Legality of torture

05-07-10, 06:12 PM

The South Park - thread led me to think about the definitions behind torture and the legality of it. Allegations have been made that torture is allowed in a war situation. There often is no governing body to oversee that no torture takes place in war situations making these torture bans pretty useless.

The Geneva Convention has been mentioned and that it allows certain torture methods while not allowing others. Individual countries may have even stricter laws prohibiting torture and I think Finland's laws are pretty strict when it comes to torture and general mistreatment of prisoners. The idea of looking for loop holes in a law that bans the use of torture makes me wonder if a country that actively does that and uses torture really would qualify as a western civilized nation.

Questions: What is torture, is prison (the taking away of freedom of movement) torture in itself? Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture? The US has allowed the use of water torture until it was banned recently, is the ban working? How does the public know if torture is being used or not? How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US and other nations?

UnderseaLcpl · 05-07-10, 07:33 PM

Torture: I would define it as cruel and unusual punishment. How you define that is something else again. In Iraq I used to see the intel guys incarcerating suspects in big metal cargo containers, which get very hot with it being the desert and all. Then some poor schmuck had to walk around the thing for hours on end dragging a metal tube along the corrugated edges of the container to make noise. The idea was to deprive the prisoner of sleep. They'd haul him out at random intervals to question him or just leave him sitting on a stool until he started to fall asleep again, then bust in and put him back in the box. The Soviets employed that same technique (sleep deprivation) at the Lubyanka, albeit in a different manner and setting.

Is that torture? To some degree, yes. Sleep deprivation sucks, I'd know. I spent 3 days and nights without sleep when I went through the Crucible in boot camp, and walked about a hundred miles in full kit and did O-courses and all kinds of other assorted BS while I was at it. But they didn't call it torture, they called it training. I figure if it's good enough for US military recruits it's good enough for terror suspects who are not US citizens and who are non-uniformed combatants.

Black's Law Dictionary defines torture as " the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Now we just need to define "severe" "pain" and "suffering". Surprise surprise, there is no concrete definition for any of those terms in the legal sense. Even within the normal US legal system, the standards for each vary widely. Sometimes people get shot or stabbed and it doesn't constitute "torture". Other times people are annoyed by the sound of children playing and it does. It all depends on the case made for each term and the interpretation of the judge and/or jury.

To me, torture would be the intentional infliction of permanent, demonstrable, physical harm in a controlled environment against a defenseless party for whatever purpose. That's a pretty narrow definition, but it is a lot more functional than any definition that includes mental harm, which is extremely difficult to quantify. There are certainly forms of torture that can inflict permanent mental harm, but they are so varied and indefineable as to be rendered meaningless.

Is prison torture?
In my definition; no. Spending time in prison probably does cause mental harm, and it is certainly an infliction of harm in a controlled environment for a purpose, but considering it as torture is impractical. The Geneva convention does not ban POW camps, and every nation on the planet has some kind of prison.

Prison is supposed to serve both as a punishment and as a way to nullify any potential harm criminals can do. IMO, if you've violated another person's rights, whether it be through theft or murder or rape or what have you, you forfeit your own rights. When it comes to prison, the degree of forfeiture of rights that is appropriate is the real question, and it is just as nebulous as the definition of mental harm. Again, the power resides in the courts, and again, non-unifromed combatants have no protection under either the US justice system or the Geneva convention, though there are exceptions made for militias.

Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture?

I'd be hesitant to classify it as "torture". To be sure, waterboarding is very uncomfortable and it can be deadly if performed incorrectly or if an accident occurs, but so is swim qual. Which is more cruel, to simulate drowning without the intent to drown or to throw a recruit off a 20-ft diving board in full gear whether he knows how to swim or not, and then rely on resuce divers to save him if he sinks?

I put waterboarding in the same class as sleep-deprivation, but I would never advocate it. It seems a rather crude means of extracting information. You'd think intel would come up with something more clever than that.

Is the ban working?
I wouldn't know. The last guy I knew who was in intel left the service earlier this year, and I never really asked him much about it after OIF III.
My guess is that it is working, as brass tend to be very sensitive about these things. If Washington says no, they won't do it, no matter what the ramifications if ROE-related deaths and injuries are any indication.

How does the public know if torture is being used or not?

In my experience? The media. They're almost as thick as the flies in Al-Anbar (or at least they were when I was there) and I had to drive correspondents to the Fallujah detention center on several occasions. I don't know if they ever got in there. They didn't let me in, and I was absolutley forbidden to talk to any journalists.

The military generally tries to keep a tight rein on what info it gives the press, same as any firm. They prefer to handle journalists through officers and PR guys. Given the military's success performing even peacetime tasks, my guess is that they have been, and will continue to be, less than successful.

