Post 9/11 Torture

[NobleSavage]

The thing that bothers me most about our (US) government is the use of torture after 9/11. Secret rendition, black sites, Gitmo, and the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib really disturbed me. I thought my country was better than that. I want my country to set a humanitarian standard for the world. We are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and during the Nuremberg trials we convicted Japanese soldiers of war crimes for water boarding.

The US' practices have encouraged other countries to engage in torture, former UN special rappoteur on torture says

It'd a depressing read:

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/live-news/articles/2014/5/12/war-on-terror-torture.html

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, it does seem to be a backward trend. Though, as time reveals, I'm not sure that the US ever really started playing much nicer. In Iraq’s war with Iran, we provided Iraq logistical and intelligence aid, while turning an intentional blind eye to Iraq’s large scale use of chemical weapons. We now have had two terms of a president reviewing presidential kill lists, and our drones flying with impunity over multiple government-less or cooperative nations that we have gotten into bed with. Now we have had administrations from both parties supporting the much increased internal spying upon our people. And the spy apparatus is better funded than during the cold war. I can't wait for when they feel they need to justify keeping their tens of billions of funded rice bowls from shrinking. The CIA has been the shipping company and purchasing agent for Syrian terrorists, funded by a murky mix of ME nations (the list of nations probably includes Saudi Arabia and Qatar at least). Reminds me a lot of the whole Iran-Contra affair, but for the Congressional law outlawing aiding the Contras. And who knows if the CIA was keeping various Congressional committees informed this time or not. Maybe we’ll get a better understanding of just how dirty US hands were regarding Syria, in 10-20 years…

 

[Bronzeage]

It is almost impossible to prevent a particular practice from being used, when the people in power believe it works. Some rationale will be found, even by the best intended people. The United States does not torture people, so waterboarding is not torture, it's just a way to inflict the sensation and terror of drowning. Not at all like thumb screws or the rack. Then, there's the threat of sending someone to Fuckyouupistan, where they don't have the same high standards as us.

The problem with torture(from the viewpoint of eliminating it) is it that it's so economical. It's costs so little, so any results look like profit. This means the only viable way to end it is to make the torturers bear the real cost of violating the law. Now we pass from the almost impossible to the truly undoable. It would only take one case, but if everyone who engaged in torture, from the guy who poured the water, all the way up to the guy who read the report and signed it, were put on trial and sent to prison, the rationale for torture in the US would dissolve. As I said, impossible.

 

[funinspace]

The problem with torture(from the viewpoint of eliminating it) is it that it's so economical. It's costs so little, so any results look like profit. This means the only viable way to end it is to make the torturers bear the real cost of violating the law. Now we pass from the almost impossible to the truly undoable. It would only take one case, but if everyone who engaged in torture, from the guy who poured the water, all the way up to the guy who read the report and signed it, were put on trial and sent to prison, the rationale for torture in the US would dissolve. As I said, impossible.

Yup. If there hadn't been the financial crisis exploding on the scene around 2008-9, there might have been a small chance in hell of prosecuting a couple people...maybe.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

 

[funinspace]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Well, if one believe one is fighting an 'enemy', targeted drone strikes with Hellfire missiles kills far less innocents, than a dozen B-52's dropping hundreds of 500lb bombs from 30,000ft.

 

[Petrel]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Both are connected.
In international conflict, and in the consolidation of its domestic power, every government engages, more or less frequently, in both over and covert activities of a more or less horrific nature.
How more and how less depends on the government's level of support (legislative power, funding capability, agencies and armed forces available). If their military dictatorship is strong enough, no problem. If the populace approves, no problem.

If the populace has notion of its own moral purity (like modern US, UK and Canada), the activities are kept quiet and used only when necessary. If something happens (or can be made to happen) that scares the populace into compliance, the activities can be conducted more openly and frequently. Once the populace has accepted any such activities as legitimate, they are complicit and will keep supporting a government that carries on such activities in their behalf.
So, that's where we are now. Having allowed it to go on this long, we moan a bit and do nothing.

 

[NobleSavage]

This is a good read about abused that went on at the detention center in Bagram. Some if the soldiers were prosecuted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A documentary was made about the torture at Bagram called Taxi to the Dark Side. It was hard to watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/392225/Taxi-to-the-Dark-Side/overview

 

[funinspace]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Both are connected.
In international conflict, and in the consolidation of its domestic power, every government engages, more or less frequently, in both over and covert activities of a more or less horrific nature.
How more and how less depends on the government's level of support (legislative power, funding capability, agencies and armed forces available). If their military dictatorship is strong enough, no problem. If the populace approves, no problem.

