"Is America above the Geneva Conventions?"

[Grendel]

Another one of those interesting reads: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 63,00.html

Inside the Pentagon, officials are arguing with Vice President Dick Cheney about a new set of US Defense Department guidelines for interrogating suspected terrorists. The debate over an anti-torture bill is a sad moment for a country that once stood for human rights.

As someone who has spent decades representing clients who have been tortured under dictatorships, in dirty wars and by lawless governments around the world, I'm having a rough week here at home. My friend Sister Dianna Ortiz, an Ursuline nun whom I represented after she'd been abducted, raped and tortured by security forces in Guatemala, told me she was having a hard time too. "Torture destroys trust," she said. "Since my torture, 16 years ago, I've tried to rebuild that trust, but now my government has shattered it yet again. Fear returns..."
[..]

IMVHO it means moving backwards in the evolution of civilisation. I'm curious about what people here think about it, hence E&C.

[CDN_Merlin]

I agree that no one should be tortured for information but it's sad to think everyone will be obiding by that rule.

If you think any of the terrorists will not use torture to get information our of someone, you are sadly mistaken.

If the security of your country is at stake and the only way to get the information is to torture the individual, so be it. it's worth more to protect the many then the one.

I know this sounds bad to the family of the one but this IS part of war. Sometimes you just need to use force.

[Zuruck]

Merlin, you're right. They would probably do it to Americans, and Canadians. But, and it's an important but, don't most of our citizens consider us to be the leaders when it comes to being civilized. Isn't torture what Saddam did? Didn't we liberate Iraq to free them from that sort of stuff? Now here we are, doing it rank and file. It's not the sort of college prank stuff that woodchip thinks, almost 50 Iraqis have died under "suspicious" circumstances in our prisons. And that's only what's been reported, it could be quite high.

Look, I know we need good intelligence. But we fuel the fire when things like torture get out, how much better is the US dictatorship in Iraq if we do the same as Saddam?

[Palzon]

torture is categorically wrong. if we torture we are no better than the bad guys, we ARE the bad guys. further, torture does not work. Cheney is a scumbag.

This administration recruits more terrorists for al qaeda than they do personnel for our own armed forces. this type of thing is why, even if it is limited to the likes of nine nutjob senators and Darth Cheney. they kill one terrorist and make two more by their idiotic stratagem.

[woodchip]

Ah yes, torture. As I have said before, how many cities have to have a dirty bomb go off in how many cities before you squemish types will change your minds? We are not exactly talking about jack booted american gestapo yanking our citizens off the street on the suspicion they are a threat to the new world order now are we.
The problem we have today is any organised terrorist group can get some serious explosive devices and do real harm to this country. Finding out when and where is not a job for soft palmed, pot bellied college professors who think kind thoughts will dissuade the bad guys from harming them.
Oh and Zuruck...nice try on the, "But we fuel the fire when things like torture get out" rhetoric. Shall I list all the americans dead by arab terrorists prior to the Iraq war and prisoner "abuses". Perhaps the press should not be so quick to report these things eh?

[Zuruck]

If you want to list all the Americans, why don't we find the names of all the Arabs that America has had a hand in killing. How many Shiites did we leave for Saddam piss on?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991919/site/newsweek/

Hmmm..seems that beating someone doesn't always get you the best intelligence. If these people are willing to kill themselves for their causes, why in the world would they rat out their own kind after a few beatings? Torture helps absoutely nothing, well wait, it helped Bush get in office, you know, after he said that McCain was a nutjob because he was tortured in Vietnam when Bush was drinking a mai tai in his favorite 'ole party town.

[woodchip]

Heck why don't we add all the Japanese, Germans, Italians, koreans, American Indians, South Americans and Chi-Coms into the tally? My God Zuruck, you just made me realize what being an american is all about. Guess I'll move to:

Canada...no they killed Germans and Japanese too.
Europe...no they've killed each other
Middle East...no see above
Russia...no
China...no
Africa...no
Asia...nope

Hey Zuruck, what country could I move to that hasn't been killing people at some time or other?

