Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[Adept]

I dont know if I can entirely agree with that. At some point we have to decide that something is "wrong". Relativism is a cheap way to sublimate a lot of evil stuff. Who were we to say Hitler was "wrong".....

Of course we have to decide what is wrong. But we should also remember that it is a personal choice. We can decide what we think is wrong, but should always bear in mind that other people will decide differently. We had no authority to tell Hitler he was wrong. We decided that he was, and made a stand, but there is no objective omniscient third party to verify our claims that we were 'right'.

We cant tell others what "to think" but we should stand by what we belive to be right and fight what we believe to be wrong. Anybody of signifigance does that. The world is full of a lot of wishy washy nobodies who never made a stand on anything.....

I agree completely.

 

[Adept]

there are indeed some moral choices which are not relative, but absolute.

Such as?

One is a bit shocked to see someone of a conservative/right-wing political bent adopting precisely the notion of complete moral relativism that is so often attributed to leftists.

I wouldn't call myself right wing or conservative. I hold some right wing views, and some left wing views.

But then, he's made his moral principles quite clear: anything is justified in terms of expediency and personal interest.

Not quite. Anything is justified, provided it achieves the desired goals. You are reading personal interest into that, which is not the case. Desired goals may be anything from saving lives, providing charity, defending myself or another, finding the remote control, anything. As a matter of fact, an honest self evaluation will reveal the same tendencies in your own moral and ethical codes. One only does that which pleases them. Please, take the time to analyze that beyond its obviously selfish approach. That which pleases you. Does helping a friend please you? Being nice to a stranger? Cleaning the house? Giving a gift? Spending time with friends? We do not choose the least pleasing option. Indeed, it is not possible to do so. Everyone has a reason for their actions, no matter how inexplicable they may seem.

Indeed, the moral precepts of martial arts are to him a bunch hot air.

Not at all. And I'll ask you to refrain from character attacks if you please. Moral codes are the things I use to decide personally what is right and wrong. I simply do not arrogantly assume that my morals should be those of everyone else.

Odd, given that whatever else Bruce Lee's films make clear, it is that violence--and victory--always rest upon decency, upon honor, upon choosing the morally-correct side.

Actually, they usually revolve around pride and revenge. My style is better than your style, you beat up my school first...

Regrettably, this country has gone around deliberately bombing civilians on more than one occasion in the last century or so. Try an Internet search on the following topics: "Colonel Chivington," "Dresden;" "Tokyo Fire Raids, 1944," "Bach Mai Hospital," "Christmas bombings, Vietnam," and a few others. No doubt you will simply rationalize them away as regrettable military necessities. But others of us prefer Freeman Dyson's analysis of the relationships between mass bombing and industrial productivity to illusions.

In the past, yes it has. This does not mean it happens today. In the past, the US waged war on the native americans. Times change and the morals of today are not those of yesterday. What is your point? The accidental bombing of civilian targets in Iraq is not really an accident at all? The US likes to spend thousands of dollars in munitions and man hours to alienate the civilian populace of a country it occupies? It was a mistake. Maybe you want to play it into some kind of under-cover conspiracy, but I would consider such a course of action to be foolish.

"Intel." Ah, the deployment of pseudo-technical language in support of torture!

Or perhaps it is simply shorter than the longhand 'Intelligence'.

But then too, the explicit justification offered by our government and part of our military was that "physical coercion," at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, was essential to collecting intelligence. Perhaps it would be as well to read up on the arguments of one's own side, before attempting to justify them...

When it works, then it works. But I was discussing the specific actions of abuse at Abu Ghraib, not legitimate interrogation tactics.

As for the claim that it's all just differences of opinions, well, congrats on being so realistic that dumping every moral tenet seems reasonable.

You are reading too much into my posts. I DO have my own morals, which I try my best to live by. They are very likely different to yours, and I am also not so conceited as to assume everyone should hold similar moral views.

Let me try and answer your question: torture is wrong because a) it never really works; b) it antagonizes the attacked population; c) it corrupts the torturers and their society; d) it violates all the moral rules there are; e) it is against the explicit, repeatedly-stated positions of this country as well as the Geneva Accords. Note: neither our Constitution nor the Hague accords offer exceptions for the fifth-graders' excuses of, "Hey, THEY did it first!!"

