The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Torture is never legal and didn’t lead America to bin Laden > Comments

Torture is never legal and didn’t lead America to bin Laden : Comments

By Marjorie Cohn, published 16/5/2011

The assassination of Osama bin Laden has rekindled the discourse about the efficacy and legality of torture.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The British talking about humane practises in Northern Island ... you have got to be kidding.

One of the great unwritten about 'secrets' of the Northern Island campaign is that the British embarked on a secret campaign of IRA leadership murders. That apparently forced the remaining IRA leadership, Adams et el to seriously adopt a peaceful solution.

Given the sectarian rumblings that are again starting to fester it might prove to be only effective in the short term.

I agree with the evidence torture isn't very effective.
Posted by keith, Monday, 16 May 2011 9:40:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Treaties are not the supreme law of the land. Treaties themselves are not the law of the land even when they are ratified. In the US Congress must pass ennabling legislation to make treaties part of the law of the land.

However, torture is illegal by US law. The US Constitution in the Eighth Amendment forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." That outlaws torture regardless of what treaties the US signs.
Posted by david f, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:13:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if torture had led the US troops to Osama bin Laden it does not justify it's use. The death of bin Laden was symoblic more than anything else, his death will do nothing to support counter-terrorism efforts except perhaps symbolically on the domestic front.

Given Islamic terrorist groups are splintered and spread across the globe, bin Laden's death does not make an iota of difference particularly if there are no meaningful changes to current US foreign policy, nor does it mean terrorism will be brought to an abrupt halt. In the short-term there may be some backlash in the form of reprisals.

The fact is torture does not work, it generally provides false and misleading information. Mostly it is a cruel and inhumane act and is justifiably illegal. The US agreement to the treaty is meaningless in view of the claims of involvement in the practice of rendition.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if 'civilized' folk have to resort to torture and human rights violations to ensure their safety and liberty, then they're in bed with the barbarians and their 'civilization' isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Posted by SHRODE, Monday, 16 May 2011 1:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what if we "used" to torture? Does that make us uncivilized?

There was a school of torture and interrogation techniques in Adelaide during the Vietnam war. It probably was around well before that as I remember reading a memoir of someone who fought in the Emergency in Malaya, who was a graduate of the school.

Times change, you do what you think you can get away with at the time to protect your country and troops, or whomever you are fighting for.

People do desperate things when country family and friends are in danger. I think it really depends on the circumstances.

To say it doesn't work, hmmm .. I think journalists and human rights lawyers get told all manner of things that may or may not be true and then again they may construe things the way they want to hear them.

Torture works if the person getting tortured gives information that is useful. To straight up say it doesn't work, is and unreliable statement. You are going to get garbage at times, if people think it will genuinely stop whatever the threat is.

Do we, Australians still do it? Well I guess it depends on when interrogation crosses some line, that can change depending on times. Even police interrogate .. harshly, is that torture? Is making threats torture, or a valid "technique"?

Not all torture has to be physical .. does it? The family court frequently listens to claims of mental or physical torture.
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 16 May 2011 2:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it depends on how one defines torture.

According to Cardinal Newman, 'A gentleman is one who never causes pain."

So in that respect, I suppose we're all of us uncivilized barbarians because we all resort to causing pain to others at some time or other to get our own way. None of us can claim to be 'gentlemen.'
Posted by SHRODE, Monday, 16 May 2011 2:31:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Truly the death of Bin Laden will NOT stop terrorism, but he did deserve to die. I don't care if he was guilty of planning the September 11 attacks or not, by claiming them he wrote his doom. As to his being unarmed when shot? What percentage of the people on the aircraft on that day or in the buildings they flew into, were unarmed? In short, who cares? Honestly, Bin Laden would not have been taken prisoner if he'd been spotted having a Latte in Melbourne (Hmmm, bad example perhaps)....

As to stopping Muslim extremists, that is precisely how it is done, one or more bits of lead or steel to the head. He is now an ex-muslim extremist, that cannot be denied. If each and every one is treated precisely the same way, then it will be over pretty soon. India will help and they have almost as many soldiers as China.

May he rot deep in the ocean (in the belly of the crabs ie.non-halal) and let us pray that he cannot get to Allah...
Posted by Custard, Monday, 16 May 2011 3:58:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers may be interested in the summary and links below. Zombie typists might show some evidence that they have read the article, before justifying torture on those not among the undead.

