No they don't. They're getting worked up in a vacuum of information.
Trekkies Against Torture-A Warning To J.J. Abrams
- Thread starter Dusty Ayres
- Start date
- Status
No they don't. They're getting worked up in a vacuum of information.
Plum, it's not the pain, it's the duration - and, naturally, the power to make it stop at any moment. Call me a traditionalist, but I still prefer classic torture techniques like dripping water right between the eyes, ad nauseam.
So simple, so subtle, so infuriating. Just set your guy up, start the water dripping, go and have a good meal, and by the time you're back he'll tell you anything. :thumbsup:
If yer gonna torture a guy, don't be pissy about it. Cut the guy. Torture can be fast... or slow.
Kegek is correct, in a sense, but not in another one.
Are we talking about INTERROGATION or are we talking about TORTURE? The two things aren't really the same thing at all (though many people assume, incorrectly, that they are).
TORTURE is done to cause pain and suffering... it has no other purpose or goal.
INTERROGATION is not done to cause pain or suffering. It's done to get information. It has no other goal.
Sometimes, causing pain and suffering is an effective means of interrogation. But in those cases, it's necessary to do it in a way that causes no actual long-term serious physical harm. What Kegek describes is how interrogation is done, and he's right.
"Waterboarding" is all the rage to talk about these days... so think about it. This is a technique that causes significant physical and psychological discomfort, but NO actual physical harm. It's actually remarkably ingenious.
That is an INTERROGATION technique, not a "torture" technique. And it works very well. I, personally, am hugely in favor of the use of such techniques to obtain information from known "bad actors."
Kegek is also correct, but less so, about his statement about torture and the ineffectiveness of simply snipping of a man's testicles as a form of torture. He's correct in that if it's something done quickly, there's minimal physical pain and suffering involved. There may be some psychological issues, but not much ongoing physical pain.
TORTURE often does involve the genitals, though. Just not in immediate, instantaneous ways. Genital electrocution... performation of the testicles with needles or nails... or the good old fashioned VISE treatment... those are definitely TORTURE.
Oh, and in the services here in the USA, we don't do any of those things. Other nations do, but we don't.
Torture is, as Kegek correctly implied, ineffective as an interrogation technique.. because it's a matter of diminishing returns. You may get one key piece of information, maybe even two... but you lose the information source very quickly, as you lose your bargaining position and eventually even lose the life of the victim.
I don't know if you've seen Mythbusters, but they actually did one on this. Apparently, they set Carey up under a water dripper, and after a while she had completely broken down. They talked to a psychologist afterwards, and he said they were lucky not to cause any very severe psychological damage to her.
Having Starfleet torture people is just not Star Trek's style. I'm not opposed to the nuBSG approach of depicting "the good guys" being willing to use torture under certain circumstances because that is nuBSG's style.
But Trek has traditions to uphold. DS9 and Section 31 were as far as Trek should push it. Even if they'd let the Federation win the Dominion War via genocide against the Founders, that would have been over the line. If nuBSG does something similar, fine. That's why they are two different shows - two different approaches.
Everything should be what it is, and not just blend together in some grey mass. These are artistic considerations and they should be up to the artists.
If they wanna get their panties in a wad, they're really targetting the wrong space opera franchise. Star Trek has established a weenie-bleeding-heart-liberal tone that renders it the most innocuous of all. Go after nuBSG or even Stargate, where the US military merrily employs genocide as a battle tactic against mean ole aliens (Gou'ald, Wraith, Replicators), and the writers show little or no comprehension that there's anything wrong with this (by depicting the bad guys in as cardboard a manner as possible, so that we couldn't possibly care if they live or die). That Wraith queen last Friday, yeesh - Cruella de Vil was subtle by comparison.
But Trek has traditions to uphold. DS9 and Section 31 were as far as Trek should push it. Even if they'd let the Federation win the Dominion War via genocide against the Founders, that would have been over the line. If nuBSG does something similar, fine. That's why they are two different shows - two different approaches.
Everything should be what it is, and not just blend together in some grey mass. These are artistic considerations and they should be up to the artists.
If they wanna get their panties in a wad, they're really targetting the wrong space opera franchise. Star Trek has established a weenie-bleeding-heart-liberal tone that renders it the most innocuous of all. Go after nuBSG or even Stargate, where the US military merrily employs genocide as a battle tactic against mean ole aliens (Gou'ald, Wraith, Replicators), and the writers show little or no comprehension that there's anything wrong with this (by depicting the bad guys in as cardboard a manner as possible, so that we couldn't possibly care if they live or die). That Wraith queen last Friday, yeesh - Cruella de Vil was subtle by comparison.
Okay. So, it's not torture if the harm the prisoner endures is all in their head. Does that extend to other areas of life, as well? It's child abuse if I beat my youngster, obviously, but if I merely verbally abuse him, and swing at him but pull my punch so I don't make contact and he only flinches, I've not done anything wrong?
Would you be willing to recommend a disobedient child receive such harsh treatment, if it's stipulated that the only effects will be psychological?