So, torture is wrong when it fulfills any number of the above requirements. Lets take a hypotheitcal situation here;

You have captured a group of insurgents in Iraq. Discovered with them was sensitive intelligence that indicates a large scale serious attack on US forces within the next 48 hours. You dont know when, and you dont know where, and you dont know how. This attack could kill hundreds of soldiers. If you take these insurgents into a small back room and use the most effective methods possible (chemical treatment, psychological torture, physical torture, I'm not an expert on the matter so I dont know what would work), to extract the necessary information to save the lives of your soldiers, is that wrong? Or to be more precise, is it more wrong than letting the soldiers be killed?

To recap:

1 - This is likely to extract information of a good quality.

2 - The attacked population will never know. They will not be antagonised.

3 - This is unlikely to corrupt the people involved. State sanctioned executioners do not become mass murderers, nor does it corrupt the country in question, it is an isolated incident.

4 - It is not against the morals of the torturers, since it is the lesser of two evils.

5 - It is not against the Geneva accords. It is likely still illegal as we've seen at AG, but not a war crime.

Again, most of the prisoners at AG are not prisoners of war. While the actions taken are most likely illegal, they are not against the Geneva convention.

Is it still wrong to torture someone if it leads to saving more lives? What if torture could have prevented or minimsed the 9/11 attacks? Are the lives of a few terrorists worth more than 3,000 civilians?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Good Lord. You're not actually reading what's written, are you?

Among other indicators, you might try re-reading the part in which there was an explanation of the pronoun, "we," which went like this: "{One} Used, "we," because one suspects that all of us are equally guilty, on some level, of these same arguments and logics. The hope of religion, and the hope of martial arts, is that there are better ways." It might've been better if you'd read carefully before writing, "As a matter of fact, an honest self evaluation will reveal the same tendencies in your own moral and ethical codes," but now will do.

The examples and reasonings you give are rather well summarized by your claims that, "Anything is justified, provided it achieves the desired goals," together with, "We had no authority to tell Hitler he was wrong. We decided that he was, and made a stand, but there is no objective omniscient third party to verify our claims that we were 'right'."

It isn't merely that this is a....let's just say absolutist rejection of every moral code there is, including those of all martial arts. It's that this sort of absurd distortion of what is sometimes mistakenly read as the "situational ethics," arguments of post-modern and deconstructive philosophy legitimates absolutely any and all behavior, including that of Hitler. After all, he only wanted a happy human race and a unified world.

The moral examples given are equally out of whack. To cite only the two most obvious illogicalities. a) arguing that "necessary," torture is perfectly in agreement with the moral codes of American soldiers, "because it is the lesser of two evils," is an insult to those soldiers. (Find out who Ronald H. Ridenour is, and get back to us.). b) Arguing that, "State sanctioned executioners do not become mass murderers, nor does it corrupt the country in question, it is an isolated incident," presumes that this will only happen once and rests on obvious ignorance of history. (Find out who Reynhard Heydrich was, and get back to us.)

As for the arguments that the only Bad Things our military and politicians ever did in our names Were A Long Time Ago, find out a bit about Ollie North's career and get back to us.

Torture violates both the letter and spirit of the Geneva Accords, as well as the UCMJ. Ask the poor stupid bastards who are presently on trial. And the argument that it's all OK because "they," were Enemy Combatants! If anything betrays an utter naivete about accepting what the Powers That Be say, however much one pretends to cynicism and worldly pragmatism...

It's Freud's bucket joke, once more: Can I have back the bucket you borrowed? Well, a) I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back last wekk, and anyway it had a hole in the bottom when you loaned it to me.

 

[Adept]

For the purposes of discussion, I shall snip irrelevant text from your post.

[snip]

arguing that "necessary," torture is perfectly in agreement with the moral codes of American soldiers, "because it is the lesser of two evils," is an insult to those soldiers.

I disagree. It is simply an observation. When faced with a difficult choice, one should endeavour to choose the less 'evil' choice. How is this insulting?

[snip]

Arguing that, "State sanctioned executioners do not become mass murderers, nor does it corrupt the country in question, it is an isolated incident," presumes that this will only happen once and rests on obvious ignorance of history.

It was a hypothetical siutation. Which, by the by, you ignored in terms of counter-arguments.

As for the arguments that the only Bad Things our military and politicians ever did in our names Were A Long Time Ago, find out a bit about Ollie North's career and get back to us.