[Zuruck]

I didn't know deaths attributed to a war merited comparison to torture...I don't think anyone knows that.

[CDN_Merlin]

Zuruck, yes the US is the same sorta by using torture on Iraqi prisoners BUT, we are the lesser of 2 evils.

We don't suicide bomb buildings, cars and kill innocent people for the sake of some bullcrap religion. We sometimes have to break our own rules to bring a better future for humanity.

We will never get rid of torture because not everyone thinks the same as we do. I try to not think to much on it because I know it's something we must do to bring world peace a bit closer.

[will_kill]

...We are not exactly talking about jack booted american gestapo yanking our citizens off the street on the suspicion they are a threat to the new world order now are we?...

not yet, but if we let it start there it won't be long for the homefront...just a thought


edit: the term 'creeping gradualism' comes to mind

[Grendel]

The problem we have today is any organised terrorist group can get some serious explosive devices and do real harm to this country.

Nothing new, that has always been the case. I could ask where those devices come from, but you know the answer.

So you think it's ok to torture people that may have information about "terrorist activity" ? Where would you draw the line to (or not) apply torture ? Would an arab looking person acting "suspicious" be worth torturing ? How about a homeless w/ a radioclock he's placing in that trash bin at central station ? How about you getting tortured because it turns out your neighbor/landlord/family member is suspected of "terrorist activity" ? Note that "terrorist activity" can easily mean "anti american behaviour" nowadays..

Just curious.

Edit: remember, every law allowing something will get abused/exploited. Basic human treat.

[Phoenix Red]

The problem we have today is any organised terrorist group can get some serious explosive devices and do real harm to this country.

Nothing new, that has always been the case. I could ask where those devices come from, but you know the answer.

You don't need fancy "devices." Any one of us could blow up a few city blocks using instructions available on the internet, $150 worth of crap frm the pharmacy and a the hardware store, and a hijacked gas tanker or large propane tank like you get outside Canadian Tire (or whatever your american equivilent is).

[woodchip]

Just remember...one mans torture is another mans S&M

[Lothar]

I don't see where the Geneva Conventions (brought up in your title) come in to play here.

[Pugwash]

We are not exactly talking about jack booted american gestapo yanking our citizens off the street on the suspicion they are a threat to the new world order now are we.

thats just what the German people said in 1938

[Pugwash]

I don't see where the Geneva Conventions (brought up in your title) come in to play here.

I think Lothar is correct, the geneva conventions apply only to uniformed combatants I believe.

[roid]

...I try to not think to much on it...

uh yeah. that's why some of us create threads like this.

I don't see where the Geneva Conventions (brought up in your title) come in to play here.

do a search for "geneva convention" on the original link. you'll first notice it's the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE and then note the article mentions it many times.
wtf lothar.

[KoolBear]

I agree that no one should be tortured for information but it's sad to think everyone will be obiding by that rule.

If you think any of the terrorists will not use torture to get information our of someone, you are sadly mistaken.

If the security of your country is at stake and the only way to get the information is to torture the individual, so be it. it's worth more to protect the many then the one.

I know this sounds bad to the family of the one but this IS part of war. Sometimes you just need to use force.

X2

[Lothar]

do a search for "geneva convention" on the original link. you'll first notice it's the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE and then note the article mentions it many times.

Mostly used as a buzzword. Kinda like popping in to a thread and saying "the Bible says not to ________" (where ______ is your cause-du-jour) without giving any indication as to where it says that or how the situation being discussed relates to what the original document was referring to.

This has been my biggest frustration with this sort of discussion over the past few years -- everyone can say the words "Geneva Conventions" but nobody seems to have actually read and understood them. I'm willing to bet nobody in this thread has.

[De Rigueur]

Edit: remember, every law allowing something will get abused/exploited. Basic human treat.

I think you are quite right. The laws that provide for our freedoms are abused/exploited by terrorists. That's the fundamental problem.