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/articles/allen-keller-iacopino-science.html

"Bad Science Used to Justify and Support Torture and Human Experimentation"

"Article Shows that the US Government Used Bad Science to Commit and Conceal Torture

"PHR Medical Experts Published in Science Magazine
In an article published by the journal Science, PHR experts Dr. Scott Allen, Dr. Allen Keller, and Dr. Vince Iacopino show that the Bush administration relied on flawed science to justify the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) which were previously recognized as torture by the US government. The article, Bad Science Used to Support Torture and Human Experimentation can be found in the January 7, 2011, issue of Science.

"A summary of the article, a PDF reprint, and the full text of the article may be found at these links:

Summary
http://bit.ly/izkxMr

Reprint (pdf)
http://bit.ly/mzXtF7

Full Text
http://bit.ly/mrBtxU
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 16 May 2011 5:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't justify torture. I do justify treating muslim extremists how they like to treat others. Recant or be beheaded live on TV. Execution is not, by definition, torture.
Posted by Custard, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 2:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Custard you want to aspire to the attitudes and behaviours of barbarians?
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 2:56:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The oldest law on earth, treat others as you expect them to treat you.

Why should Muslim extremists, who have chosen to live in Countries where they are subject to Sharia law, be tried by any system OTHER than their Countries system?

Personally I'd hand David Hicks over to the Northern Alliance, same with all the Guantanamo "detainees". They chose their law & sought to impose that legal system on others. In areas controlled by the Northern Alliance being a member of the Taliban will get you a cigarette and an early morning appointment with 12 of your peers.
Posted by Custard, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 6:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Custard
an Iranian court recently sentenced a man to be blinded by having acid dripped into his eyes as punishment for blinding a woman with acid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110514/wl_afp/irancourtjusticeislam
Do you support this approach?
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 8:45:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

We take your point. However, like cutting off of hands and beheading, blinding with acid is retribution and cannot be reversed.

With torture - the argument would be - the torturee determines when it will cease ... when information is given up.

Is torture effective? This is moot.

The following two articles may be of interest.

Waterboarding is part of training American military personnel endure.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2103/is_1_38/ai_n30977308/

Hastings Center confront the issue of doctors being in attendance during torture by waterboarding.
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/News/Detail.aspx?id=5368

Would one agree to a suspect being tortured if this could provide information about a pending terrorist attack? Does the pain (temporary) inflicted on the suspect outweigh the pain - and ultimate death - inflicted on innocent victims? Victims who are others' loved ones.

To all civilised minds, torture is abhorrent. But do the rights of an individual, who puts themself in this situation (and can cry 'halt') outweigh the collective rights of others?

Perhaps the solution would be to find a different method for extracting information than the crude method of torture. But ... this may be worse ...
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 3:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle

I believe torture is wrong, even if it does yield useful information. The fact that much evidence suggests it doesn’t yield useful information merely compounds the evil of its use.

Your claim that the victim can halt torture any time assumes
a) The victim actually knows what the torturer thinks they know and
b) The torturer is satisfied that no more useful information can be gained from further torture.

The reality is that interrogators never have such perfect knowledge, and indeed in circumstances where terrorism threatens they are more likely to make misjudgements.

I lived in the UK at a time when the IRA was periodically bombing civilian targets on the mainland. The culture of fear and loathing that prevailed meant that Irish people were automatically under suspicion. Police and security forces were under great pressure to get convictions and prevent further attacks. They interrogated, prosecuted and even obtained convictions for people subsequently proved innocent. If these had been tortured to reveal information, they would not have been able to stop the process because they had no information to give
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 4:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it's simple basic ethics: one must not do evil even if good were to come out of it. Full stop.
Posted by SHRODE, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 6:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this could be a philosopher's question.

We all know the trolley conundrum.

When discussing torture, the fact that the torturee has information, has to be a given.

I lived in Malaya during the Emergency and witnessed terrorist attacks. Seeing bloody and torn bodies, especially of children, gives one pause for thought.
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Danielle,

It is not a given that the torturee has information. People have been tortured to reveal which of their neighbours has had intercourse with the devil. People have been tortured because torture has been prescribed as punishment. People have been tortured because they are under the power of a sadist who gets pleasure from torture. People have been tortured because they have been mistaken for someone else. People have been tortured as training for torturers.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

You are absolutely correct.