The US military does not deliberately go out of its way to bomb lower class weddings in third world countries. This might be hard for you to comprehend, since you seem to be hanging on to this point for grim death. Why would they? Why would the crusades (of all inane examples, really) be an indicator of the modern military deliberately bombing a wedding?

Well, you had a long post there. Too bad most of it was irrelevant rhetoric.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Russert:* Let me show you a picture of a United States soldier holding an Iraqi prisoner by a dog leash.* That, too, is seen around the world.* This morning, Seymour Hersh reports, "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq.* ...* According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operations, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

Your reaction.

Powell:* I haven't read the article and I don't know anything about the substance of the article.* I've just seen a quick summary of it, so I will have to yield to the Defense Department to respond.* And I think the initial response from the Defense Department is that there is no substance to the article, but I will have to yield to the Defense Department to handle any further comment, Tim.

Russert:* But, Mr. Secretary, Newsweek reports that on January 25, 2002, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a memo to your department which said, "In my judgment, this new paradigm of terrorism renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitation on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions, the Geneva Accords."* And it is reported that you hit the roof when you saw that memo to scale back, in effect, on the rules governing the treatment of prisoners.* Is that accurate?

Powell:* I don't recall the specific memo and I wouldn't comment on the specific memo without rereading it again.* But I think I have always said that the Geneva Accord is an important standard in international law, and we have to comply with it, either by the letter, if it's appropriate to those individuals in our custody that they are really directly under the Geneva Convention, or if they're illegal non-combatants and not directly under the convention, we should treat them nevertheless in a humane manner in accordance with what is expected of us by international law and the Geneva Convention.

Russert:* Mr. Secretary, you met with the International Red Cross on January 15.* In February, they released their report which said that, amongst the other allegations, male prisoners were forced to wear women's underwear; prisoners were beaten by coalition forces, in one case leading to death; coalition forces firing on unarmed prisoners.* And then in May, you and others in the administration said you were "shocked" by the allegations about U.S. forces' treatment of Iraqi prisoners.* Didn't you have a heads-up on this whole problem?

Powell:* In January, when I met with the head of the International Committee for the Red Cross, Mr. Kellenberger, he said to me that a report would be coming and it would outline some serious problems with respect to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.* We were aware of that within the administration.* He also met with Dr. Rice and with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

And then in early February, the actual report was presented to our authorities out in Baghdad, both to Ambassador Bremer's office and to General Sanchez's office.* By then, of course, an investigation was already under way as a result of a soldier coming forward in the middle of January and outlining specific cases of abuse, and so an investigation was well under way by time the report was made available in February to the command.* I first saw the report in March when it was made available eventually to us in Washington.

Russert:* But you're a military man.* Do you believe that national reservists would go to Baghdad with hoods or dog leashes and actually undertake that kind of activity without it being devised by someone higher up?

Powell:* I wouldn't have believed that any American soldiers would have done any such thing, either on their own volition or even if someone higher up had told them.* I'm not aware of anybody higher up telling them.* But that's why Secretary Rumsfeld has commissioned all of these inquiries to get to the bottom of it.

What these individuals did was wrong, was against rules and regulations.* It was against anything they should have learned in their home, in their community, in their upbringing.* So we have a terrible collapse of order that took place in that prison cell block.* Let's not use this to contaminate the wonderful work being done by tens of thousands of other young American soldiers in Iraq.* We'll get to the bottom of this.* Justice will be served.

The command responded promptly.* Court-martials are already scheduled.* And I know that the president wants to make sure that we follow the chain of accountability up to see if there was anybody above these soldiers who knew what was going on, or in any way created a command climate in which such activities might in some bizarre way be found acceptable.* They were not acceptable in any way.* And one soldier stood up and said, "I know this is wrong," reported it to his chain of command, and the chain of command responded the very next day with the launching of an investigation that became the General Taguba investigation.

There is an excellent legal opinion from the Congressional Legal Service downloadable at http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32395.pdf

Sexual torture. Beating prisoners to death. Firing on unarmed prisoners. Guess one's gonna have to go with what our prospective Attorney General refers to as the, "quaint," provisions of the Geneva Accords. Or with what a know-nothing veteran like Colin Powell has to say.

Eeew, gross, dude.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Not at all. And I'll ask you to refrain from character attacks if you please. Moral codes are the things I use to decide personally what is right and wrong. I simply do not arrogantly assume that my morals should be those of everyone else.