The choice we now face, as Merlin mentions, is deciding between the lesser of two evils: reduced security or reduced liberty.

btw, what was said about equivocation in the WMD thread applies to this thread, too.

[CDN_Merlin]

CDN_Merlin wrote:
...I try to not think to much on it...


uh yeah. that's why some of us create threads like this.

If we all cared so much about this stuff, nothing would get done and the terrorists would be running the show in the world because we'd all canvassing in front of our political houses to stop wars and the gov't would be wasting to much time on us.

[roid]

do a search for "geneva convention" on the original link. you'll first notice it's the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE and then note the article mentions it many times.

Mostly used as a buzzword. Kinda like popping in to a thread and saying "the Bible says not to ________" (where ______ is your cause-du-jour) without giving any indication as to where it says that or how the situation being discussed relates to what the original document was referring to.

This has been my biggest frustration with this sort of discussion over the past few years -- everyone can say the words "Geneva Conventions" but nobody seems to have actually read and understood them. I'm willing to bet nobody in this thread has.

Agreed, it is frustrating. But did you notice your own 1 line comment was quite similar?
Break the cycle. Explain yourself clearly

[roid]

...I try to not think to much on it...

uh yeah. that's why some of us create threads like this.

If we all cared so much about this stuff, nothing would get done and the terrorists would be running the show in the world because we'd all canvassing in front of our political houses to stop wars and the gov't would be wasting to much time on us.

that "listening to the people" ("TIME WASTING" as you put it) is a democratic government's very PURPOSE.

if "we all cared about this stuff", the government wouldn't be able to get us all into this kindof ★■◆● in the first place. It's perposterous you saying that we are wasting the government's time that they need to better spend stopping wars - The government STARTED the war!!
So how about we spend time stopping our governments from STARTING WARS? or would you think that to be wasting time? you are kindof scaring me merlin.

if we didn't care so much about this stuff, the world would be an absolute ★■◆●ing mess with governments doing whatever they wanted.

[CDN_Merlin]

Roid, I tihnk I may of come accross wrong. I tinhk what I'm trying to say is it doesn't really matter what we say to our Gov't cause they will do what they think is right in their eyes. Look at Bush and going to war with Iraq without the backing of the UN. he proved there he didn't care what others thought.

[MD-2389]

So, what's next then? Totally doing away with the Rules of Engagement just because they're inconvenient at the time?

[Grendel]

do a search for "geneva convention" on the original link. you'll first notice it's the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE and then note the article mentions it many times.

Mostly used as a buzzword. Kinda like popping in to a thread and saying "the Bible says not to ________" (where ______ is your cause-du-jour) without giving any indication as to where it says that or how the situation being discussed relates to what the original document was referring to.

Did you read the article ?

As someone who has spent decades representing clients who have been tortured under dictatorships, in dirty wars and by lawless governments around the world, I'm having a rough week here at home.

Michael Ratner is a lawyer specialized in international law. You really think he wouldn't know how to apply the term "geneva conventions" ? You know it better ?

[Lothar]

Michael Ratner is a lawyer specialized in international law. You really think he wouldn't know how to apply the term "geneva conventions" ?

I've seen a number of experts say all sorts of things about the Geneva Conventions that aren't actually found in any of them.

Kind of like constitutional lawyers, really... "oh, yes, the constitution guarantees a right to [made-up right]." Or theologians... "yeah, the Bible says [my political view]." I'd prefer if these experts at least gave me an indication of where in the aforementioned documents they're getting whatever idea they happen to have, instead of just saying they're in there. I simply don't trust Ratner (or anyone else) to be able to tell me what the Geneva conventions actually say without inserting his own politics.

I'd appreciate, for once, having someone say to check paragraph 4, section 2 of the nineteen-eleventy-foo Geneva Conventions dealing with civilians over the age of 39 with curly hair. I simply can't take seriously claims from anyone (no matter how expert) about how anybody is violating the Geneva Conventions, especially when it comes to groups that didn't really exist when the GC were written (like non-uniformed combatants, terror cells, and the like.) I've just seen too many bogus claims so far.

