<Percy>: (a) no barbarism or torture occurs at Gitmo (b) the prisoners there are not random ppl, but are terrorists (c) barbarism is what went on at the meat grinder rooms and is what the homicide bombers do. Hope this clears up any confusion.
<Percy>: Good point lal.,
<Penny>: A lot of the Gitmo prisoners have random looking beards...
<Penny>: At Abu Gharib there definitely was torture. Not as bad as what Saddam used to do, but Saddam isn't our standard. The Founding Fathers are our standard.
<Percy>: Abu Gharib is just an example where photographic evidence slipped out.
<brianjn>: Gitmo? No torture? I'm leaving my mind open on this, but there have been two Australian inmates there. Reports supportive of them suggest treatment has not been with 'kid-gloves'!
<Hugo>: John McLaughlin said they didn't torture because it was contra productive.
<Hugo>: And we all believe him
<Hugo>: He didn't say j/k afterwards

<Percy>: I'm dismayed at ppl thinking it's acceptable to make jokes about the barbarism at Guantanamo Bay
|more comments|
<Nathan>: What Are you talking about?
<Nathan>: whats barbarism?????!!!
<Percy>: Gitmo or gtmo is slang for Guantanamo Bay.
<Percy>: The US has kidnapped some random ppl and tortures them there
<Percy>: along with various other bases around the world.
<Percy>: Barbarism has to do with beards.
|more comments|
<Larry>: Percy: (a) no barbarism or torture occurs at Gitmo (b) the prisoners there are not random ppl, but are terrorists (c) barbarism is what went on at the meat grinder rooms and is what the homicide bombers do. Hope this clears up any confusion.
<Percy>: Good point lal.,
<Penny>: A lot of the Gitmo prisoners have random looking beards...
<Penny>: At Abu Gharib there definitely was torture. Not as bad as what Saddam used to do, but Saddam isn't our standard. The Founding Fathers are our standard.
<Percy>: Abu Gharib is just an example where photographic evidence slipped out.
<brianjn>: Gitmo? No torture? I'm leaving my mind open on this, but there have been two Australian inmates there. Reports supportive of them suggest treatment has not been with 'kid-gloves'!

Unless I am completely mistaken, Larry never said that no torture happens at Guantanamo Bay because the people there are terrorists.
His "random people/terrorist" comment is just an answer on Percy's comment "The US has kidnapped some random ppl".

What I am puzzled with is all the noise the European governments are now making about the"secret" CIA torture flights. I remember having read a fiction book abouth 1...2 years ago where the hero was flown by the CIA from Czechia to Egypt, because torture and interrogation was easier there. And now our governments say they didn't know? Come on, hypocrits.

Anybody who really believes no torture (Or hard interrogation or whatever you want to call it) is taking place in the war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (where ever those may be), dream further.

The real question is: are there situations where torture is/should be allowed?

Maybe Levik could change that post? It seems like a small fix that would help a lot.

Percy, I am not suggesting anything, I am just asking a question.
There are many reasons for both a no or a yes answer to the "Is torture acceptable under certain circumstances".
But the answer to that question would have decissive implications on the questions posed in this thread.

And
"Extraordinary rendition" is the practice of flying ppl to lawless countries to be tortured. This seams to me to be barbaric and cowardly. Lots of politicians are hypocrits, they can still be in the right some of the time.

English is such a beautifull language: "Extraordinary rendition" Who thinks calling it so?
"Lots of politicians are hypocrits" I guess they're all the same everywhere.
"they can still be in the right some of the time. " Probably most of the time, they are certainly willing to do the job as good as possible, but I guess it may become difficult on the way.

Ken Washio (Owashi no Ken of the Kagaku Ninja-Tai Gatchaman) would say "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity, even if the enemy is a member of the Galactor forces."

Doctor Nambu would teach "Cruel practices were once commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the religious rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition."

Joe Asakura would not agree. Jun would say "

"the religious rights of the human person"
I fully agree with you Federico.

Mindrod, I found it very interesting to read what Ken Washio and Doctor Nambu said abouth the thread, but what does Mindrod think about it?

One never has any idea of the destination of one's thoughts no matter how well you feel that you are in control.