Then please explain what you meant by "the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric."

As for accuracy of torture as a means of finding out information, what the hell happens if, in desperation, the tortured prisoner lies? In your example, he could simply say the attack's gonna hit New York instead of Atlanta, and we'd be completely clueless until it's too late. At best, torture only guarantees that the victim will give a response.

 

[Adept]

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operations, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

Your reaction.

My first reaction is that not enough information is revealed to judge the responsibility of the Pentagon. What guidelines were in place? Were said guidelines violated? Has the nature and goal of this program been undeniably verified? Were any results garnered? Could results have been reasonably expected? Was the program developed with the aid of qualified medical and psychological practitioners?

On a related note - I do not consider sexual humiliation to be serious abuse in this case, and I would need to see the operational definition of physical coercion before I could comment on its use. I doubt they mean flaying alive and tearing out fingernails, however.

Sexual torture. Beating prisoners to death. Firing on unarmed prisoners. Guess one's gonna have to go with what our prospective Attorney General refers to as the, "quaint," provisions of the Geneva Accords. Or with what a know-nothing veteran like Colin Powell has to say.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The actions at AG were regretable. Once, a prisoner was beaten, which resulted in his death. Some prisoners were made to wear womens underwear (oh the horror). The actions may or may not have been initiated deliberately by the military command. Like I said at the start, given what they do to our prisoners, I find it hard to care that we do this to an isolated few of theirs. It happened, it was regretable, and now its past.

 

[Adept]

Then please explain what you meant by "the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric."

Depending on the art you get things from "Violence is always wrong" to "Always respect your parents" "Always respect your teacher" "Uphold the laws of the country and always be courteous"

I give respect to those I feel deserve it. I obey the laws I feel are just, or those I fear the penalty for. I live my life as I see fit, not some warrior living hundreds of years ago on the opposite side of the globe.

As for accuracy of torture as a means of finding out information, what the hell happens if, in desperation, the tortured prisoner lies? In your example, he could simply say the attack's gonna hit New York instead of Atlanta, and we'd be completely clueless until it's too late. At best, torture only guarantees that the victim will give a response.

Chemical sweating and sleep deprivation produce more reliable results than burning someones eyes with a hot poker. You might get wrong information, but what if you get the right information? What if it does save those hundreds of lives? You just dont know. Which risk will you take? I dont think it is fair to say torture is always wrong. It is fair, IMHO to say it is often counter-productive, but it is not ALWAYS wrong.

 

[michaeledward]

It is fair, IMHO to say it is often counter-productive, but it is not ALWAYS wrong.

However, at the current time, under current law, it is always illegal.

It seems to me also, that you are imposing your culture system and beliefs onto the detainees to determine the appropriateness of their response.

"Ooo, they were made to wear womens' underwear ....or masturbate in front of each other and women ....Hell, in New Orleans people pay top dollar to see that." (no offense intended to New Orleansians).
​

However, much like North Americans' who can not concieve of canine meat as edible. If an American soldier was captured and forced to consume dog meat, many would find that abusive in the extreme. Or so I think.

 

[Tgace]

I agree, torture is wrong. Unlike a civil case though, I see no problem using info gained for military/intelligence purposes even if the soldiers involved are convicted. I wouldnt allow it to be used against the victim for incarceration purposes.

 

[Adept]

However, at the current time, under current law, it is always illegal.

And as Kaith hastened to point out earlier in the thread, the law does not always mirror morality. To whit, just because it is legal does not make it right, and just because it is illegal does not make it wrong.

It seems to me also, that you are imposing your culture system and beliefs onto the detainees to determine the appropriateness of their response.

To a certain extent, I suppose that is true. I have little time for religious fanatics of any stripe. "Oh, I can't eat pork or God will send me to hell!". But I'm more concerned with physical well being. Being made to wear womens underwear, or the threat of having a dog bite you, is hardly torture when compared to having your teeth pulled, or your eyes burned out.

Or so I think.

If I was captured by muslim extremists, I would consider myself very, very lucky to escape with only having had to eat a dog.

 

[michaeledward]

It happened, it was regretable, and now its past.

While the events of Abu Ghraib did indeed happen in the past, and while it might be difficult to draw a direct line from that incident to this, it is not unreasonable to think that these two activities are in some way linked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6657943/

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Islamic militants threw explosives at the gate of the heavily guarded U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, then forced their way into the building, prompting a gunbattle in a bold assault that left seven people dead and several injured before the three-hour long crisis was brought under control.