How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US?
I have no up-to-date information on that subject, but I'm sure that any torture used is fairly mild. The stuff they did at Guantanamo was child's play, and nobody was concerned about torture when they did that. Stacked naked in a pyramid? Please. Try being crammed into a single toilet stall with 40 other naked recruits. Believe it or not, they will fit.

I can only draw conclusions from how I have seen other PR matters handled. When the media started reporting on US troops using excessive force on Iraqi civilians way back in '05, we recieved a corresponding increase in ridiculous ROEs; i.e. "you can't shoot at anyone who isn't firing at you", "no HMGs", "no AP rounds", "no grenades, even flash-bangs", "every target must have confirmed Positive Identification".... and all that BS. Field-Grade Officers' careers depend upon good public image and shiny records. They take every pain to make sure that they do not do anything to sabatoge their careers. Well, some aren't like that, but I've never met one.

and other nations?

Hell if I know. Units from other nations are usually under a totally different command structure in a totally seperate base and we were never allowed to even communicate with their higher-ups. They may have had a different way of doing things, but I don't know what it was.

All of this is just my perspective from the ground, but I hope at least some of it can help, OTH.

05-07-10, 07:57 PM

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 · 05-07-10, 08:03 PM

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.

05-07-10, 08:17 PM

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.

05-07-10, 08:22 PM

Quote:

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.

tater · 05-07-10, 09:28 PM

Quote:

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.

TBoone · 05-07-10, 08:10 PM

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

05-07-10, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBoone

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

Be very careful here because, if someone in your government decides that you MAY have ties to terrorists, you qualify for torture, under your own rules. And so does every one of your fellow countrymen.

TLAM Strike · 05-07-10, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBoone

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

These "Terrorists" were lead by men with the names of Washington, Gates and Jones.

I'm very careful about who I paint with the wide brush of "Terrorist". The people we torture today maybe become the heroes of a future nation, and how will that nation look at us?

August · 05-08-10, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

That isn't really true. Colonial militia made a point of wearing some identifying mark on the battlefield to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Can you also list which civilians they were killing? I suppose you can find isolated incidents for anything but afaik there was no officially ordered massacre of civilians by the Continental army.

TLAM Strike · 05-08-10, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

That isn't really true. Colonial militia made a point of wearing some identifying mark on the battlefield to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Can you also list which civilians they were killing? I suppose you can find isolated incidents for anything but afaik there was no officially ordered massacre of civilians by the Continental army.

If you look in to the southern campaign you'll see that there were small groups of militia on both sides (Rebels and Loyalists) went around settling old scores.

The executions after The Battle of Kings Mountain are one example. it could be said those men were killed for an act of treason which was that they were not committing treason.

August · 05-08-10, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

If you look in to the southern campaign you'll see that there were small groups of militia on both sides (Rebels and Loyalists) went around settling old scores.

The executions after The Battle of Kings Mountain are one example. it could be said those men were killed for an act of treason which was that they were not committing treason.

Ok so it was like I said then, nothing organized or approved by Washington or the Continental Congress.

antikristuseke · 05-07-10, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBoone

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

It must be nice to live in a black and white world.

Life just is not that simple, by my experiences.

TBoone · 05-07-10, 11:45 PM

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

05-07-10, 06:12 PM	#1
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Legality of torture The South Park - thread led me to think about the definitions behind torture and the legality of it. Allegations have been made that torture is allowed in a war situation. There often is no governing body to oversee that no torture takes place in war situations making these torture bans pretty useless. The Geneva Convention has been mentioned and that it allows certain torture methods while not allowing others. Individual countries may have even stricter laws prohibiting torture and I think Finland's laws are pretty strict when it comes to torture and general mistreatment of prisoners. The idea of looking for loop holes in a law that bans the use of torture makes me wonder if a country that actively does that and uses torture really would qualify as a western civilized nation. Questions: What is torture, is prison (the taking away of freedom of movement) torture in itself? Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture? The US has allowed the use of water torture until it was banned recently, is the ban working? How does the public know if torture is being used or not? How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US and other nations?

