Enhanched Interrogation vs. Torture?

[RGMage2]

Going back to the original question: Where do you draw the line?

Hypothetical scenario
American special forces solider operating in Ukraine spotting for Ukrainian field artillery targeting Russian Ukrainian separatists, gets captured by Russian special forces supporting Russian Ukrainian separatists. The Russian commander believes the American has vital intelligence about the number and location of other American forces operating in Ukraine.

Is the Russian Commander Justified in ordering the torture of the American soldier. Getting this information will save lives, Russian lives and the lives of their allies. There is no doubt in the minds of the Russians that they are the good guys, and the American is a soldier of the evil empire that seeks world domination. Are they justified in using whatever methods are necessary to extract that information?

They are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit torture of POWs, but in this case there is no declared war between Russia and America, and America does not acknowledge that it’s forces are operating in Ukraine. They decide not to bestow POW status on the captured American, and instead declare him to be an illegal enemy combatant not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Are they right to do this?

 

 

Is water boarding/sleep deprivation, ect akin to fingernail pulling/cutting, ect? I understand that we must not regress into absolute midevil-esque torture methods to extract information from enemies, but, you cannot give 'em milk and cookies and expect them to talk either. After all, they are prisoners of war. not to mention that they are extremely dedicated to their cause. Remember also that we subject our own spec-op warriors to the same 'torture' methods....Is that torture or training?

Is water boarding torture?

Geneva Conventions
Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, 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 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.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

It seems clear enough that what was done was torture.

 

After all, they are prisoners of war

According to your Government they are not prisoners of war, they are illegal enemy combatants not entitled to protections granted under Geneva Conventions. Labelling them as illegal enemy combatants was for the sole purpose of sidestepping the Geneva Conventions.

 

Geneva Conventions
Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Which brings us to Rendition and use of Black Sites in other countries. This was done to skirt treaty obligations and American law. This all suggests that high ranking officials (President, Vice President) knew full well that what they were doing was torture. And you don’t set up all these black sites to torture only 3 people. Some things you don’t need to read in a report to know the truth of it, it’s just too obvious.

you cannot give 'em milk and cookies and expect them to talk either

Actually the equivalent of milk and cookies can be part of an effective and intelligent interrogation process. IMHO the objective with some of these guys should have been to turn them.

The real question is where does it all lead. If it is acceptable to torture terrorists, will it stop there or will it be extended to other segments of society. What about Organized Crime Bosses, should they be tortured? And what about drug dealers, tax cheats, communists, people with the wrong political view, the politically incorrect? You could round up a thousand people off the streets of any city in North America and torture them and you would definitely get confessions of criminal activity. Torture me and I’m sure I could find something to confess to.

I am not a pacifist, I would have no hesitation in pulling the trigger when necessary, but I would not support torture of anyone for any reason. If a rabid dog attacks and kills your child, you don’t torture the dog, you just put it down.

The point where we start devolving is where good people stop standing up for what they know is right.

 

[edgeburner]

 

They are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit torture of POWs, but in this case there is no declared war between Russia and America, and America does not acknowledge that it’s forces are operating in Ukraine. They decide not to bestow POW status on the captured American, and instead declare him to be an illegal enemy combatant not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Are they right to do this?

If an American terrorist had recently crashed three hijacked public airliner jet's into downtown Moscow and killed three thousand innocent Russian civilians? IF there was credible evidence the as many as three more waves of attacks on innocent Russian civilians may be in the offing, and, i had an individual in custody that could possibly reveal these plots too me? I would say, yes.... IF, it was done in the scenario described by James Mitchell in the interview... Only once and followed up with a good cop - bad cop technique along with sleep deprivation. Actually, if it was ME personally, and I knew that HE knew.....I'd chop his beard off.....or maybe something else.

Again, i don't think that using EIT's in extreme circumstances (and only on certain individuals) is going to lead us down the road to barbarism....It ain't gonna happen in this country. Look at the polls on this issue ? Overwhelmingly supportive of the CIA in this scenario. Are the folks that are participating in these polls barbaric? I don't think so.

 

As far as black sites and such....Nothing is obvious to me unless i see clear-cut evidence.

 

I haven't seen any so far, only assumptions. |

 

 

The real question is where does it all lead. If it is acceptable to torture terrorists, will it stop there or will it be extended to other segments of society. What about Organized Crime Bosses, should they be tortured? And what about drug dealers, tax cheats, communists, people with the wrong political view, the politically incorrect?

if your are going to paint with such a broad brush stroke, I would say yes.....It's already happening... Just look at the IRS scandal? Is that a form of mental torture...labeling folks, making them jump through legal hoops, prying into their personal lives and tossing aside a groups/persons constitutional rights because they aren't politically aligned with you? In other words...Intimidating them with the most powerful arm of the US government, just for expressing their right to political dissent and freedom of speech?

 

Well, I ain't gonna ramble no more.....I see your point, I simply cannot support the moral high road to that (9/11 aftermath) extend.

 

Reality (IMHO) doesn't travel along that moral high ground. Lines have to be redrawn, and the time and the circumstance must be taken into consideration.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2014 by edgeburner

[Beriallord]

 

Well this is the thing, torturing people doesn't get the truth, it gets you what the person being tortured thinks you want to hear.

 

In order to get truth, you must punish them for lying, or even offer rewards for truthful information. That movie Zero Dark Thirty went into a bit of detail about how they broke some of those terrorists.

 

My point is you could technically get viable intel by torturing, even if everything out of that said person's mouth isn't going to be the whole truth. If someone was going to hook my balls up to a car battery, I'd start telling them whatever they wanted to know. Vast majority of people would. I might call their bluff to see if they were serious, but I'd start talking before that wire makes contact with flesh.

 

The line most people seem to draw as to what defines torture vs coerced interrogation is the difference between physical or mental abuse. They make the assumption that physical abuse is somehow more brutal. I say in both cases, its still torture, even though I'm not against using either method to get intelligence. I know its against the geneva convention to physically torture people, but a government like the US could do it, sweep it under the rug and get away with it. Then simply deny any accusations. The truth is behind a wall of classified material.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Beriallord

[edgeburner]

 

The line most people seem to draw as to what defines torture vs coerced interrogation is the difference between physical or mental abuse. They make the assumption that physical abuse is somehow more brutal. I say in both cases, its still torture, even though I'm not against using either method to get intelligence.

Aye, but again, it depends on the circumstance. If you can possibly save thousands of lives by employing techniques that we use on our own SPEC-OPS warriors in training, do you say that "i'm better than that" and hold our head up as you mount your high horse in a fit of self righteous indignity? Or, do you do what may possibly save thousands of lives?

 

Certainly a dilemma I wouldn't want to face. Which is exactly why I don't want to sit behind my PC and judge other who are faced with such a dilemma? Especially one that is based on what amounts to an unsubstantiated, partisan hack job of a report?

Edited December 26, 2014 by edgeburner