[Grendel]

Michael Ratner is a lawyer specialized in international law. You really think he wouldn't know how to apply the term "geneva conventions" ?

I've seen a number of experts say all sorts of things about the Geneva Conventions that aren't actually found in any of them.

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

I'd prefer if these experts at least gave me an indication of where in the aforementioned documents they're getting whatever idea they happen to have, instead of just saying they're in there. I simply don't trust Ratner (or anyone else) to be able to tell me what the Geneva conventions actually say without inserting his own politics.

Isn't that what specialists do ? I prefer experts explaining to me what it means and how it's applied vs. only drawing my own conclusions how it should be used. I still don't have to believe everything that people say and can work in my own thoughts.

Anyway, I have no clue what your problem w/ the application of the term "geneva conventions" is but it's totally off-topic. I was looking for opinions/discussion about legalizing torture.

[Lothar]

Michael Ratner is a lawyer specialized in international law. You really think he wouldn't know how to apply the term "geneva conventions" ?

I've seen a number of experts say all sorts of things about the Geneva Conventions that aren't actually found in any of them.

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

He may be using it correctly, or he may know but intentionally be misusing it for political reasons, or he may really not understand it. They're all possibilities.

In other words, I'm not saying he's definitely wrong. I'm just saying, if he's going to make the claims, he should give the rest of us something more to go on than "I'm an expert and I say so."

The reason we have experts is so we don't have to do all the research ourselves. But when experts have been making these sorts of claims for years and others have been challenging the claims, I figure it's time for them to step and say "here's where it says it, right here in this section, and here's a link." Whoever has done the research should present it -- not just the conclusions, but the text and the reasoning -- so those of us who do care can evaluate it without having to read through the entire set of docs ourselves.

I say this about far more than just the Geneva Conventions; it just so happens that they've been one of the biggest sources of this sort of claim recently. People cite them kind of the same way as others cite the Bible -- like "it's in there, so you have to agree with me, the end." Just really bugs me, that's all.

Anyway, I didn't intend for my one-liner to drag things all the way over here. You just touched on one of my pet peeves.

I was looking for opinions/discussion about legalizing torture.

Well... I think it's questionable as to whether torture is illegal to use against "terrorists" or "insurgents", because I know at least the first 4 GC begin with the assumption that combatants will be in uniform, and I'm not aware of anything that deals with combatants not in uniform. So, I'll reinterpret the question in terms of whether or not torture should be used, but without the presumption that it's already illegal.

In that case... like most moral questions, it depends on a couple of degrees: what's being done ("torture" can mean a number of things from mild to downright brutal) and what's being gained from it?

I come from the school of thought that says all moral questions -- all questions of "should" -- come from values. They're all questions of how much we value certain things over other things, and how we can protect the things we value most. I don't think there are moral absolutes like "you should never torture"; rather, there are things you value -- from your own life to the lives of others to civility -- and the moral thing to do is to try to protect all of those things the best you can.

If you have to sacrifice a little bit of civility and make somebody's room kinda cold so he'll be willing to tell you something that can save a million lives, that's an easy value judgement to make -- of course you "torture" him to save a million people.

If you have to run a guy through the sorts of things Saddam's sons did so he'll tell you something useless, that's also an easy value judgement -- it's simply not worth sacrificing civility or the "moral high ground" for nothing.

So, I suppose it could be said that I'm for reasonable torture when it's expected to be fruitful. I also think it's ironic that I and many others like me have been called "moral absolutists" (in a disgusted tone) by some of the very same people who view torture of any kind as completely off limits. Who's the absolutist again?

