But I also take mvdg’s larger point- of how our allies view it as an important objection.

So do I. In fact, I brought it up.

Use of torture also has another pragmatic problem in that it damages our ability to form and maintain alliances. This is why al-Qaeda trains its people to falsely claim they were tortured even if they weren’t — they are well aware of the practical public relations impact.

My rejection of torture is on pragmatic grounds (it obtains no useful information and is counterproductive to maintaining cooperative international relationships that are vital to fighting the war against al-Qaeda) and prima facie moral grounds (it is simply not an expression of our national values).

How did Gonzales sail through his confirmation hearings again?

Justice Expands ‘Torture’ Definition
Earlier Policy Drew Criticism

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 31, 2004; Page A01

The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized policy memorandums drafted during President Bush’s first term.

In a statement published on the department’s Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declares that “torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms” and goes on to reject a previous statement that only “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” constitute torture punishable by law.

Friday’s Question:

It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917?
51
60
64
67

That earlier definition of torture figured prominently in complaints by Democrats and human rights groups about White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who oversaw its creation and is Bush’s nominee to become attorney general for the second term. The new memo’s

Actually, it is because few of our enemies comply with the Geneva Conventions that I am skeptical of the “if we do it to them, they will do it to us” justification for anti-torture laws.

I think a key counterargument to this is Nazi Germany. They treated the British and American POWs with a reasonable amount of respect in most cases while not observing any laws against the Russians. The given reason was that the Russians didn’t observe the laws against them.

I’m very cognizant that our current and potential enemies will use our own standards of acceptable conduct against us. Historically, few of our adversaries have adhered to GC standards and I suspect as a result of screw-ups like Abu Ghraib and the administration’s attempt to lawyer unlawful combatants into a legal black hole, fewer still will in the future.

Actually, it is because few of our enemies comply with the Geneva Conventions that I am skeptical of the “if we do it to them, they will do it to us” justification for anti-torture laws. I think it is obvious that our enemies will torture our people regardless, as they have in every conflict since Geneva was signed.

My rejection of torture is on pragmatic grounds (it obtains no useful information and is counterproductive to maintaining cooperative international relationships that are vital to fighting the war against al-Qaeda) and prima facie moral grounds (it is simply not an expression of our national values).

In spite of all the instances of actual U.S. torture and abusive practices, such as those at Abu Ghraib, I think it is vitally important not to jump to the conclusion that torture by the U.S. is pervasive or commonplace.

I have no problem with this, as far as it goes. But the problem is, it doesn’t matter so much what you or I or any American might think about it. Besides that, while I do agree with the statement, it’s not like I’m all that sure.

Clearly, we aren’t nearly as bad on the torture continuum as the pathological Saddam Hussein, but if we use that comparison as an excuse to inch along in his direction when it suits us, we’d better not expect the rest of the world not to notice and wonder what this change means. I think Americans fail to realize how little our sense of our own good intentions is appreciated outside our borders.

Also, “Happy talk” drugs only work as advertised in the movies, even if they were permissible.

The limits on interrogations that police have, with some small modifications, is something I support. To me, as someone who served in a position in the military that carried a higher-than-normal risk of capture, I’m very cognizant that our current and potential enemies will use our own standards of acceptable conduct against us. Historically, few of our adversaries have adhered to GC standards and I suspect as a result of screw-ups like Abu Ghraib and the administration’s attempt to lawyer unlawful combatants into a legal black hole, fewer still will in the future.

I am really not sure at all why we don’t simply use some “happy to talk” juice on those we interrogate?

Use of drugs on detainees for purposes other than their health is a gross violation of Geneva Conventions.

Yes, but like Entropy says, they are open to interpretation, especially the ban on “psychological torture”. As an article I recently posted talked about, nearly any trivial discomfort can and will be claimed to amount to “psychological torture”, even half-inflated basketballs in the rec room or an interrogator who merely raises his voice. At the point that trivial claims receive the same label “torture” as waterboarding and electrodes, we lose the ability to make crucial moral and legal distinctions. Unfortunately, the broad, sweeping definitions used in the Geneva Conventions contribute to this problem rather than solving it.

There is a legitimate purpose to putting some form of psychological pressure on detainees that might have important information. Pressures like isolation, lights, loud music, and conditionally withholding privileges are non-harmful ways to reduce resistance to interrogation similar to those used by law enforcement. I think that the law enforcement standard can be useful in differentiating real abuse or torture from legitimate interrogation practices. If the police can’t do it to a suspect in an interrogation room, then the interrogators at Gitmo shouldn’t be able to do it either. That would also keep us well within the bounds of international consensus without having to muck about with absurd claims about “psychological torture”.

I also want to add this: In spite of all the instances of actual U.S. torture and abusive practices, such as those at Abu Ghraib, I think it is vitally important not to jump to the conclusion that torture by the U.S. is pervasive or commonplace. Such claims go far beyond evidence that is actually available of problems that have occurred. To simply assume that every detainee that claims torture must be telling the truth is to grant credence to people who have been specifically taught by their trainers to make false claims. Certainly, the ICRC and Congressional investigators should be given full access to all detention facilities to increase transparency, but we should as individuals also maintain some skepticism towards the tales told by current or former al-Qaeda operatives. ]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/13127/torturing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-82953 DaveA Wed, 30 May 2007 17:34:11 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/war/13127/torturing-it/#comment-82953 I am really not sure at all why we don't simply use some "happy to talk" juice on those we interrogate? What we do now is not right, and in some cases surley crosses the line to torture (waterboarding, threats of killing, beating...). I am really not sure at all why we don’t simply use some “happy to talk” juice on those we interrogate? What we do now is not right, and in some cases surley crosses the line to torture (waterboarding, threats of killing, beating…).

So the question becomes, how does one get intelligence from these kind of “hard targets” when the easy, effective techniques fail?

Is there even any way? The problem with the information that is gathered under coercion is that the “information” given takes weeks, months or years to check out. From my understanding, some of the worst “intelligence” we got was from Al Qaeda operatives that started making up immensely huge schemes because they knew they the torture would stop (whereas if they just gave little pieces of information that didn’t seem worthwhile the interrogator would feel they were still holding back…and this occurred in renditioned subjects where I think any one has to admit it was torture) and it would take a long time for us to investigate it. Then when it turned out to be false they could just claim the plans must have changed for that scheme and make up another one.

McCain has said that he did similar things when he was tortured.

I know basically nothing about this, but I see almost no way to keep a person with training and strong loyalty from doing this. If there is no reward for giving up information then they will not give any; if there is then they are actually encouraged to make things up to get the most reward; the ultimate reward — release if there was valid information — is out of the question.

I though the article suggested we develop more sophisticated methods for extracting information. That sound good to me.

True, but isn’t this what the Geneva Conventions were for?

Ostensibly, yes, but even the GC definitions are open to some interpretation.