Abu Gharib torture

[Nancy Allen``]

I thought it might be important, especially after seeing some of the videos that didn't dominate the headlines, to discuss one of the darkest moment of the Iraq war. As we all know Private England and her cohorts tortured and humiliated Muslim prisoners at Abu Gharib, something which has people look at all soldiers and think they're the same. Was their punishment justified? Did they act alone? And what of the current standereds deemed acceptable in interrogation? Also, a question for Jae or someone else who would have a better understanding than I would: the soldiers at Abu Gharib would still fall under the American military. Wouldn't they have been interviewed periodically to see whether they were still fit to be soldiers? Because anyone who commits such an act has no right to be called as such.

[Windu Chi]

As we all know Private England and her cohorts tortured and humiliated Muslim prisoners at Abu Gharib, something which has people look at all soldiers and think they're the same. Was their punishment justified? Did they act alone? And what of the current standereds deemed acceptable in interrogation?

Well, for a justification for their punishment, a lot of people I would assume, will say yes. Embarrassment of U.S.A; embarrassment of the Milltary.

But I think higher ranking officers and the higher ups in government, share a good portion of the responsibilty too; I believe Private England and her cohorts was given orders to use interrogation tactics of torture and humiliation of the prisoners.

Like for example, if they had to get information on a terrorist organization possible possession of a fission or fusion bomb, I don't think the use of those interrogation tactics will be ignored by the higher ups and I also believe the public at large in the U.S.A. would have had latter approve of those tactics, after they was advised of the situation .

But of course those interrogation tactics was very wrong, unfair and bullsh*t, but it was a conflict of civilizations: Muslims by most people in the U.S.A, is look apon as enemies as in Britain and some European countries.

The current acceptable standards of acceptable interrogation, of course is probably classified, Nancy.

But the interrogation methods in general will depend on the situation, current static or a dynamic constantly changing situation in real time, feed by intelligence gathering.

 

Because anyone who commits such an act has no right to be called as such.

Yes, Nancy if they did do this alone, they surely lack honor and are a disgrace to the military.

[Jae Onasi]

The behavior of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib was reprehensible (yes, peaceniks will argue all of war is reprehensible, warmongers will argue for war's necessity, I just want to focus on this one particular issue....). It was so very wrong on so very many levels.

Did they act alone? Well, the question to ask is how far up the chain of command does knowledge of this go before someone finally said "You know, maybe this is a bad idea", and I suspect it's relatively high. None of us are ever likely to find out.

People in the military do their jobs just like civilians. As long as the higher-ups weren't seeing a problem, there's not reason to interview someone to make sure they're doing their job correctly. Since it was a detention facility, as long as the prisoners were under control, that was success enough, and the higher-ups may not have wanted to look too hard.

 

Did England deserve punishment? Absolutely. So did everyone else who was involved as well as those who turned a blind eye to what was going on. Besides the moral issue (which is far more important but kind of hard to prosecute), it violated any number of military regs. Not only were the actions just plain wrong, they were pretty darned stupid. Why would you want to take pictures of you and your friends doing something illegal and immoral? There's a prosecutor's dream case....

 

England's going to be in a military prison for a long time, and after she's served her sentence, she'll be dishonorably discharged.

[Rogue15]

yeah it was very stupid of them to do, it makes us all look bad and gives the enemy a reason, that even we would justify-put in that position, for revenge.

 

just like those other idiots that shot a 14 year olds family then raped and shot her. a few of the people in the same unit got slaughtered and mutilated for those fools' wickedness.

[Nancy Allen``]

I can't argue against any of that. My feelings on torture is that in order to fight terrorism any and all means should be utilised, but it has to serve a purpose. What we've all seen on the news however, as well as this video which prompted me to create this thread...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2jBvYvdCMs

 

...that bull**** is torture just for the fun of it. Private England is a ****ing worm, a cockroach, whatever she gets she deserves and so does everyone else involved. Does that include those up the chain of command who ordered it or kept it quiet? I'd like to thank Jae for her answer on interviewing troops, that aspect I was thinking would probably apply to something that was more important than the detention of Iraqi prisoners, so going by the fact they were largely unsupervised and the footage we have seen was more along the lines of soldiers ****ing around rather the humiliation being ordered upon them, I would say there would have to be evidence that they didn't act alone.

[Jae Onasi]

I wouldn't say they were completely unsupervised, but the setup is largely like a civilian prison. As long as you're doing your job, your supervisor isn't going to come and look over your shoulder to double-guess what you're doing.

[Nancy Allen``]

True, if they were at some nuclear facility then the soldiers would be watched more closely. Well maybe not in Russia but we won't go into that.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

The behavior of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib was reprehensible (yes, peaceniks will argue all of war is reprehensible, warmongers will argue for war's necessity, I just want to focus on this one particular issue....). It was so very wrong on so very many levels.

Oh I'm sure you'd like to separate the issue of Abu Ghraib from the rest of the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. But nobody who is being serious can separate the two.

 

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals.