If the populace has notion of its own moral purity (like modern US, UK and Canada), the activities are kept quiet and used only when necessary. If something happens (or can be made to happen) that scares the populace into compliance, the activities can be conducted more openly and frequently. Once the populace has accepted any such activities as legitimate, they are complicit and will keep supporting a government that carries on such activities in their behalf.
So, that's where we are now. Having allowed it to go on this long, we moan a bit and do nothing.

Yup...which is why our govt. defines a dead terrorist, pretty much as any male physically capable of picking up a rifle, as compared to killed civilian/non-combatant. Most Americans blissfully digest this misinformation w/o second thought...

The US government put the wars/occupations on Uncle Sam's credit card, used and abused the purpose of reserves and the National Guard, hired tens of thousands of 'contractors', and avoided a draft; keeping Americans less concerned about what was happening on the other side of the world. Our mainstream media remains compliant resellers of the US politico's war-terror show.

After a dozen years of such insanity, Americans have become somewhat more vocal about not doing such shit all over the world...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Well, if one believe one is fighting an 'enemy', targeted drone strikes with Hellfire missiles kills far less innocents, than a dozen B-52's dropping hundreds of 500lb bombs from 30,000ft.

And blowing up a bank to stop a robbery kills less innocents than nuking the city to stop the robbery. That doesn't make the former somehow more of a moral way to act than the latter.

 

[4321lynx]

The United States does not torture people, so waterboarding is not torture, it's just a way to inflict the sensation and terror of drowning. Not at all like thumb screws or the rack.

I guess (and hope) this is your example of the "some rationale will be found" and not your opinion of waterboarding. If I'm wrong then tell me what's that stuff you're lighting in your avatar?

Waterboarding was torture when the Spanish Inquisition used it and is torture now.

 

[NobleSavage]

The United States does not torture people, so waterboarding is not torture, it's just a way to inflict the sensation and terror of drowning. Not at all like thumb screws or the rack.

I guess (and hope) this is your example of the "some rationale will be found" and not your opinion of waterboarding. If I'm wrong then tell me what's that stuff you're lighting in your avatar?

Waterboarding was torture when the Spanish Inquisition used it and is torture now.

I'm pretty sure that is what Bronzeage meant. That is how I took it anyhow.

 

[funinspace]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Well, if one believe one is fighting an 'enemy', targeted drone strikes with Hellfire missiles kills far less innocents, than a dozen B-52's dropping hundreds of 500lb bombs from 30,000ft.

And blowing up a bank to stop a robbery kills less innocents than nuking the city to stop the robbery. That doesn't make the former somehow more of a moral way to act than the latter.

My point was that if one believes it is a valid occupation/war, then these tactics are not really so bad. War is ugly, and on occasion, it is a reasonable course of action. The number of deaths after a decade of drone wars, is still less than 3,400 even using anti-war sites (see: http://www.livingunderdrones.org/ ). So the civilian count is somewhat less than this. Less randomly killing 'terrorists/combatants' via attack helicopters and assault teams would probably kill far more Afghan and Pakistani non-combatants. Would that be better somehow? The occupation as a whole is what is wrong/not moral, and this occupation is what one should be bothered by. The tactics are only the means towards the goal/plan. Occupations by their very nature tend to be ugly if enough of the population hates you enough...

With that said, I do find the drone use bothersome in how we have started using them in more nations that we have not in any way had Congress authorize funding for, or general approval of such military actions. Pres. Obama has set a really bad precedence for the executive office.

 

[Bronzeage]

The United States does not torture people, so waterboarding is not torture, it's just a way to inflict the sensation and terror of drowning. Not at all like thumb screws or the rack.

I guess (and hope) this is your example of the "some rationale will be found" and not your opinion of waterboarding. If I'm wrong then tell me what's that stuff you're lighting in your avatar?

Waterboarding was torture when the Spanish Inquisition used it and is torture now.

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Given the choice between being water boarded and being stretched on the rack, and no other choice, waterboard me. Both are torture, but waterboarding does not leave permanent crippling injury. When a person seeks rationale, the lesser of two evils is always the first choice.

The point of my post is simple. We will not ever eliminate government inflicted torture until we are willing to punish those who serve us and torture people with the best intentions.

