What constitutes torture?

[Grub]

We've been discussing waterboarding and torture. Especially for those of you against the use of waterboarding because you say it is torture, what constitutes torture?

We all know the rack, cutting off fingers, etc, is torture, but what all does your definition of torture encompass?

Besides asking terrorists direct questions, what all would you allow and what wouldn't you allow?

[Iwerddon]

permanent mental or physical harm or the endangerment of life. That of course just opens another can of definition worms =P

Taken too far, things like sleep depravation and solitary confinement can be torture. Historically almost all uses of waterboarding are torture. I personally think this is the point the argument revolves around. Those that believe since nearly all of the waterboarding that has happened in the history of the world is torture, that all is torture - and those that believe there is a line where waterboarding becomes torture.

[Bad Infinitum]

Torture is what happens when standard interrogation yields no results. The interrogator wants information, the captive allegedly has this information but is unwilling to share said information with the aforementioned interrogator.

The three major components of hostile interrogation are the "three F's": friends, finance, and family (in that order). First, the interrogator threatens to bring in the captive's associates to subject them to questioning. This is the least effective threat, but the easiest to perform, and is used first because it will sometimes yield results. If "friends" doesn't work, the interrogator moves on to finances, threatening to drain the captive's bank accounts and ruin his or her credit. This usually will be enough to break most criminals, as greed is a very powerful motivation. Finally, the captive's family is threatened. This is usually never even acted up on, but the scare is all that it takes.

In some situations, frequently in the middle east, the detainee has no reason to be threatened by the three F's. Sometimes the detainee has no friends, no money, and may have even abandoned their family. In extreme cases, the person will have nothing to lose and is prepared to die. These are the situations where more aggressive interrogation becomes a viable tactic.

Torture has never been condoned by the DoD, for obvious reasons, but restriction breeds creativity. Waterboarding, before it became a media phenomenon, was not considered torture and was technically completely legal. The actual act of waterboarding can barely be constituted as torture, since the person's body is never actually harmed, just the psyche. Waterboarding gives the detainee the sense that they are drowning. This sensation, though physically harmless, is extremely terrifying.

This is where the true proverbial "line in the sand" is drawn. Psychological torture is still considered torture, but the true degree of damage is usually invisible. Physical torture is just as effective, but there is visible damage done to the detainee and thus is a much more black and white issue than psychological torture.

Any interrogation will damage a person mentally, but the real question here is this: How much is too much? Where does aggressive interrogation become psychological torture?

Whatever methods are outlawed, some sick bastard will always find a new way to damage their fellow man, be it physically or psychologically.

In summary, I'll just answer the original questions directly:

Q1. What constitutes torture?
A1. Irreversible physical or psychological harm to a captive that is subject to interrogation techniques.

Q2. What all does your definition of torture encompass?
A2. See A1.

Q3. Besides asking terrorists direct questions, what all would you allow and what wouldn't you allow?
A3. One can not specifically outline what is and isn't allowed, because there will always be something new, and by the time it comes to the public eye it will be too late to stop (e.g. waterboarding).

I'll go into specific detail with waterboarding in the waterboarding thread.

[Iwerddon]

May 26, 2009 18:17:21 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Waterboarding, before it became a media phenomenon, was not considered torture and was technically completely legal. The actual act of waterboarding can barely be constituted as torture, since the person's body is never actually harmed, just the psyche. Waterboarding gives the detainee the sense that they are drowning. This sensation, though physically harmless, is extremely terrifying.

I'm assuming you just mean U.S. waterboarding?

[Bad Infinitum]

May 26, 2009 21:54:27 GMT -5 Iwerddon said:

May 26, 2009 18:17:21 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Waterboarding, before it became a media phenomenon, was not considered torture and was technically completely legal. The actual act of waterboarding can barely be constituted as torture, since the person's body is never actually harmed, just the psyche. Waterboarding gives the detainee the sense that they are drowning. This sensation, though physically harmless, is extremely terrifying.

I'm assuming you just mean U.S. waterboarding?

That's the debate, is it not? It seems to only be a war crime if the US commits it.

[Estayland]

Ignoring international law, do you believe giving truth syrum (sp?) is torture?

[Iwerddon]

May 26, 2009 22:28:28 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

May 26, 2009 21:54:27 GMT -5 Iwerddon said:

I'm assuming you just mean U.S. waterboarding?

That's the debate, is it not? It seems to only be a war crime if the US commits it.

Yea, just clarifying i guess. It seems like to me that people who are adamant it's torture justify it with comparisons to history or other countries not comparisons to what actually is done.

May 26, 2009 22:42:37 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Ignoring international law, do you believe giving truth syrum (sp?) is torture?

To be honest, I don't know enough about em to make a verdict. There is much misinformation surrounding them. If you fight a war where the other side is going to follow international law, it is probably worth it to outlaw truth serums unless it's laid out about exactly what drugs can be used and it what amounts. Otherwise people are going to start getting injected with new tests. That's unnerving to me.

