charged, tried, or much less, been convicted: they're prisoners of war, or enemy combatants, whichever you prefer. The difference between those two labels is a matter of debate, but not pertinent to us here. For those captured on the battlefield and then waterboarded, no legal mechanisms exist for their indictment or trial - this is because they have a status fundamentally different from a domestic criminal who has been captured, charged, and tried. While their guilt amounts to fighting against the United States, they do not enjoy the pressumption of innocence like our criminal defendants enjoy. To put it simply, they're guilty enough, by virtue of fighting for an enemy force.

3. Where is the line drawn, lets say you suspect someones brother is part of a terrorsit group, can you justify torturing him/her on the basis that you might recieve information that could be helpful. I cant imagine being placed in a situation, as i believe the world is not black and white but many shades of gray, where a member of my family was doing an act he considered valiant against an enemy that has gone against my countries wants. America is not the great savior of the world and has had many dark events that occured while its citezens turned a blind eye.

Well, simply put, YOU cannot perform some sort of citizen's arrest and interrogate someone else. The question, again, isn't one of personal action, responsibility, or freedom, it's one that asks whether a STATE (a nation state, such as the United States) can legitimately utilize "advanced interrogation techniques" on those it imprisons during open hostilities.

NONE of this is an endorsement of waterboarding or tortue for that matter. It's something I believe is torture, and thus, something our government should not do. I'm just trying to distinguish capital punishment from torture, two things I don't see connected in the way you supply.

[TheScotsman]

The treaties/rules/regulations regarding treatment of POW's in no way applies to non-uniformed combatants whom are not part of any army, recognized or not.


The debate goes completely out the window when dealing with suicidal fanatics bent on targeting civilians. The mistake comes when they are allowed to surrender in any way that does not involve their assuming room temperature.

[Long Horn Hookah]

The treaties/rules/regulations regarding treatment of POW's in no way applies to non-uniformed combatants whom are not part of any army, recognized or not.


The debate goes completely out the window when dealing with suicidal fanatics bent on targeting civilians. The mistake comes when they are allowed to surrender in any way that does not involve their assuming room temperature.

First off, a fanatic is a word completely in the eye of the beholder. I'm pretty sure the British considered us suicidal fanatics during the revolution. Secondly, executing people who attempt to surrender is just pain wrong. You can cut off their trigger finger and send them back to civilization for all I care, but when you execute a man with his hands behind their head you just justify the fanatics opinion of yourself AND add to their cause. Lastly, yes treaties/regulations apply, thats who they are there to protect, the people who are unable to protect themselves. The question is, dose a non-physically threatening, induced "corporation attempt" fall under these laws, or are the laws broken in justifiable circumstances.