[I envisaged a few 'cross chats' and then the issue being left to rest. This has not been quite as anticipated. For that reason I apologise that I did not include text (as has Federico and Percy) that initiated this theme. In hind-sight, someone reading this as an archive would have had no concept as to the foundation of the discussion - thank you FK for that, and Percy fo the clarification.]

However, I do note that one blessing from my action in creating this thread is that it did remove from the Chatterbox the potential for unnecessary 'bickering' which may have been ongoing and not good for the site as a whole.

I am also pleased to see how the different arguments are being presented.

A relationship exists between punishment and torture, but they are not identical concepts.

One desired effect of punishment is to contribute to the correction of the offender, but the primary effect is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. It is the duty (and the right) of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors. Even the death penalty is acceptable for grave offenses. Preserving the common good requires rendering agressors unable to inflict harm.

The desired effect of torture is to force information, get a confession, get revenge, etc. Although torture is obviously inappropriate for minor offenses, it may be acceptable to use torture as part of the punishment for a serious offense.

A captured terrorist, for example, commits a grave offense against society by witholding information that might help authorities prevent an attack. The offense is serious enough to warrant severe punishment. The authorities have the right and the duty to force the information in an attempt to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Mindrod, I have read your comment over and over and I understand it as if you accept torture as part of a punishment?
Why?
What would the benefit of torture be, either for the authority or (?) the offender?

Thanks for the explanation, I thought you meant it that way, but just wanted to be sure, because I guess there is a problem.
One
Torture is acceptable "by the legitimate authority is the extraction of information useful in preventing grave harm to society".
Two
"An offender benefits from just punishment only when it is accepted willingly "
How can you then also defend
Three
"Even the death penalty is acceptable .."

I have the same feelings about torture as you expressed (Which probably doesn't make me/us very popular), but am against death penalty.

I agree on your Patriot Act remark. I also would take my chances with the terrorists.

What you say on the uneffectiveness of torture is what John McLaughlin said. But are you against torture because it is not an effective means of getting information, or are you against torture for other reasons? Which reasons then?

Bruce, I have been in Iraq; I have seen and talked to the terrorists..can you really mean you would rather have them than the protection of the Patriot act?

To all, toture and interrogation need to be explained. To my mind, toture is more than the causing of pain, toture causes damage - either physical or mental that lasts beyond the period. When we normally (prior to 9/11) discussed toture, we talked of the things the North vietnamese or Iraqis did to American POW (prisoners of war). Often, generally, the toture was NOT used to gain legitame information, but was used to corerce a "confesion" (similar to the Teacher story above). Even he Abu G thing, while gaining nothing, was not toture - it WAS abuseive behavior.

Mindrod, I think you are on track (who am I to say who is on track? this is just my opinion) - but toture is NEVER right - harsh, aggresive interrogation, by trained interrogators, with a known and valid purpose, (such as determing the location of explovisive devices set to kill 10's or 100's of people) of a person KNOWN to have this knowledge, this I accept.

As an aside, any trained interrogator (Marine, Army, civilian) employed by the US in Iraq realizes that toture (as I have defined it) is COUNTER- productive - Iraqis, like most people, will lie to make the pain stop.

Interesting discussion.

I feel we are walking on a very thin line when allowing harsh, aggressive interrogation to get important information, but disallowing torture.
Does the CIA flights towards Egypt where carried out because in Egypt harsh, aggressive interrogation is allowed by law and is not allowed in Western Europe? I doubt it, I believe we are talking here about torture.
Now are these interrogations allowed? Well, not when its called torture (UNCAT article 2.2 says "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, ..., may be invoked as a justification of torture). But it is allowed if we rename it!
On the Abu G thing: it was not abusive behavior, it was torture as defined in article 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".
On the Patriot Act: If I would live in the US, I would certainly take my chances with the terrorists, there is only a small chance that they hit me, but I would certainly be hit by the Patriot Act. As Bruce said, it's saying Nazism, McCarthyism all over. I just read it again and it is frightening.

