Legality of torture

Thank's for the insights UnderseaLcpl, good to hear first hand accounts.

Can't say I really enjoy hearing about sleep deprivation and keeping detainees in hot metal containers. Reminds me of the 'convoy of death' in Afghanistan which may or may not have been as bad as the legend has it.

Yes I don't know, it's difficult for one person in a military to improve things, usually a foot soldier is just a pawn and has very little influence on operating procedures. I guess a group of individual soldiers might be responsible for the mistreatment of a prisoner or two but usually the orders come from the higher ups. Meaning that the individual soldiers can be guilty like Lynndie England but that the real culprits are the higher ups.

There were mistreatment of POW's in WW2 Finland, many prisoners died of starvation and/or diseases so we don't have a high horse in this issue. Lately we've kept out of wars meaning we haven't been put into a position where we would have to either torture or not torture.

And about water torture, I'd call it torture, real torture with no reservations. It's very dangerous if we start to talk about water torture as 'torture lite'. Also the risk of death/trauma both physical and mental is very big in water torture so I see no reason to belittle it. And yes, during basic training and military service there is all kinds of stuff that would qualify as mistreatment or torture. Militaries of the world get away with a lot.

[tater]

Note that under US law, any mind altering substance is under the torture laws on the books.

This is a mistake, IMO, since if there is, or might be at some point in the future a really good drug that removes trained inhibitions to answering questions, it would be a remarkable tool—also a tool that would help those detained.

Think about it, you have an excellent drug available, and you use it on a detainee, and it becomes clear that you grabbed the wrong guy. He's got nothing to tell you, and in fact it's becoming clear he's not stonewalling, just INNOCENT. You can let him go.

Note this would require a drug that is safe to administer (under medical attention), and has no lasting effects.

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

Very good point. Especialy considering the CIA's involvement with LSD experimentation on their own soldiers and civilians, in addition to foreign nationals.

[TBoone]

I'm just saying that the Geneva Convention should only aply to actual Soldiers not these Murderers we call Terorists.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by TBoone

I'm just saying that the Geneva Convention should only aply to actual Soldiers not these Murderers we call Terorists.

The North Vietnamese used the same logic to torture US POWs.

[tater]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The North Vietnamese used the same logic to torture US POWs.

Read the GC, the language clearly implies reciprocity among signers and their allies/client states.

Otherwise there would not be so much language to determine if the person in question falls into the category of someone protected.

That said, I'm fine with staying on the "good" side of things—but as close to the edge as is legally possible assuming it is effective. That means a gnat's hair to one side of "severe" as defined in the GC, etc. Note that even the expanded definitions posted above merely add "prolonged" to the list of mental pain. There is nothing at all definitive there.

Remember that during the Bush administration they were bashed for having THIS discussion we're having right now. Just talking about where the limits might be was reported as dangerous and wrong. Given the intentionally vague language, not having this discussion would have been irresponsible, IMHO.

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

The truth serum, not sure if that's actually realistically achievable. If they came up with something there would be ways to go around it. Doubt it will happen.

But by keeping the door open for a 'magical truth serum' of the future would also keep the door open for all other stuff that they'd be allowed to inject into the POW's.

There is no "truth serum," though many drugs used for anesthesia produce effects that can absolutely reduce barriers. Talk to anyone who works in an OR, and they'll tell you all kinds of funny stories about patients talking about inappropriate stuff.