 

[fromderinside]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Fact check !:  Drone attacks in Pakistan

I haven't found information on targeted bombing by pilot or Cruise missile yet. I'm guessing one has to take into account attacks by troops on villagers where Taliban and al Qaeda hold the civilians hostage and the like to get anywhere near Tom Sawyer's numbers.

As for torture, I'm appalled that the US has reverted to war crime tactics like rendition and torture. A step back takes us closer to the slippery slope of barbarism as warfare.

OUr technology advantage is so strong that it is stupid for us to do it to them because "they do it to us" or to "do it to them before they do it to us." I'm thinking drone strikes are a very nice technique if only we can keep the infidels in the hills. When it gets back to rooting bad guys out of skyscrapers and the like with weapons its a very person costly business.

Hopefully we've keep our moral high ground so the cities mostly remain safe.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Fact check !:  Drone attacks in Pakistan

I haven't found information on targeted bombing by pilot or Cruise missile yet. I'm guessing one has to take into account attacks by troops on villagers where Taliban and al Qaeda hold the civilians hostage and the like to get anywhere near Tom Sawyer's numbers.

As for torture, I'm appalled that the US has reverted to war crime tactics like rendition and torture. A step back takes us closer to the slippery slope of barbarism as warfare.

OUr technology advantage is so strong that it is stupid for us to do it to them because "they do it to us" or to "do it to them before they do it to us." I'm thinking drone strikes are a very nice technique if only we can keep the infidels in the hills. When it gets back to rooting bad guys out of skyscrapers and the like with weapons its a very person costly business.

Hopefully we've keep our moral high ground so the cities mostly remain safe.

When was war not barbaric?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

Fact check !:  Drone attacks in Pakistan

I haven't found information on targeted bombing by pilot or Cruise missile yet. I'm guessing one has to take into account attacks by troops on villagers where Taliban and al Qaeda hold the civilians hostage and the like to get anywhere near Tom Sawyer's numbers.

As for torture, I'm appalled that the US has reverted to war crime tactics like rendition and torture. A step back takes us closer to the slippery slope of barbarism as warfare.

OUr technology advantage is so strong that it is stupid for us to do it to them because "they do it to us" or to "do it to them before they do it to us." I'm thinking drone strikes are a very nice technique if only we can keep the infidels in the hills. When it gets back to rooting bad guys out of skyscrapers and the like with weapons its a very person costly business.

Hopefully we've keep our moral high ground so the cities mostly remain safe.

I was including all the people you killed in Iraq. I know that most of them weren't even white, but it's a little too early to completely forget about them.

 

[fromderinside]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

As for torture, I'm appalled that the US has reverted to war crime tactics like rendition and torture. A step back takes us closer to the slippery slope of barbarism as warfare.

When was war not barbaric?

When there are wars, as I suggested, not including torture.

War, is a natural outgrowth of a human morality gap (Pinker) where social beings (us) have different takes on events depending whether they are the perpetrator or the victim.

Barbaric is at one end of a War scale ranging to completely civilized where everybody wants peace and works for it, acceptance circles are universal, etc.

Thanks for asking.

 

[funinspace]

The 335 year war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly was fairly pleasant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years'_War

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that the random killing of tens of thousands of innocent people because they happened to be in the same general area as someone who might have been a terrorist would be a bigger issue that one is bothered by.

As for torture, I'm appalled that the US has reverted to war crime tactics like rendition and torture. A step back takes us closer to the slippery slope of barbarism as warfare.

When was war not barbaric?

When there are wars, as I suggested, not including torture.

War, is a natural outgrowth of a human morality gap (Pinker) where social beings (us) have different takes on events depending whether they are the perpetrator or the victim.

Barbaric is at one end of a War scale ranging to completely civilized where everybody wants peace and works for it, acceptance circles are universal, etc.

Thanks for asking.

You are very welcome.

War is accomplished by killing people and destroying things. We romanticize it and justify it in many ways, because it is so expensive, we have to believe it is worth the cost, or human beings simply could not bring themselves to do it. The people who torture in our name believe they are fighting a war.

The object of any war is to make the other side believe the effort is too expensive, while convincing ourselves it is worth the price. We can argue that the death and injury to those who are not a direct threat to us somehow harms our effort, but we can't argue that it is too great a cost. In war, this is not allowed, because it is the definition of defeat.

As a species, we are not far removed from a time when defeat meant death or slavery for those who managed to live to the end. The idea that people deserve to live(life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) is a fairly modern concept.