RRC Archives

der uber wrote:How do you deal with some of the more evil types we've had to face. Talking? What if they don't want to talk?

perhaps they have nothing to say? Or perhaps its an american citizen who lost his social security card?

Torture should not be allowed by the US, nor should whatever we're doing be redefined to no longer be torture.

It's much better for our society to make a blanket statement that says we will not torture people, and then break that rule when necessary. Then people can be held accountable if the rule breaking seems unwarranted. But as it stands now, there are no rules to break.

Evil said,
"If we are the best people in the world we should hold ourselves to the highest standards in the world. We don't so...

I bet, that if one seriously researched the subject, there would be plenty of evidence to support the argument that, when it comes to prisoner treatment, the U.S. military has held to the highest standards in the world, even when compared to the Brits, Canadians, or whoever."


Shamis said,
"It's much better for our society to make a blanket statement that says we will not torture people, and then break that rule when necessary. Then people can be held accountable if the rule breaking seems unwarranted."

Actually, it looks, to me, like that's exactly the standard this country is operating under right now.

L K Day wrote:Shamis said,
"It's much better for our society to make a blanket statement that says we will not torture people, and then break that rule when necessary. Then people can be held accountable if the rule breaking seems unwarranted."

Actually, it looks, to me, like that's exactly the standard this country is operating under right now.

So you don't think what we do is torture? Or you only think we do it when absolutely necessary? Either way, I'd say you're wrong, but I'm just asking for comedy value.

Like I said earlier, when you compare what we do to what the terrorists do, waterboarding is pretty tame. It might be torture, might not. I dont know where the line is.

If it is torture, then what could we do instead that you wouldn't consider torture?

Isn't the Geneva Convention for armed, uniformed combatants?

I'm not in favor of these practices. But when we're dealing with the likes of KSW, I seriously don't think we become like the terrorists because we pour water on his face and make him think we're drowning him.

Shamis - Good questions. Second one first. I've read that the U.S. has waterboarded something like a dozen terrorists. Whether it was absolutely necessary or not, I can't say, but if it's really been applied to only 12 of the enemy, out of the thousands that have been interrorgated, it would look like it's been used in only the most exceptional cases.

First question. Is it torture? Interestingly, I don't think any of us know, for sure, just exactly what technique or techniques have been used that fall under the general descritpion of "waterboarding". Seriously, I must have read of at least a half dozen very different things called waterboarding. What they all have in common, of course, is that the subject feels like they are being drowned. Many would call anything like that torture, others might argue that a technique that causes no physical harm can't be called torture. I don't know, but I think most of us would agree that there is a continuum of interrorgation techniques that runs from polite questioning to absolute flesh rendering brutality. Somewhere in between there is a gray zone, one that will be exploited, at times, by even the most consciencious people, when they feel it is their only option.

Let me describe a moral delimma our military could find themselves in:

You've captured a known terrorist who has been waging a campaign of unspeakable brutality against the local populace. He and his accomplices have been directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children over the last few months. He was captured alone as he was travelling from one safe house to another. He had his "little black book" with him and it contains a very long list of contacts. Invaluable, with this information you can take out most of his organization, and save dozens, even hundreds of innocent lives if you act quickly. You probably only have 24, or at best 48 hours, before word spreads of his disappearence, and his network melts away. Unfortunately the black book is written in code. Do you act "ethically", knowing that hundreds will die because of what you did not do? Or do you do convince the SOB that you will indeed drown his motherfucking ass if he doesn't give up the code?

Of course you could just say, we don't torture, or do anything that some might think comes just a bit too close to torture. But then, the next time you're cleaning up after a terrorist attack, picking up the body parts of the innocent, you'll know that through your inaction, you're partially responsible.

L K Day wrote:Of course you could just say, we don't torture, or do anything that some might think comes just a bit too close to torture. But then, the next time you're cleaning up after a terrorist attack, picking up the body parts of the innocent, you'll know that through your inaction, you're partially responsible.

Ha ha ha. That's pretty worthless.

But given the situation, one much more plausaible than the ticking nuclear bomb scenario, what should one do? Where do you draw the line?

gulliver - I read your link to the Small Wars Journal. The author certainly knows a lot more about waterboarding than I do, and I think he is mostly correct. People will confess to anything, tell you anything you want to hear when waterboarded, then you don't know if they're telling the truth or not.

Two points I'd like to make. In the scenario I described, the interrorgator only wants to know one thing, the code, if the subject lies, he's found out immediately, there's no ambiguity as to the result.

Second, he states that our using the waterboard would give the enemy an excuse to do the same. Somehow, our enemies have never needed any excuses to treat their captives in the most inhumane ways. I don't think that will change, one way or the other.

FOX news has'nt got jack shit to do with this discussion.
In your world anyone who doesn't agree with you is programmed? We could both play that game, couldn't we?