Should the US Congress ban torture by Americans

[Maciamo]

First read all this very interesting article, the let's discuss :
The Economist : How to lose friends and alienate people

A few questions :

1) Has the USA joined the black list of poor human rights performers ?

2) Is torture justified to fight terrorism ?

3) Has the abuse of the American soldiers or secret services darken the image of the USA to the world ?

4) Should torture be part of the US president's war powers ?

5) Can government rely on information obtained through torture (based on the assumption that people will say anything under it) ?

 

[Index]

I think torture is a legitimate tool to use on combatants in a war since it may lead to the conflict ending sooner. In my opinion anything goes (regarding non-civilians), although I think torture should be graded to give the subject a chance to talk-this is a matter of humanity. It would be barbaric to use extreme means right from the start, though I believe that they may be applicable in some situations, especially in tandem with manipulation of the subject's perception and thoughts.

As an aside, if the US (as an example) were to ban torture, I don't think its adversaries would suddenly decide that that was a good thing to do and follow their lead-it would just mean the US had one less tool at its disposal. War involves death and killing, and to ban certain aspects of it to appease one's principles (whilst at the same time advocating war in general) is just cynical, self serving, and unfair to the combatants on the ground.

 

[Ardeo]

That this is even a topic of discussion is amazing to me!! (No offense meant Maciamo) Torture and justified do NOT belong in the same sentence...ever. To justify torture of any kind is to deny the basic priniciple that America is supposed to be based on. Turning our backs on the torturing of people for the sake of "obtaining information" is to negate any justification as to our moral ideals.

disgusting.

 

[Index]

That this is even a topic of discussion is amazing to me!![...] Turning our backs on the torturing of people for the sake of "obtaining information" is to negate any justification as to our moral ideals.

disgusting.

Here's a little statement I came across recently that might help you realise how important human values are in state behaviour:

Which state in the contemporary world is it that used nuclear weapons twice, built an entire defence policy around them, and repeatedly threatened and planned their use (in Korea/Iraq)? Which state is it that has gone to war repeatedly without the sanction of the United Nations or even of its own legislature (and therefore in defiance of its own (constitution)? Which state is it that commonly launches assaults on smaller countries that offend it? Which state is it that ignores unfavorable rulings of the International Court of Justice on its actions? Which state is it which continually experiments with new and high-tech ways to maximize enemy pain while minimizing its own casualties, which employed chemical weapons to destroy the forests of Southeast Asia while denying subsequently any obligation to compensate for the losses both human and social that resulted, or most recently used high-tech nuclear weapons (depleted uranium) in Iraq and Yugoslavia, thereby polluting large areas and threatening both present and future generations? Which state is it that in this past year engaged in a war without UN sanction and in violation of the UN Charter during which its forces bombed bridges, a bus, a train, a housing estate, a refugee convoy, and killed some 1000 civilians? Which state is it that in recent decades encouraged fascist and militarist regimes in South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, arming them and assisting their brutal repression of democratic and minority movements? Which state is it that, like prewar Japan, prefers to avoid the use of the word `war’ to describe its many incursions, invasions, interventions, because to declare war would have meant becoming subject to national and international laws?

MCCORMACK, G. Flight From the Violent 20th Century. Japanese Studies, 20(1): 2000: p. 10.

Any guesses on who he's referring to?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Not only do I find the idea of torture repugnant, I also seriously doubt its effectiveness. People will admit to anything to make it stop, IMO.

 

[Index]

Whether it is effective or not depends on how it is done and on the situation, as well as the objectives defined beforehand. Aside from being used to get information overtly, another application is for that on intimidation, by instilling fear and thus cultivating informers who give up information willingly. I think the ethical argument against torture is quite weak because it implies that outright killing is less "wrong" than torture. Firstly, to give up instruments of warfare that your opponent is using, is tactically flawed. Secondly, if carefully planned and executed (no pun intended) torture is applied to prevent further death, than why should it not be justified? There is evidence for and against the efficacy of torture, so the point is to find ways of applying it effectively as an instrument for intelligence gathering, rather than to find more effective ways of torturing per se.

A relatively balanced look at torture: The Philosophers' Magazine Online http://www.philosophersnet.com/cafe/archive_article.php?id=25&name=provocations

 

[Ardeo]

Trying to justify torture by its effectiveness, or lack thereof, is to miss the point entirely.