Do you believe the information gained is reliable? Since simulated drowning, as far as I've read, always breaks the victim, doesn't that guarantee that will produce a bundle of unreliable confessions? According to an ABC report, one of those false pieces of information was used to justify the Iraq War. Now, granted, one less claim that Iraq helped Al Quaeda develop chemical weapons probably wouldn't have prevented the invasion, but, still. That's one piece of unreliable information that ultimately led to a war that's resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, all because someone told an interrogator what he wanted to hear, after some high muckity muck declared he wanted things done fast rather than right.
Way to write that one off. What's the ratio, do you think, of people who have committed violent crimes in response to physical damage as compared to psychological damage?
CUTE argument. But since I know you read my entire post, it's clear you're "cherry-picking" things. I'm sure you didn't miss THIS bit... did you?
So... did you not catch that? Or did you intentionally disregard it in the hopes that you could drag in another, totally UNRELATED topic... DISCIPLINE?
If you really want to expand the conversation to include torture, interrogation, AND discipline (which are all very different things with very different purposes), we can. But don't try to ignore that difference.
Just for the record... the child's case you describe has nothing to do with interrogation, so it has nothing to do with my point about "waterboarding" being an effective means of interrogation. DOES IT?
The child's case you brought up was also, presumably, not purely intended to cause pain and suffering to the child, so it does not meet the criteria for torture.
It DOES meet the criteria for DISCIPLINE, however.
Now, whether or not this would be an appropriate form of discipline for the child in question is CERTAINLY a valid topic of discussion. However, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the topic that's being discussed here.
Again, if you want to EXPAND the conversation, we can. But not under false pretenses.
Well, you may be shocked to hear this, but I agree.
There is no such thing as reliable information from a single source. This is part of why you keep prisoners who are to be interrogated SEGREGATED from each other. (That applies to police interrogations every bit as much as it does to military ones, by the way.) You want to make sure that they can't meet up, talk it over, and agree on a common lie to tell.
Information obtained from confessions, from interrogations, from intercepted documents or signal intelligence... ANYTHING... it's not accepted at face value without being confirmed from multiple sources.
So I agree with your point. It's unreliable. It's better than NOTHING, but it's not 100% trustworthy. But if four people, who haven't been given the chance to coordinate their stories, tell a pack of lies but happen to agree on one or two points... what would YOU conclude?
People have been interrogating other people for as long as there have been people. This isn't something new we're talking about... there's an experience base on this, and full justification for WHY (and WHEN) it's appropriate, that stretches out for millenia.
It's foolish to assume that will, should, or even COULD change within a couple of decades.
Way to turn a factually-based conversation into one based upon personal attacks and emotions.
To use a quote we all should be familiar with:
Recognize that one?
You're attempting, based upon a purely irrational and emotional response, to turn this conversation into something it's not.
Be honest, now... do you believe... REALLY BELIEVE... that I'm in arguing in favor of TORTURE?
I'm arguing in favor of the most effective, and least destructive, form of INTERROGATION available to us. And I'm not arguing in favor of it being used EVERYWHERE, on EVERYBODY. I'm arguing that it's appropriate, in certain circumstances.
There ARE costs to it. But let me paint the same hypothetical argument again which I've made before.
You... yes, YOU, David... are in Los Angeles. And someone has planted a nuclear device somewhere in the city, which is going to detonate within two hours. You know how LA traffic is... there's NO WAY that the city could possibly be evacuated in time to prevent massive loss of life, and no way to prevent massive property loss as well.
EXCEPT if you can find out where the device has been planted.
The guys who did it have been captured. But they're not willing to talk.
YOU MAKE THE CHOICE.
Do you let millions of people die? Or do you use every method available to you (including things you might choose to describe as "torture") to attempt to find where the weapon is and to deactivate it?
C'mon, David... if you respond to only ONE part of this post, I INSIST that you respond to this part.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
Waterboarding is torture, and justifying or excusing it is contemptible.
Who's justifying torture?
And in the hypothetical I gave above... what would YOU do?
No, it's not. On either count.
Ask someone who's lived outside your cloistered, protected little community... the world is filled with people who have been subjected to REAL torture. Go to East Africa... go to parts of Indonesia... hell, go to Iraq and ask some of Saddam's former subjects. Of course, you won't be able to ask the ones who had their tongues cut out... and you won't be able to ask the ones who were tortured to death, purely out of the desire to cause them suffering.
It's a rough world out there, children. You're able to live in a nice, secure, fluffy-safe environment here, largely because there are braver people than you who are willing to do what has to be done.
Tell me, Dennis. In my hypothetical, above... what would YOU do?
If you, your family, your friends, your entire LIFE.. everything you care about, and lots of things you don't, too, is all about to be destroyed... would your strongly held belief that "waterboarding is torture" and that any attempt to justify it is "contemptible" mean that you'd sit by idly and do nothing, if you COULD do something?
Given a situation like that... that form of utter moral cowardice is truly contemptible.
