Doubleplusgood

I think the aspect of this argument that needs to be addressed is "What constitutes torture."

Are psychological tactics torture? If you do not actually cause physical harm to someone, but make them THINK that you will, is that torture?

In my mind, no.. this is a necessity of interrogation. If the prisoner has no fear of you, there's really no reason they will tell you anything. Especially in cases involving terrorists, because the prisoners know that their own guys WILL kill and torture them if they give up information.

Things like the water board are not torture... Our miltiary uses it on our own guys during training, to harden them against such tactics. Doctors are on hand during the process to make SURE that the prisoner is not harmed.

Humiliation, likewise, is not torture.

Chopping off fingers, breaking bones, physically abusing the prisoners.. that is torture.

That being said, I've got no clue what was actually being conducted in those eastern european prisons.. May have been torture, may not. I'd need more information.

The Convention against Torture defines torture as "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…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures—e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the definition of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain is inflicted, or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not present. It affirms the right of every person not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment include being forced to stand spread eagled against the wall; being subjected to bright lights or blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud noise; being deprived of sleep, food or drink; being subjected to forced constant standing or crouching; or violent shaking. In essence, any form of physical treatment used to intimidate, coerce or "break" a person during an interrogation constitutes prohibited ill-treatment. If these practices are intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures that result in severe pain or suffering, they can qualify as torture.

The prohibition against torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is not limited to acts causing physical pain or injury. It includes acts that cause mental suffering—e.g. through threats against family or loved ones. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, "coercion can be mental as well as physical…the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448, (1966) citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960). As discussed below, the use of mind-altering drugs to compel a person to provide information would at least amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under the Convention against Torture.

Even there though, it's subjective.... What constitutes "severe" psychological harm?

If I give the impression of impending physical harm, is that severe mental harm?

If I keep asking you the same question over and over, is that severe harm?

At some level, if you consider everything to be torture, then it's impossible to actually interrogate anyone. Do you expect people to just ask the terrorist questions once, have him say, "I'm not telling." and then just give up?

One of the chief important things in today's news-delivery environment is such a wide net of aggregation and presentation of headlines, so what is "current" quickly is brought to the forefront and can be crosschecked with other sources for an overall picture of consistency across large entities such as legislative bodies and jumbo corporations.

Let's take a worst case scenerio. "Dad" is suspected of being a "terrorist" by the US govt. He is not. He is picked up off the street, and taken away for possibly the rest of his life. Thinking he is hiding something, he gets waterboarded and the interrogators tell him his daughter will be killed unless he talks. He knows nothing, so he says nothing. Rinse repeat daily until he dies or the Govt is satisfied he knows nothing. We don't know how long this goes on or where the burden of proof of this detention is..

That would indeed be a tragedy. Let's add a spin to your story....

Let's take a best case scenerio. "Dad" is suspected of being a "terrorist" by the US govt. He is. He is picked up off the street, and taken away for possibly the rest of his life. Thinking he is hiding something, he gets waterboarded and the interrogators tell him his daughter will be killed unless he talks. He says nothing. Rinse repeat daily until he admits to being part of a plot to dirty bomb a large public gathering in a major city, near your home. He turns in his partners in the conspiracy. The attack would have easily cost 25,000 people's lives and destroy your nation's economy. The attack is averted due to the intelligence gathered.

That would indeed be a tragedy. Let's add a spin to your story....

Let's take a best case scenerio. "Dad" is suspected of being a "terrorist" by the US govt. He is. He is picked up off the street, and taken away for possibly the rest of his life. Thinking he is hiding something, he gets waterboarded and the interrogators tell him his daughter will be killed unless he talks. He says nothing. Rinse repeat daily until he admits to being part of a plot to dirty bomb a large public gathering in a major city, near your home. He turns in his partners in the conspiracy. The attack would have easily cost 25,000 people's lives and destroy your nation's economy. The attack is averted due to the intelligence gathered.

So we have come to the whole "Ends justify the means" argument...

In that scenario, did not the ends justify the means?

In that scenario, did not the ends justify the means?

That would indeed be a tragedy. Let's add a spin to your story....

Let's take a best case scenerio. "Dad" is suspected of being a "terrorist" by the US govt. He is. He is picked up off the street, and taken away for possibly the rest of his life. Thinking he is hiding something, he gets waterboarded and the interrogators tell him his daughter will be killed unless he talks. He says nothing. Rinse repeat daily until he admits to being part of a plot to dirty bomb a large public gathering in a major city, near your home. He turns in his partners in the conspiracy. The attack would have easily cost 25,000 people's lives and destroy your nation's economy. The attack is averted due to the intelligence gathered.

So your saying that its worth it sacrificing this mans and his families life on the chance he might be a "terrorist," even though the US govt is under no obligation to produce evidence to substantiate itself, or in fact, records for what they have done and who they have done them to?

Are you saying that one possibly innocents life means nothing when it is possible 25,000 would be saved (even tho 25,000 dead from a dirty bomb is a ridiculous number)?

Is that because he is brown, muslim, or both?

The sacrifice of freedoms and accountability will not now nor ever be justified by simple loss of life. If people are willing to die in numbers greater than those stated for the sake of procuring and securing a just society, it is a dishonor to those who have so died to dismantle that society on a "maybe he's a terrorist, and we can't take that chance."

I will ignore the fact that you are trying to call me a racist and point out that in my hypothetical story, it was indeed a terrorist.

ok, lets spin this, lets say this guy is utterly destroyed for the "interogations" or to protect the life of his daughter, so he lies and accuses someone else (person #2) of terrorism in hopes that the torture will end and his daughter will live and he can get back on with his life (torture often produces situations where the victims tell the torturers what they want to hear to make the pain stop, whether or not it is true)

So now, a second innocent, person #2 is plucked off the street and sent to who knows where and missing from his familiy and tortured becaused the coerced confession of person #1 gave the govt the "intel" they needed to stop this terrorist.

Now we have 2 innocents being tortures and wiped from exsistence, and no "dirty bomb"

ok, so maybe 2 vs 25,000 in your head is OK, so what happens when person #2 gets tired of being tortured and tells the govt person #3 is a terrorist, even tho he is not?

Also, may I draw your attention to

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

9/11 killed approx 3000 US citiznes

are we fucking even yet?