The laws of unintended consequences are so difficult to predict.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Precisely because an Iraqi prisoner does not have the same background as an American or Aussie, being made to wear women's underwear, or being set upon by dogs, holds a great deal more symbolism and resultant psychological distress.

Since when did we get to be so noble that since we are not doing horrible physical things to people (blinding; beheading; electrocutions), we suddenly have the moral superiority?

Moral relativism is not simpatico with throwing away the Geneva Convention, I'm sorry. We agreed to act in a certain way, and we didn't.

I would like to remind folks that as a general rule, torture does not "work" - if you damage a person enough, any information "extracted" may be totally useless.

It's morally abhorrent (relatively or absolutely), it's counterproductive to intelligence efforts, and it certainly has made international relations 1,000 times more difficult now.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One can agree that moral codes that do not rest on some concept of a Deity are difficult to justify, without throwing out the idea of any solid moral code whatsoever. And a repeat: the problem with this sort of, "whatever it takes to get the job done," because, "only the product matters," logic is that it is directly borrowed from the notions of Taylorism advanced throughout capitalism, which has always maintainted that only efficiency in the production of capital matters.

In other words, this, "pragmatic," and, "utilitarian," argument isn't nearly as independent-minded as the poster appears to believe.

As for not goving a tarhootie what some long-dead warrior thinks, and trivializing the moral principles of martial arts--as well as misunderstanding Bruce Lee's movies--well, that's symptomatic of a basic issue in martial arts today, and probaably always has been. Folks fundamentally misunderstand what they're trying to lean: they think it's just technique, just power, just the ability to beat everybody else up. Whatever divisions may appear in the arts--or Lee's movies, for that matter--moral principles are reiterated again and again and again. In fact, the classic story arc for a martial arts movie depends on either a) someone merely powerful discovering the true art; b) someone discovering the true art and remembering their past just in time to beat the merely powerful, evil opponent.

And one must say that it is always interesting to see moral mission creep. First, Americans did no wrong. Then, the wrongs were trivial; now, yes indeed, beating a prisoner or so to death or shooting unarmed prisoners is bad, but just a few isolated incidents. All papered over with a claim that Any Other Bad Stuff was far in the past (1968? 1980s? 1991? long, long ago....vanished in history) or in fact never happened and even if it did it wasn't all that big a deal.

But hey, if you have no problems with your government devising, announcing on TV, and carrying out a systematic program of torture--and again, cut the crap; it's torture, even if we assume that "nothing worse," happened that what we know about for sure--what can one say? Other than congrats on rediscovering Hitler's logic...

 

[Flatlander]

I agree, torture is wrong. Unlike a civil case though, I see no problem using info gained for military/intelligence purposes even if the soldiers involved are convicted. I wouldnt allow it to be used against the victim for incarceration purposes.

The problem I have with that is that the information itself is corrupted. How can you trust that information? It's given under duress, and can quite possibly be exactly what you want to hear, regardless of fact value.

 

[Adept]

Precisely because an Iraqi prisoner does not have the same background as an American or Aussie, being made to wear women's underwear, or being set upon by dogs, holds a great deal more symbolism and resultant psychological distress.

And as I have made quite clear, their psychological stress means next to nothing to me. I consider it a direct, and not entirely out of order, reaction to their decision to take up arms against the coalition. You do the crime, you do the time. Not everyone will agree with me, but that is my view.

Moral relativism is not simpatico with throwing away the Geneva Convention, I'm sorry. We agreed to act in a certain way, and we didn't.

The Geneva Convention is not relevant in this case. The Iraqi insurgents are not following its rules, and are not protected by them. Yes, it is still illegal, but it does not violate the GC.

I would like to remind folks that as a general rule, torture does not "work" - if you damage a person enough, any information "extracted" may be totally useless.

It's morally abhorrent (relatively or absolutely), it's counterproductive to intelligence efforts, and it certainly has made international relations 1,000 times more difficult now.

The crux of the issue here are the underscored words. As a general rule, I agree. However, I'm prepared to admit there may be cases where torture (and remember this includes chemical treatment, which is very effective, sleep deprivation which can also be very effective, and other psychological techniques) could be very useful, and save lives.