If you could act to save a million lives, just by causing some discomfort to a guy who was undeniably PROUD of his attempt to murder millions...
If you, Dennis, had that option in front of you... what would you do?
I notice that NOBODY is actually answering that question. Guess it's easier to call people names and throw around haughty attitudes than it is to think about uncomfortable things, huh?
The ticking time bomb scenario is bad melodrama. It's nothing but an excuse. Proponents of torture always put it forward as an exception, whether fictionally as in BSG or 24, but they really mean torture as policy. That's the only way torture works as policy. But of course torture as terror also "works," even if the information is always unreliable.
If somehow the scenario happened in reality? Why probably the victim of torture would just spout off any old time-consuming false lead. Personally I would be seriously tempted to just chopper this unlikely fiction into LA. I really don't think that would work either, though.
If somehow the scenario happened in reality? Why probably the victim of torture would just spout off any old time-consuming false lead. Personally I would be seriously tempted to just chopper this unlikely fiction into LA. I really don't think that would work either, though.
You wanna play that game then?
Suppose that we'd had the ability to gain information, in advance, that would have made it possible to prevent the September 11th attacks? Or suppose we'd had the ability to gain information, in advance, that would have made it possible to prevent Pearl Harbor? Those aren't "melodrama," they're REALITY.
When you're talking about real life, there are always hard moral choices. Your attempt to frame this as me being "in favor of torture" is total BULLSHIT. That's the sort of "black and white" stuff that any adult immediately knows to reject.
You can feel free to continue to attempt to frame things that way, but it's a lie.
I've dealt with the victims of REAL TORTURE, in person, before. Have you ever spoken to someone who's actually been tortured? I'd take a guess that's a big "nope."
But to be clear... why don't you give us your own definition of torture. Obviously, you don't agree with mine. I'd like to hear yours.
But be careful... be sure that "noisy neighbors" or "annoying TV shows" or "not liking what someone I know believes" or just "not getting everything I want in life, exactly when I want it" doesn't meet your definition of "torture." It's a lot harder to define than you might think, I suspect. But I'm willing to listen... what's YOUR definition?
Ah, that's good, actually. But I wasn't asking what you'd do if someone else got the information from him. I was asking what you'd do if you had to make the choice to attempt to get the information from him (through means that you may believe qualify as "torture") or to do nothing.
I'd tend to assume, from the answer you gave, that you WOULD attempt to get the information from him (even if it meant having to resort to something you find morally repugnant) and attempt to save the lives of the millions in question.
That's my position, too.
This is what I find so annoying about some of the sheltered "moral absolutists" when topics like this come up.
I oppose, under EVERY circumstance, "torture" (as I defined it... the purposeful inducement of pain and suffering as an end to itself).
I do NOT, however, universally oppose "interrogation"... even interrogation that may cause pain and suffering... if it is compellingly justifiable. However, as I've clearly stated, I oppose the use of harsh tactics during interrogation in anything less than the most compelling cases.
I gave a compelling case where any reasonable, adult, morally responsible person would have no choice but to make the decision to resort to what some of you really think of as "torture" in order to attempt to save lives.
I did not say that it would be an EASY decision, nor that it is a morally "black and white" decision. The hard part of this is that you ARE doing something which will make any decent person feel... at best, morally ambiguous, and at worst, downright dirty.
I gave an extreme example where the "moral ambiguity" was as unambiguous as possible. You're talking about choosing between one guy not being made uncomfortable, but millions dying and millions more suffering horribly... or one guy suffering and millions and millions being safe and secure.. and never having their safe, cloistered lives interrupted in any way.
It's not easy... it should never be treated casually. But there ARE circumstances, and these happen in REAL LIFE, not just James Bond flicks, where you have to do things that compromise you, personally, in order to protect the rest of the species from harm.
THAT is what I am in favor of. Just of keeping some perspective here. Abu Graib (sp?) involved some humiliation, but no physical harm. However, that was still wrong, because it wasn't justifiable with an overwhelming moral need (as my example, above, provides).
I'm NOT in favor of "torture" (using my definition) under ANY circumstances, and I'm also not in favor of "gestapo-like" interrogations of random citizens. (Those, generally, happen in socialist "workers paradises.")
You've got it exactly right, stj. Defenders of torture like fiction and "what if" scenarios. They don't like facts or history, particularly recent history, because they find no support there.
So, Dennis, you're going to dodge the issue and refuse to answer the question of what you would do?
Instead, you're going to call me names and accuse me of not knowing recent history?
Care to ask some questions about history, and as you say, "particularly recent history?" Care to provide some of those "facts" you claim I don't like?
Or are you going to go down the Orwellian path of ignoring "badfacts" and creating your own "goodfacts?"
If you're going to refuse to engage in a discussion, to dodge answering clearly asked and direct questions, and instead to resort to lies and namecalling... well, that's not the approach someone who's certain they're RIGHT is likely to take, is it?
Why are you afraid to answer the question I posed to you?
This thread is torture.
My job is done, here.
- Status