On a side note, I had surgery 12 years ago and I think he said it was Sodium thiopental as I fuzzed out. After that day I suddenly had frequent odd memory hangups for quite awhile. Mid sentence I'd lose a word I was about to say or I'd be unable to think of the proper descriptive word in the first place or just suddenly skip a word as i was talking or mix up two words as they fell out. I still have this happen but it's much less frequent. My doctor said that it is a potential uncommon side effect and can rarely last over 20 years.

[New Dracora]

May 27, 2009 0:59:53 GMT -5 Iwerddon said:

May 26, 2009 22:28:28 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

That's the debate, is it not? It seems to only be a war crime if the US commits it.

Yea, just clarifying i guess. It seems like to me that people who are adamant it's torture justify it with comparisons to history or other countries not comparisons to what actually is done.

*whistles innocently*

May 27, 2009 0:59:53 GMT -5 Iwerddon said:

May 26, 2009 22:42:37 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Ignoring international law, do you believe giving truth syrum (sp?) is torture?

To be honest, I don't know enough about em to make a verdict. There is much misinformation surrounding them. If you fight a war where the other side is going to follow international law, it is probably worth it to outlaw truth serums unless it's laid out about exactly what drugs can be used and it what amounts. Otherwise people are going to start getting injected with new tests. That's unnerving to me.

On a side note, I had surgery 12 years ago and I think he said it was Sodium thiopental as I fuzzed out. After that day I suddenly had frequent odd memory hangups for quite awhile. Mid sentence I'd lose a word I was about to say or I'd be unable to think of the proper descriptive word in the first place or just suddenly skip a word as i was talking or mix up two words as they fell out. I still have this happen but it's much less frequent. My doctor said that it is a potential uncommon side effect and can rarely last over 20 years.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. So what you're saying is because you think you've experienced it and found it to cause harm - but you aren't certain it causes harm to everyone - that it might be right to class it as torture?

So does this mean if you were subjected to waterboarding and found it to cause some kind of harm that you would consider that it might be right to class waterboarding as torture?

[Iwerddon]

May 27, 2009 2:57:20 GMT -5 New Dracora said:

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. So what you're saying is because you think you've experienced it and found it to cause harm - but you aren't certain it causes harm to everyone - that it might be right to class it as torture?

So does this mean if you were subjected to waterboarding and found it to cause some kind of harm that you would consider that it might be right to class waterboarding as torture?

Did you miss the parts where I stated very specifically my feelings on them, or just read the interesting side note part? Let me quote myself and bold the important parts.

"If you fight a war where the other side is going to follow international law, it is probably worth it to outlaw truth serums unless it's laid out about exactly what drugs can be used and it what amounts. Otherwise people are going to start getting injected with new tests. That's unnerving to me."

Other than that I offered no opinion one way or another, because as I said, "To be honest, I don't know enough about em to make a verdict."

[Relalix]

i believe that torture can be justifiable dependant on the situation. for example, in certain situations, the 'gene hunt' approach could be used - specifically for the mass murderers and those sort of crimes, but not like a mugging.

torture is, in my opinion, defined as any method to extract information that causes physical damage or pain to the inmate, and should be constituted where, after a certain amount of time, say 48 hours, the inmate has not volounteered any information.

and, in a nutshell, should be brought back into common use.

[New Dracora]

Jun 15, 2009 2:07:07 GMT -5 Relalix said:

i believe that torture can be justifiable dependant on the situation. for example, in certain situations, the 'gene hunt' approach could be used - specifically for the mass murderers and those sort of crimes, but not like a mugging.

torture is, in my opinion, defined as any method to extract information that causes physical damage or pain to the inmate, and should be constituted where, after a certain amount of time, say 48 hours, the inmate has not volounteered any information.

and, in a nutshell, should be brought back into common use.

*facepalm*

[Salinthal]

I would torture select people if our current interrogation techniques proved ineffective. In my opinion the people I care about are more important to me than the person I am about to interrogate.

[Woaz]

I can understand the idea of using torture to get information to protect those you care about. But, I can not agree to the use of torture. Water boarding does have a chance of causing psychological damage. It is a border line case I think I would allow as well as sleep depravation and isolation. Of course each of these do require limits. I am not expert enough to say what they should be.

The results of the torture could not be used as evidence at trial. The questions can't be along the line of are you a terrorist. You know they would admit to it eventually. But could be used for military intelligence gathering and crime prevention.

One thing this discussion seems to be overlooking. Some of you believe its OK to torture the bad guys. What if you get the wrong guy? What if you are torturing a person to get answers that the person does not have to give? Is torture still OK?

[Austin]

I agree with most of what has already been said. Although watrbourding is a primarily phsycological torture its gotta hurt, you can't breath. Torture should be banned. Only if you were under an immediate threat with huge repercussions should torture be used. However in most situations the time it would take to get permission it would probably be too late.

[Adriatic Islands]

Torture by definition is using means in which are mental, emotional or physical abuse to extract information.