 

[Adept]

The laws of unintended consequences are so difficult to predict.

Indeed. And as regrettable as the actions in Jiddah are, I'm not seeing a spike in islamic terrorist action against the west, and definately not seeing the race-war you predicted earlier.

which has always maintainted that only efficiency in the production of capital matters.

In other words, this, "pragmatic," and, "utilitarian," argument isn't nearly as independent-minded as the poster appears to believe.

I do not claim it to be 'new thinking' or anything so inane. Pragmatism and utilitarianism are as old as humanity itself.

they think it's just technique, just power, just the ability to beat everybody else up.

Martial arts and morality should be seperated, IMHO. It is only the more esoteric eastern martial arts that make such a fuss over morality. You see none of it in western martial arts, or modern MMA.

In fact, the classic story arc for a martial arts movie depends on either a) someone merely powerful discovering the true art; b) someone discovering the true art and remembering their past just in time to beat the merely powerful, evil opponent.

Yes indeed. How this points to living a moral life or moral 'superiority' is beyond me. Usually the motives are pride and revenge.

And one must say that it is always interesting to see moral mission creep. First, Americans did no wrong. Then, the wrongs were trivial; now, yes indeed, beating a prisoner or so to death or shooting unarmed prisoners is bad, but just a few isolated incidents. All papered over with a claim that Any Other Bad Stuff was far in the past (1968? 1980s? 1991? long, long ago....vanished in history) or in fact never happened and even if it did it wasn't all that big a deal.

Lets look at what was actually said - the abuse at AG was wrong because it set back the cause of the coalition in Iraq. I couldn't give a hang-stuff it they forced the Iraqi prisoners to eat pork and whip each other with electrical cords. Shooting at unarmed prisoners (AT, not killing them, just shooting at them), making them wear womens clothes, threatening to let a dog bite them... I could care more. Really.

Then you brought up the incident of the wedding being bombed. I claimed it to be an accident (although this idea still seems repellent to you) and you then cited incidents of civilians being killed in the past. Obviously because the crusaders killed civilians, that clearly indicates that the US military in Iraq deliberately decides to waste thousands of dollars in killing a few civilians in the rural areas of third world countries. Why, the fire bombing of Dresden makes it so obvious that the US is deliberately car-bombing the Iraqi civilians and making it look like the work of Iraqi insurgents.

Oh no, wait. Thats actually a really stupid conclusion to draw.

and again, cut the crap; it's torture

Hey, lets keep it civil. What one man calls assault another calls, well, not assault. You can call sleep deprivation 'torture' if you want, but I think you are devaluing good old boiling in oil and flaying alive.

I would not be comfortable with a government backed program of torture. Legitimate interrogation techniques, yes. Actual physical torture with pliers and hot pokers, no. Because actual physical torture is a limited tool. Its negative impacts are potentially much larger than its potential benefits. I would like to have a law that made torture legal when it is required, however.

 

[Tgace]

The problem I have with that is that the information itself is corrupted. How can you trust that information? It's given under duress, and can quite possibly be exactly what you want to hear, regardless of fact value.

Well, any intelligence officer worth his salt is only going to move on info. that has been verified by other sources. If what the prisoner said "fits" with other intell. then its stronger than something never heard before....

 

[heretic888]

Martial arts and morality should be seperated, IMHO. It is only the more esoteric eastern martial arts that make such a fuss over morality. You see none of it in western martial arts, or modern MMA.

No offense, Adept, but that attitude is probably part of the problem here.

I can also speak from experience that it is a major shortcoming among many a martial artist. Especially with those involved in sport-style competitions, there can be a tendency to behave like a bunch of drunken fratboys given a new toy. Only problem is that this new toy is their hands and feet.

I personally believe a martial art that does not instill the warrior spirit --- encompassing such quaint little "esoteric eastern" stuff like compassion, humility, discipline, honor, common decency --- in its adherents isn't worth the time of day.

Just my opinion. Of course. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Oh, and regarding the whole torture thingy...

I suggest some of you do a little reading on the psychological studies that have been devoted to this subject. Entailing both the reliability of info acquired under torture (guess what? it ain't) --- and the state of mind used to justify torture.

Oh, and on a side note --- if your only real concern about the Abu Graihb incident is that it "hurts national security" (i.e., makes us look bad to the other 90% of the democractic world that abhors torture), then you may perhaps be in need for some valuable introspection.