I wished to look at this issue from a specific point of view. Perhaps it was not quite apropros. Some posing this as a philosophical question would say that under these circumstances there is no correct answer.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:07:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies ...

I intended to write "no incorrect answers" ...
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 19 May 2011 1:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The torturee may recover physically - mentally they may never. I knew a young African from Somalia who now mixes exclusively with whites because he was tortured by his countrymen.

Then what of the damage to the torturer? How many sadistic bastards are there? For someone 'volunteered' to do the task - how well do they sleep at night? Even the observers are not spared - watching another human being cannot be a highlight for anyone's life.

These problems are then brought home to families.

Drop a pebble in a pond and watch the ripples spread.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 19 May 2011 8:52:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

Agreed.

But do you think that a terrorist, prepared to kill others, would experience the same trauma as another person? One suspects they are already brutalised to quite a degree ... with accompanying blunting of emotion.

The issue of the torturer is absolutely loaded. The torturer may see his activites as an extension of active service. Is the appointment by volunteer? Unfortunately, there are many people who have sadistic tendencies ... and this "position" may provide them with justification. I'm sure that whoever carries out any form of torture has been psychologically assessed as to be capable to perform the task.

However, there is a question. Is it ethically right to demand of another person (the torturer) acts that one could not possibly carry out oneself.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 19 May 2011 5:05:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would it be possible to apply the trolley conundrum?

An out-of-control trolley (tram) was heading towards a group of people with the inevitable consequence of death and injury; another line lead to a single person.

Would it be ethical to change the direction of the tram knowing it would kill the individual, but prevent the deaths of several?
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 19 May 2011 8:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle

I understand the philosophical conundrum you have presented. My answer would have to be "I don't know" - until I am faced with such a life and death choice, I really cannot give an honest answer.

However, this conundrum does not compare with the deliberate procedures required for torture - you are comparing apples with oranges - one is an impending accident the other (torture) is purposeful and ethical concerns put aside to harm a person for information they may or may not have which may or may not save lives.

I do not believe in the death penalty either for similar reasons - the action is premeditated and about vengeance and does nothing to further enlighten/evolve/elevate the human psyche.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:42:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The laws forbidding torture and their enforcement are necessary for a decent society. If torture is legal torturers will find reasons to torture people. If torture is illegal and laws against the practice are enforced a torturer will be brought to trial. If the torturer can justify the torture the torturer will be released assuming there is a fair trial. There are laws against torture in the United States and Bush, Rumsfeld and all those who ordered, sanctioned and carried out torture should be put on trial. They won't be, but I regard them as criminals.
Posted by david f, Friday, 20 May 2011 3:14:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If torture wasn't used, but some other method which resulted in a terrorist providing information against their will, would this be alright?
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 20 May 2011 1:15:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From what I can gather one of the ‘tip offs’ was that under torture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed consistently gave a false name for the courier and falsely alleged he had left Al Quada, even after being waterboarded 183 times. This lead the interrogators to believe there was some significance to information about the man gathered from other sources.

Whatever else we think of KSM it is hard to ever label him a coward.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 4 June 2011 9:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle

I see you are still determined to prove that torture is justified. You are entitled to your opinion.

Having seen the results of torture on people, I can only feel sorry for you that you are unable to consider alternatives.

"The point of this (torture) can therefore never be to get truly reliable information. The purpose is to get answers the victim imagines the torturers want to hear. This might be the truth; or it might be a desperate untruth. The point is that the tortured is brought to the point when such distinctions are less meaningful than simply ending the ordeal. "

http://tinyurl.com/3h8gftm

Danielle, if you were being tortured what would you do or say to get them to stop?
Posted by Ammonite, Sunday, 5 June 2011 10:08:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

You misread my comments - my questioning ...

All would agree that alternatives to torture are preferrable. No one considers torture (which can be a wiggly term) anything but barbaric.

I did ask above ... if torture wasn't used, but some other means ... ?

You accuse me of not being able to consider alternatives.

What alternatives is what I asked.

Incidentally, you should not make assumptions. I have seen both victims of terrorist attacks, and also victims of torture. Whilst not making judgement ... only observation ... those who were victims of terrorist attacks came off considerably worse than victims of torture. Again - this is not a judgement of the use of torture.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 5 June 2011 3:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle, I'd be grateful if you could help me to put your comments in context, by answering a yes-or-no question.

In your opinion, is torture justifiable under some circumstances?

Just yes or no will do nicely. Thank you.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 10:23:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No.