[Palzon]

so are you going to take a position here, Lothar, or continue to beat around the bush?

also, i wouldn't mind if any of the pro-torture folks would care to address any of my previous points. i'll even add to the mix.

the senate passing a ban on torture is an empty gesture. just because we pass a ban does not mean torture won't be used. it only means it would be easier to try or convict anyone caught doing it.

now, enter Cheney saying, "don't pass a ban on torture". hmmmm, wonder why...

it makes sense to oppose a torture ban if you're torturing people (or planning to) and you hope to get away with it.

we practice torture and we become the bad guys. we defile everything for which this country stands. we gain nothing since there is no way to tell who is good at resisting and who really doesn't know anything.

we torture and we expose our own troops to a greater threat that they will be tortured if captured. we alienate other nations, those who recognize the immorality of torture - and probably those who don't. we could have no expectation of sympathy from other peoples if we find our own troops tortured. all the wrong that has been done to us would seem justified (edit: to our enemies) by how low we are willing to stoop.

most of all, we should not torture because it is morally wrong. morality is not about consequences. morality is about doing what ought to be done because it is the right thing, not because it leads to a desirable consequence. there is no situation in which toture would be justified.

there are alternatives to physical torture that can be used to obtain information. thoses methods are more humane, and will produce intelligence that is more reliable since it would not be provided under extreme duress.

[Lothar]

so are you going to take a position here, Lothar, or continue to beat around the bush?

"I'm for reasonable torture when it's expected to be fruitful." That's my position.

My hope was that, by giving the principle of protecting different values, everyone here could evaluate for themselves what "reasonable" means in what circumstances. I think it's silly to try to answer with something like "it's OK to use the air conditioner to make people cold, but it's not OK to cough in the general direction of a Koran, unless the target of torture is one of the top 17 guys in AQ, in which case you're allowed exactly 2 coughs and a sneeze." I mean... in general, stuff with no long-term side effects (like, turning the AC off, or making them listen to Vanilla Ice) is probably OK for anyone thought to have any worthwhile information, but I'm glad it's not my job to define exactly how much more "torture" is OK for guys with more information.

To address your previous points:

torture is categorically wrong. if we torture we are no better than the bad guys, we ARE the bad guys.

The word "torture" is pretty broad, and I don't think all things called "torture" are morally equivalent. While it's categorically wrong to send people through the meat grinder feetfirst, it's not categorically wrong to turn the AC to maximum. You're painting with too broad a brush. Further, the ends we're seeking are pretty different from the ends "the bad guys" seek -- kicking somebody's butt for the sake of getting information on when the next attack is planned is different from kicking somebody's butt because you like to hurt people.

torture does not work.

This administration recruits more terrorists for al qaeda than they do personnel for our own armed forces.

I doubt the military would bother with it if it didn't work. If you're right, though, I'm on board with you -- if torture really is ineffective, don't do it.

I also think the number of terrorists is steadily dropping as people become more invested in their communities and more disgusted at the behavior of AQ. The recent bombings in Jordan, and the demonstrations afterwards, are confirmation of that.

morality is not about consequences. morality is about doing what ought to be done because it is the right thing, not because it leads to a desirable consequence.

Where does this ought come from? I contend that it comes from values -- what ought to be done is whatever preserves our values the best. There is no magical ought that says torture is wrong just because; the principle that torture is generally wrong comes from the fact that we value certain living conditions and certain behaviors toward one another. But there are other things we value, like protecting those we love, and those values are sometimes in conflict. When values are in conflict, we must make judgements as to the tradeoff. IMO, the tradeoff is such that sometimes, the best way to protect our values is to engage in some minor torture in order to gain certain types of information. Exactly how much torture for how much information is irrelevant (and, as I said at the start, I'm glad it's not my job to figure it out.)

[Palzon]

i dont have time for a full reply now because it's so late. but two quick points at a glance:

first of all don't be coy. i'm not talking about making someone uncomfortable by turning the AC down. If that fell under torture then most of us who work in office buildings are tortured daily by our employer. i'm talking about fingernails being ripped off, electrodes attached to your balls, seeing your family executed one by one, being hung from a meat hook by piano wire, or generally getting medieval on someone's a$$.

second, i'll give you at least one "magical" ought: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

if the bible is the word of god then the "ought" does not come from values at all. it comes from commandments. god's commandments are not followed for the sake of utility. they are followed because there is a moral imperative to keep god's commandments, and for no other reason. if god commands you to do anything - it is defacto the moral thing.

torture that causes substantial harm as i have suggested is totally inconsistent with probably any deontological code of ethics, which would include christianity. although i think some utilitarians might argue that torture is justified from a consequentialist perspective, i do not think even they could make an airtight case.

but you will never convince me that Christ would ever approve of torture or practice it. so, what would Jesus do? i must have missed the part of the new testament that said it's ok to torture your enemies.