That's about what I wanted to say Vernon.
As to the Patriot act:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Benjamin Franklin

Ceb, let me start with your last paragraph. I understand that you do not want to offend somebody, I would not have believed that anybody would try to do so in a discussion. I always thought that a discussion was the way to develop thoughts, not to 'win' a discussion. If you also believe that, you should help me explain my point of vieuw, you should show me the strong and weak points of the arguments I use, and of course, I must do the same the other way around.
There is something more to this "offend" subject. As you probably know, english is far from my first language. This handicaps me in such a way that I can express a certain idea/feeling in maybe two or three ways or gradations (degrees?). Therefore, I can unintentionally be rude or impolite, please forgive me than, it is not meant to be so.
Now to our discussion. Let me start with the Patriot Act remark. No, I did not want to say "I do not care as long as it does not happen to me?" I said "I will take my chances", meaning I think the threat coming from terrorism is - in my opinion - far less then the threat that comes from the new legislation. So, here we have a difference of opinion.
While on the other part of your posting, I agree much more with what you say then you think. It is indeed a problem of definition. And that is difficult item because in your posting you are making up the definition, while I follow the definition the United Nations agreed upon. And no offense, but there's a certain difference.
Using torture as a way to get information to save other lives, I would accept. But I can't accept renaming Iraqi POW, because then they are not protected by the Geneva Convention and one can do with them what one wants. If you use torture, then just admit it.
As for the Muslims, I think you want to say: The problem is not that most Muslims are terrorists, the problem is that most terrorists are Muslims. And here I fully agree. And also to the future of the European Countries vs the establishment of Muslim law, but this and many other similar things are classified as racist remarks and punishable under our laws (Even if you have factual information).
The only way - for Europe - to survive the political evolution and to avoid Sharia Law - is to have a properly working integration politic. Which may be very difficult, but I believe must be possible, it has been done before in history.

I like you a lot ceb :-)

Hugo, finally I have the chance to response. I have tried to make three points, 1. The Iraqis now captured are NOT entitled to POW status under the Geneva Convention, 2. The Convention is silent on treatment concerning terrorists and the Iraqis captured now, and 3. Torture does NOT rule out pain (only severe pain).
In response to “renaming of Iraqis as Non-POWs”: Each Geneva Convention defines a certain class of protected persons.
The First Convention applies to wounded and sick, as well as religious and medical personnel.
The Second Convention extends protections to shipwrecked combatants.
The Third Convention protects prisoners of war.
The Four Convention protects civilians in occupied territories.
The First Protocol protects victims of international conflicts and the Second Protocol extends protections to victims of internal conflicts

The Third Geneva Convention, Article 4 defines POW as below (there are others, but they include military, sick, etc.)
Article 4
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
A 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of carrying arms openly;
(c) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The convention also affords protection to others, but the terrorists in Iraq do not qualify for any of those designations. The convention, Article 3 applies to persons taking NO PART in the conflict; those captured are partaking, so they do not receive the protection offered by Art 3, paragraph 1(c) outrages upon personal dignity.
Article 3
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
The people right now taken in Iraq are NOT POWs under the definition of Article 4, paragraph 2: due to violations of sub article (a), (b), (c) and (d) – in other words, all of them; nor are they “protected” under any of the conventions.
As for torture, first nothing so far prevents torture against “unprotected persons”.
Convection IV, Article 68 speaks of PROTECTED persons and defines there a protected person as one who “commit(s) an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them,”
Art. 31 states that “ No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”
Torture is expressly forbidden against PROTECTED persons, I have not found anywhere where, for lack of a better term, “unprotected” persons are protected from torture. Convention 1, Art 3, Art 12; Convention IV Art 32 and Protocol II, Art 4 all prohibit torture against PROTECTED persons.
What is torture? Of interest to me, I can also find no definition of torture or “outrages against personnel dignity” in any of the Conventions, however the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Now, as I at first stated, torture, to me, is pain that lasts beyond the period it is applied. My father spanked me – (when I deserved it) – when he stopped the pain stopped. This was NOT torture. My friend was beaten by his father – broken bones, when his father stopped, the pain did not, this WAS torture. SEVERE pain, not incidental to the lawful sanctions.
An example of what I would consider mental torture would be: leading a man to believe that his wife/daughter/son/mother etc was killed by holding powers – this is a long term effect – and once he believes it the only way to prove it did not occur is to show him the “victim”. Making him wear a dog collar, while embarrassing, once the collar is off, no long term – no severe – effects.
Thanks for making me think about this; enjoy working my head. - CEB