Now Sir Vivor, answer my question.

Would you consider a painfree method of extracting information against a person's will, torture?
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 11:35:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle, your term "a painfree method of extracting information against a person's will" carries carries many assumptions.

I recall going to a friends's Bar Mitzvah and hearing him declare that his decision to to participate was made freely and without duress.

I made a similar declaration when I changed my citizenship, about 20 years later.

In both cases, the answer to the question carried lots of freight, and could have caused pain to the subject and their wider networks. It has to do in part with how you define pain, I believe.

An interesting take on this, which has influenced my opinion, is to be found in the novel "City of Light", by Michael Doane, published in the early '90's. Postage would be the main expense if you wanted a copy. Mine was $1.00, from the Wentworth, NSW Library cull shelf.

But I digress. A medically "pain-free" method of interrogation of unwilling subjects is central to the plot.

I am neither a legal nor a medical expert, and so I fall back on the article I cited above, "Bad Science Used to Justify and Support Torture and Human Experimentation". Check there to find someone who may give you a more nuanced and authoritative answer to the question.

All boiling down to a more direct answer to whether I would " ... consider a painfree method of extracting information against a person's will, torture?"

IMHO, Duress is accompanied by pain, so your proposition is an oxymoron.

I would say there is no such thing as painless intervention, against a subject's will.

Perhaps the way forward is through informed consent, as is required in all ethical experimental protocols currently used by universities in Australia.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 1:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

We are both in accord as to how one would define pain; and indeed how an individual subject might perceive it.

I will try and obtain the title you recommend - it sounds interesting.

Informed consent? Unless a terrorist has undergone some sort of epiphany, informed consent is unlikely.

I am not suggesting medical intervention as such. 'Truth' drugs - sodium pentathol? No ... also results cannot be definitive. Nor am I suggesting invasive methods.

Neuroscientists are researching (and finding) pupils respond with differing states of cognition. Would you accept, if it were possible, the use of computational neuroscience with eye-scanning. If it were feasible, it would mean a more sensitive interrogation tool.

Personally, I would have absolutely no problems with this if it produced results - albeit information is obtained against a person's will, possibly resulting in great psychological pain.

Do we place a premium on distress from failure/'betrayal' (pain) an individual might experience, against the lives of the innocent?
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 6:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

I have drawn my line in the sand. I decline to discuss the issue further; I have the luxury of doing so because I am outside the first-person realms of those who deal explicitely with torture and its victims, as tormenter or as healer. The experts I mention above may be able to help you further on your journey.

Kind regards

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/articles/allen-keller-iacopino-science.html

"Bad Science Used to Justify and Support Torture and Human Experimentation"

"Article Shows that the US Government Used Bad Science to Commit and Conceal Torture

"PHR Medical Experts Published in Science Magazine
In an article published by the journal Science, PHR experts Dr. Scott Allen, Dr. Allen Keller, and Dr. Vince Iacopino show that the Bush administration relied on flawed science to justify the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) which were previously recognized as torture by the US government. The article, Bad Science Used to Support Torture and Human Experimentation can be found in the January 7, 2011, issue of Science.

"A summary of the article, a PDF reprint, and the full text of the article may be found at these links:

Summary
http://bit.ly/izkxMr

Reprint (pdf)
http://bit.ly/mzXtF7

Full Text
http://bit.ly/mrBtxU
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 8:43:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

An afterthought:
see
http://blog.refugemediaproject.org/2011/06/07/upcoming-events-june-2011/

"Caring for the Survivors of Torture"
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 8:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

Thank you for the references.

You are obviously a gentle... man and highly ethical.

The science, itself, I mentioned could not be seen as bad science. This scanning method is being researched to assist those with certain conditions, not the least of all the horrific Lockedin Syndrome.

Life for all of us consists of periods of 'pain'. This cannot be avoided ... Should we always try to escape it? Is that healthy? For many, 'pain' brings with it awareness and compassion; is a learning process.

At sometime we all have to take responsibility for our actions, sometimes taking responsibily is forced upon us.

Our justice system has 'pain' at its core. Those who prey upon others are punished.

Perhaps those who, in the case of terrorists, experience trauma for unwillingly providing information, may at some time in the future be grateful that greater tragedy had been averted. People do change. We have witnessed this even with terrorists ... Walid Shoebatt, Tawfik Hamid etc.

Regards
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 12:55:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy