Sounds like if you were an American, you would be a staunch supporter of the NRA - keeping the peace by getting yourself a bigger assault rifle!
All I hope is that you don't ever mistake me for someone who has harmed your nearest and dearest......
Again, spot on.
By using contractors they are not exonerated. They are the contracting party, therefore in breech of the convention anyway. The USA is at odds with itself. Courts and the State Department have cleared several Guantanamo Bay detainees for release. One is still there three years on, the rest shorter but whatever the length of time they are still there. The problem is that it is extraterritorial, By definition that means that rather than arrest and detention pending due course of legal action, they deliberately keep people in 'no man's land'. However, the military can be order by, for instance, presidential order to release them. That Obama has not followed the decision of the courts through and allowed himself that order says a lot more about the real powers that be perhaps. As was being said last week, the CIA are above the law, in fact are a law unto themselves. However, they do not run Guantanamo, so there are other such institutions within the military as well. Land of the free? If the president cannot even control those people what hope is there in other countries who do not even pretend to be democracies?
Tell that to my hypothetical kidnapped family then ! Great & noble sentiments Mike but a complete & utter load of boll*cks to them being held. Do you honestly think 'society' gives a stuff what happens to you & yours ? Damn right I don't like it. When everybody else becomes concerned about what happens to me I'll start worrying about the "better way to live for the majority". Until then I'll lead my relatively lawful life whilst protecting me & mine. Why talk about revenge ? I certainly wasn't. That's the bit that comes later if plan A fails ;-)
That is exactly why we need laws, because if everyone does exactly what they feel like at any given moment we have anarchy. By living in society, we choose to forgo the satisfaction of personal revenge, in exchange for a generally approved system of justice.
As an individual, you may not like that, but it is a better way to live for the majority.
Every contributor here is talking about torture by third parties. I've mixed feelings about the subject but I'll tell you this :- " If any of my family or those close to me were being held by any unlawful means I, given the chance, would resort to any form of torture if I could be sure it would lead me to the captors & the release of my folk. I don't think for one minute I'd enjoy having to do it but by the same minute I wouldn't hesitate. What would I be supposed to otherwise do ? Say, " OK, do what you want to my family. I'll do nothing because I don't want to be like you" I don't think so !
Edit, just re-read Nick's post so not every contributor.
A significant problem is that countries that are signed up to the UN Convention often use 'contactors' to operate on their behalf. Hence the Extraordinary Rendition where captives were taken to a destination where no such foibles about torture existed. It is then easy to say "We don't torture people", the unspoken corollary to which is "we get others to do it for us". When security service personnel operate outside the rules without telling anyone in authority we go through a tortuous (no pun intended) process which may or may not reveal the truth many years later.
For me, torture in all its forms is repugnant and all civilised societies should reject it outright. Descending to the level of your opponents never gave you the right to the moral high ground. Guantanamo still holds prisoners without trial for more than a decade - no moral high ground there.
Exactly, well said!
Talking about protecting citizens exposes the total hypocrisy in this affair. If America was really concerned about safety of citizens, they would do something about their own people being allowed to own military weapons and the shocking annual death toll that results from that.
It is far easier to identify some foreigner as an evil sub-human that you can do anything you like to, because he is different and doesn't operate according to your rules.
But some of these guys hadn't done anything, they had just been picked up by bounty hunters and sold for cash. Their captors were operating outside any civilized system of law and denied them access to legal or diplomatic help for an indefinite period, without hope of a fair trial or release from systematic deprivation and abuse.
I can't find any valid justification for that.
We are stuck between the Devil and the deep blue sea. The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted 30 years and five days ago.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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.
The USA has signed and ratified the convention. Despite that the CIA has used methods described in Article 1 that by its own country's ratification are banned. Out of 197 UN member states, 156 have ratified, 10 have signed but have still to ratify and 31 have taken no action toward signing or ratifying. The 156 having ratified have committed themselves to incorporating it their laws and also to observe other nations with the duty of reporting torture to the UN where it occurs. Yet, like the USA, the majority of countries that are using torture and other excessive forms of violence such as particularly barbaric forms of execution (which also gets close to another question, but not per se part of this one). So, as Jane says, in reality we have gone basically nowhere other than admitting it happens since the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 or perhaps even the treatment of a certain Guido Fawkes after his arrest in 1605 which should be read to 'refresh' ourselves about the gruesome truth behind Guy Fawkes Day.
When this news came out last week there were umpteen reminders that studies have been done that show how unsuccessful most torture is. Whoever faces certain death will almost inevitably give nothing of any value, people who believe strongly in their cause are almost as resistant and others tend to lie or exaggerate without giving very much away. It appears it is only those who are only marginally or not at all involved in activities that are the given reason for torture as a means of getting information who talk a lot. Then they often betray innocent people to attempt to end their own torture. It also seems that many of the people like the ones detained in the facilities at Guantanamo Bay are links in a chain whereby without links either side of their direct contact it is hardly worth trying to get them to talk. The more 'senior' ones with greater knowledge are also careful not to know too much. So the point of using torture is even dubious as well as inhuman.It is not a quick process so of little use in trying to get information fast, such as preventing a bombing that would be within say 72 hours, even using the most violent forms.
As for the argument that Islam is out to impose itself on the entire world by use of violence as a justification, the Q'ran does not say that should be violent, it sets the aim of universal conversion to Islam as a goal. That is much like the intent of Christian missionaries into fairly recent history. The Moslems using violence as a means to that end are a tiny minority of all of Islam. Most would not go so low as to inflict pain and humiliation on fellow human beings.
The notion that its use can be justified even if it saves a single life is misguided since those who are tortured in the modern world tend to be members of groups whose members respond by using retribution than usually includes terrible torture and humiliation before a painful execution. Recent removals of external organs and evisceration of victims before killing them has been all too horrendous an illustration of that.
So, the question is really: Is the world at all civilised or not and have we ever truly learned from the past? Thus far we have managed to continue to be violent and have little regard for the sanctity of life, therefore rather than having discussions like this we should think it through and actively demand it ends. Each single voice that has another added to it amplifies over time and one day, many years hence I suspect, we may end this inhumanity.
You can not reason with fanatics. So torturing a fanatic is probably a waste of time, especially if dying for their cause is on the agenda. On the other hand if a child of mine was kidnapped and I had the opportunity to discover their whereabouts etc I'd probably attempt torture as a last resort.
The idea I wish to suggest is that 'Torture' does not need to be limited to 'inflicting pain and/or terror on a prisoner'. Psychological methods, which some might call ' Abuse' is perhaps more effective in gaining information. many years ago I took part in a Capture and Evasion exercise involving both sight and sound deprivation, sexual ridicule and being feed false information about friends. Such an approach is, I would argue, far more effective in breaking down a person and making them dependent on their capture rs, and more likely to result in accurate information being given.
Second point, it is easy for the 'Citizen' to decry interrogation methods, but the same 'Citizen' wants to feel that the State and the military are protecting them.
Lastly, to address Phil's point. As a former sociologist of religion I would quote my old Prof from the University of Aberdeen, Steve Bruce. The problem with religion is that it becomes a marker of ethnic identity. 'I am right because God is on my side'. Yes Phil, the abuse of religion by those who want to justify their power, or their claim to it.
It's a slippery slope. No matter how we try to justify it, we are in danger of becoming what we set out to oppose.
What makes it worse, is sub-contracting illegal detention and torture to people who do it for profit. So far, the only people who have been punished are the whistle-blowers who have exposed the crimes against humanity of their governments.
Unless I have misread what has been reported in the press the sad fact seems to be that no useful information was obtained by the torture. The Americans will have to either give up on the practice or emulate the methods of the Gestapo/KGB/Saddam Hussein etc. This latter choice would remove any hint of the west having the moral high ground.
Most of the bad things in this world arise not so much from the belief in a deity but that having such a belief renders people much more susceptible to manipulation by power seekers.
No no no never ever
Jane I am interested to know where you got the view that 'Islam considers it has a duty to impose its beliefs on all"
Torture is banned. It's a criminal offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture
I am not sure if this is likely to develop into an anti Muslim (Islam) discussion, or if it will remain focused on the issue of torture. If the latter I think it will develop into an interesting debate.
However, first define your terms as to what is meant by 'Torture'. I would argue that 'Abuse' and 'Torture' are inter-linked, and that a significant part of what the USA, and possibly the UK, have been associated with is 'Abuse'. If one takes this view then we can have a broader debate covering child and sexual abuse, as well as 'Terrorist' and military activity.
Note: As a former member of HM armed forces in Northern Ireland, I am not an impartial bystander in this debate,and feel that perhaps this issue should be coupled with separate one on the concept and reasons for 'Terrorism'
Islam considers it has a duty to impose its beliefs on all and extremists take this duty to mean by any means.
I think you answer your own question by using the term “fanatics”.
As you highlight in your example Glen, It all depends on the information you are trying to find out, why you need it and how fast do you need it.
The 'victims' we are talking about here do not care what we do to them and do not care what they do in turn to their victims.
The only funny thing is that we live in a society where we feel the need to talk about it at all. They would'nt.
I only think we can take a 'high ground' if the enemy also considers it a high ground. In this case our enemy does not have such problems.