05-07-10, 07:33 PM	#2
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Torture: I would define it as cruel and unusual punishment. How you define that is something else again. In Iraq I used to see the intel guys incarcerating suspects in big metal cargo containers, which get very hot with it being the desert and all. Then some poor schmuck had to walk around the thing for hours on end dragging a metal tube along the corrugated edges of the container to make noise. The idea was to deprive the prisoner of sleep. They'd haul him out at random intervals to question him or just leave him sitting on a stool until he started to fall asleep again, then bust in and put him back in the box. The Soviets employed that same technique (sleep deprivation) at the Lubyanka, albeit in a different manner and setting. Is that torture? To some degree, yes. Sleep deprivation sucks, I'd know. I spent 3 days and nights without sleep when I went through the Crucible in boot camp, and walked about a hundred miles in full kit and did O-courses and all kinds of other assorted BS while I was at it. But they didn't call it torture, they called it training. I figure if it's good enough for US military recruits it's good enough for terror suspects who are not US citizens and who are non-uniformed combatants. Black's Law Dictionary defines torture as " the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Now we just need to define "severe" "pain" and "suffering". Surprise surprise, there is no concrete definition for any of those terms in the legal sense. Even within the normal US legal system, the standards for each vary widely. Sometimes people get shot or stabbed and it doesn't constitute "torture". Other times people are annoyed by the sound of children playing and it does. It all depends on the case made for each term and the interpretation of the judge and/or jury. To me, torture would be the intentional infliction of permanent, demonstrable, physical harm in a controlled environment against a defenseless party for whatever purpose. That's a pretty narrow definition, but it is a lot more functional than any definition that includes mental harm, which is extremely difficult to quantify. There are certainly forms of torture that can inflict permanent mental harm, but they are so varied and indefineable as to be rendered meaningless. Is prison torture? In my definition; no. Spending time in prison probably does cause mental harm, and it is certainly an infliction of harm in a controlled environment for a purpose, but considering it as torture is impractical. The Geneva convention does not ban POW camps, and every nation on the planet has some kind of prison. Prison is supposed to serve both as a punishment and as a way to nullify any potential harm criminals can do. IMO, if you've violated another person's rights, whether it be through theft or murder or rape or what have you, you forfeit your own rights. When it comes to prison, the degree of forfeiture of rights that is appropriate is the real question, and it is just as nebulous as the definition of mental harm. Again, the power resides in the courts, and again, non-unifromed combatants have no protection under either the US justice system or the Geneva convention, though there are exceptions made for militias. Is water torture torture or is it just 'mild' torture? I'd be hesitant to classify it as "torture". To be sure, waterboarding is very uncomfortable and it can be deadly if performed incorrectly or if an accident occurs, but so is swim qual. Which is more cruel, to simulate drowning without the intent to drown or to throw a recruit off a 20-ft diving board in full gear whether he knows how to swim or not, and then rely on resuce divers to save him if he sinks? I put waterboarding in the same class as sleep-deprivation, but I would never advocate it. It seems a rather crude means of extracting information. You'd think intel would come up with something more clever than that. Is the ban working? I wouldn't know. The last guy I knew who was in intel left the service earlier this year, and I never really asked him much about it after OIF III. My guess is that it is working, as brass tend to be very sensitive about these things. If Washington says no, they won't do it, no matter what the ramifications if ROE-related deaths and injuries are any indication. How does the public know if torture is being used or not? In my experience? The media. They're almost as thick as the flies in Al-Anbar (or at least they were when I was there) and I had to drive correspondents to the Fallujah detention center on several occasions. I don't know if they ever got in there. They didn't let me in, and I was absolutley forbidden to talk to any journalists. The military generally tries to keep a tight rein on what info it gives the press, same as any firm. They prefer to handle journalists through officers and PR guys. Given the military's success performing even peacetime tasks, my guess is that they have been, and will continue to be, less than successful. How do we know what forms of torture have been used by the US? I have no up-to-date information on that subject, but I'm sure that any torture used is fairly mild. The stuff they did at Guantanamo was child's play, and nobody was concerned about torture when they did that. Stacked naked in a pyramid? Please. Try being crammed into a single toilet stall with 40 other naked recruits. Believe it or not, they will fit. I can only draw conclusions from how I have seen other PR matters handled. When the media started reporting on US troops using excessive force on Iraqi civilians way back in '05, we recieved a corresponding increase in ridiculous ROEs; i.e. "you can't shoot at anyone who isn't firing at you", "no HMGs", "no AP rounds", "no grenades, even flash-bangs", "every target must have confirmed Positive Identification".... and all that BS. Field-Grade Officers' careers depend upon good public image and shiny records. They take every pain to make sure that they do not do anything to sabatoge their careers. Well, some aren't like that, but I've never met one. and other nations? Hell if I know. Units from other nations are usually under a totally different command structure in a totally seperate base and we were never allowed to even communicate with their higher-ups. They may have had a different way of doing things, but I don't know what it was. All of this is just my perspective from the ground, but I hope at least some of it can help, OTH. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

05-07-10, 08:10 PM	#8
TBoone Second Lieutenant Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Elmer,Louisiana Posts: 18 Downloads: 128 Uploads: 0	The Geneva Convention and Terorists I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!! SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

05-07-10, 11:45 PM	#15
TBoone Second Lieutenant Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Elmer,Louisiana Posts: 18 Downloads: 128 Uploads: 0	Thanks guys Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

05-07-10, 07:57 PM	#3
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.

05-07-10, 08:03 PM	#4
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	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.

05-07-10, 08:17 PM	#5
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.