[Palzon]

amen

[Lothar]

i'm not talking about making someone uncomfortable by turning the AC down.

Good thing you've established that, then. Unfortunately, the word "torture" has been so badly misused in some circles that it's no longer safe to assume anything about what people mean by it.

Would you count punching someone in the face as torture? Making them stand all day? Making fun of their mother and/or religion? Are those things OK for use during interrogation? Would you say things that don't cause permanent damage (which are the sorts of "torture" I specifically said are OK) qualify as torture at all? You argued against "things that cause substantial harm", which seems like a pretty similar position to what I took. The difference seems to be that I left the door open for harm in the case that greater harm could be prevented.

i'll give you at least one "magical" ought: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

... any deontological code of ethics, which would include christianity.

But why did Jesus give the golden rule? (I bet that's the last thing you expected me to say!)

It's not as though you do it "just because"... that command, like all others, is based upon some value. At another time, Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is, and He says there are two: love God and love others, and that all other commands come from those. What He really did there is outlined a value system -- love is valued above all other things. (Things like "life", "friendship", and so on are implied by love, so it's a whole value system rather than a single value.)

IMO, deontological and consequential beliefs are not mutally exclusive (which flies in the face of the last few hundred years of philosophy.) Christianity is both -- there is a right set of values, and the right behavior is whatever behavior best protects and enhances those values. In some sense, it is your DUTY to do whatever you think will lead to the best CONSEQUENCES (here, "best" is a measure of how well the value system is being upheld.) Or, stated another way, it's your DUTY to do whatever is best in line with your values, and that often depends on the consequences (see Absolute Morality, and Law as Teacher to see how I explained what I'd developed of this line of reasoning 6 months ago.)

you will never convince me that Christ would ever approve of torture or practice it.

Again, it depends on what you mean by torture and why you're doing it. It also depends on what position you're in -- Christ, not being a part of any military, had no use for torture (though He certainly doesn't shy away from speaking of eternal torment!) Would He approve of certain levels of torture for certain purposes? For the third time, I say, it depends on what you mean by "torture" and what purpose it serves.

Jesus tells you to love your enemies, but He also says to love your neighbor. If your enemy is trying to kill your neighbor, how do you love them both? IMO, it's naive to say "Jesus wouldn't approve of violence" and leave it at that (and let's not forget Jesus used a whip, not a broom, to clean out the temple.) He says to love them both, and it's tough to say whether or not that might require violence in any given circumstance.

------

I've probably managed to shatter a few people's perceptions of me... yeah, that was me, a Mennonite, suggesting violence might be OK sometimes, that morals are not absolute, that Christianity is both consequential and deontological, and (if you followed the link) that lying is sometimes OK. At least you can't say I'm predictable

[woodchip]

So how about we spend time stopping our governments from STARTING WARS? or would you think that to be wasting time?
if we didn't care so much about this stuff, the world would be an absolute ****ing mess with governments doing whatever they wanted.

Tell you what Roidy, convince the terrorist and the govt.'s that harbor them (Syria, Iran) to stop attacking people and I'll start marching on Washington to ban torture. Deal?

[De Rigueur]

I think the biggest problem in this discussion is the term 'torture' because it's such an emotionally charged word and there seems to be gray areas in the concept. Rather than frame the issue as "Are you for or against torture?", I think it would be more fruitful to ask what interrogation techniques should be permitted under what circumstances.

[Lothar]

I think it would be more fruitful to ask what interrogation techniques should be permitted under what circumstances.

x2