 

[Index]

Trying to justify torture by its effectiveness, or lack thereof, is to miss the point entirely.

How enlightening of you.

 

[senseiman]

Whether it is effective or not depends on how it is done and on the situation, as well as the objectives defined beforehand. Aside from being used to get information overtly, another application is for that on intimidation, by instilling fear and thus cultivating informers who give up information willingly. I think the ethical argument against torture is quite weak because it implies that outright killing is less "wrong" than torture. Firstly, to give up instruments of warfare that your opponent is using, is tactically flawed. Secondly, if carefully planned and executed (no pun intended) torture is applied to prevent further death, than why should it not be justified? There is evidence for and against the efficacy of torture, so the point is to find ways of applying it effectively as an instrument for intelligence gathering, rather than to find more effective ways of torturing per se.

A relatively balanced look at torture: The Philosophers' Magazine Online http://www.philosophersnet.com/cafe/archive_article.php?id=25&name=provocations

There is no implied finding that killing is less wrong than torture to be found in the argument that torture is wrong. Nobody is saying "Lets just kill these prisoners instead of torturing them, that would be less wrong." or anything to that effect.

There are a lot of arguments to be made against torture. One is the fact as mentioned above that torture doesn't necessarily give you truthful information. Another is that by using torture the US is abandoning its claim to the moral high ground. Political freedom and torture are mutually exclusive concepts.

Then there is the fact that the US isn't going to be able to condemn other regimes for using torture without looking like a hypocrite.

The list goes on and on.

 

[Index]

There is no implied finding that killing is less wrong than torture to be found in the argument that torture is wrong. Nobody is saying "Lets just kill these prisoners instead of torturing them, that would be less wrong." or anything to that effect.

I agree. That is why I am arguing that the moral argument is a moot point. You cannot say that killing is justifiable but anything less (ie. measured torture, which I'm talking about) in terms of permanent lasting damage or lethality is not.

using torture the US is abandoning its claim to the moral high ground[...]US isn't going to be able to condemn other regimes[...]without looking like a hypocrite

Like I said, I think this irrelevant because (a) such arguments are no more than rhetoric; I'm attempting to talk about strategic and political concerns, not propaganda and appeasement of the public. (b) I'm not American in any case.

If you assume that there is an element of idealism or respect for human rights in US foreign policy decision making, then how do you justify Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the carpet bombing that preceeded them, the Vietnam War etc etc etc, or indeed the Iraq invasion? Don't you think the US is hypocritical in its allegations of state sponsored terrorism? I think the US should put itself on that list. My point here is not to criticise the US, but to dispel the idea that morality or human values have much to say in the behaviour of states, especially in war time.

 

[Morfos]

Torture is not only cruel and unusual, it indangers our mission and our status in the world. To support torture would be both inhumane and unpracticle. Only a complete idiot would support torture in any foreign policy. I say no to torture, it causes more harm than it could possibly do good.

 

[Hideki_Matsui_Beast]

One of the main justifications, possibly the only one even close to being valid in my eyes, for invading Iraq is to get the cruel and unjust government of Sadam out of power.

For the United States to then be involved in this horrible torture shows a huge hypocrisy, and could cause the "good guys" in Iraq to do a double-take about who they're looking to for an example of the moral high ground.

I think it's also very telling that John McCain supports ending the torture. He's been there and likely knows what he's talking about.

The fact that the current White House administration ran on a campaign stressing morals and values, and now in any way endorses this torture (like Cheney does) shows what liars and frauds the Bush camp really are.

 

[Clawn]

Aside from the other feats of stupidity by my country, I'd have to say that this one act will stand alone as either the breaking point of our intelligence agencies or the gaining of public trust in the American government.

I am not decided yet on what I think should be done, I think that some forms of torture: public humiliation, mental torture(to a point), or detainment in less than prison-status containment areas may actually be able to extract information and leave the victim relatively unharmed (the whole point of war is to ruff up your enemy). But other forms of torture: like beatings, threatening family/friends, or forcing them to do inhumane acts(such as eating a dead cellmate) should be banned completely.

It all depends heavily on what your definition of torture is and how strongly you feel about it. I believe that congress should be debating over what kinds of torture should be banned, not the whole shebang. Torture ahs been used effectively(and sometimes ineffectively) since the dawn of war and is simply a fact of life for soldiers, if you're caught by the opposing side, you'll be detained and questioned/tortured for information.