 

What was true then is true now. An illegally invading force does NOT have the right to say "oh, sorry about that one instance of torture (among many)... it was a rogue agent that committed it." The crime of the illegally invading force encompasses ALL of the smaller crimes that follow from it. Every single pointless death and act of torture that followed from the illegal US/UK invasion is the responsibility of the US and the UK. End of story.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

My feelings on torture is that in order to fight terrorism any and all means should be utilised, but it has to serve a purpose.

That's an evil thing to say, and it's an ignorant thing to say.

 

America doesn't have any right to use torture to gain an advantage over its enemies, any more than the enemies of the US have the right to use torture against US personnel. It doesn't matter what "reason" people cite for their barbarous, tortuous acts... Torture is torture. Whether we do it to them, or they do it to us. Basic. Moral. Truism.

 

And let us not forget that psychological and physical torture of innocent people by US personnel continues well beyond Abu Ghraib. These are people who have never been given their day in court, who are innocent until they are proven guilty, and the US has no moral nor any legal right to hold them in custody, let alone hold them in stress positions, break up their sleep patterns, keep them from their friends and family, urinate on their possessions or any of the things that have become routine in the past few years.

[Spider AL]

You've just admitted that you'd torture people "to achieve your goals". That quite clearly makes you an amoral human being in respect of torture.

 

Secondly, you persist in wheeling out the squeaky old fallacy that "America's torture of innocent people under the cloak of "counter-terrorism" saves lives!!!11" Well of course it doesn't. Very little useful intelligence can be gained through torture, as people being tortured say whatever the interrogator wants to hear, just to stop the pain.

 

So when you condone torture, you're condoning torture for the sake of torture. Nothing more noble than that.

 

And when you torture people, you encourage terrorism. Just like the act of waging an illegal war, torture is so blatantly damaging and amoral that it angers people so severely that they're then willing to go off and blow something up.

 

So by condoning torture you're effectively encouraging terrorism.

 

Fourth, by stating that the US should be allowed to torture people, morally speaking you are stating that it would be okay for other nations to kidnap US citizens and torture them for information that they think might "save lives".

 

If it's okay for us to do it to other people, it's okay for other people to do it to us.

 

And finally, by stating that you don't care about someone telling you that your stance on torture is amoral, you're merely showing yourself to be additionally amoral, and obstinately so. It reminds one rather of George Bush Sr.'s famous quotation: "I will never apologise for America, I don't care what the facts are."

[Achilles]

In the interest of being an instigator...

 

Sam Harris: In Defense of Torture

 

Edit: I thought it might be best to share this as well.

[Spider AL]

Interesting editorial. I've only ever encountered the name of Sam Harris, but never read his works. He's quite correct in a couple of respects, and dead wrong in several others. Much of his argument boils down to the idea that in modern warfare, civilian deaths are inevitable, and are much more damaging than torture, and therefore if you support contemporary wars, you cannot be against institutional torture!

 

And that's where he's quite correct. I don't support any of the wars we're waging currently, and no moral person can support those wars. Or institutional torture.

 

Sadly, another of his points boils down to the crusty old ticking bomb fallacy:

 

"If torturing one guy that we KNOW has planted a bomb somewhere in a major city leads the authorities to that bomb (that would have killed many innocents) in time to defuse it, then that instance of torture was ethically justified!"

 

And of course the first rebuttal that springs to mind is that such hypotheticals are very similar to those propounded by advocates of "just war theory". Sure, you can imagine some implausible hypothetical situation in which going to another country and waging war would be totally morally justified, but since we've never encountered such situations, the question is moot. It's the same for torture. You're probably never going to encounter such a situation.

 

And secondly, the possible occurrance of such rarified hypotheticals are certainly no excuse for the type of institutional torture committed by the US and UK against innocent people daily. The two bear no similarity to each other.

 

Now it's time for a flippant pseudo-dialogue:

 

-

 

Sam Harris: Ticking bomb! Ticking bomb! Therefore there are hypothetical instances in which torture might be ethically justified!

 

Me: Might be. However, such situations have never been recorded and will probably never be encountered, so that's a moot point.

 

Sam Harris: Innocents are killed in our "war on terror" all the time! Worse than torture, so torture must be justified as a tactic in this "war".

 

Me: Wrong, because our "war on terror" is unjustified in totality. Bombing cities and torturing people are BOTH wrong.

 

Sam Harris: "The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight wars under any circumstances."

 

Me: Not strictly correct. Covert actions fought in self-defence against invaders are comparitively moral, and do not result in enemy civilian casualties. Therefore, a guerilla war against an illegal occupier is relatively ethical. Furthermore, abroad, special forces can be employed to assassinate high-level military officials without high explosives, therefore without unduly endangering civilians. This would be a far more ethical method of waging war than our current method, which largely consists of blowing everything above ground to smithereens.

 

Sam Harris: "If there is even one chance in a million that he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] will tell us something under torture that will lead to the further dismantling of Al Qaeda, it seems that we should use every means at our disposal to get him talking."

 

Me: Nope. In order to compare with the "ticking bomb" scenario painted earlier, one would have to have a LIKELY expectation that the torture would result in the acquisition of information that DIRECTLY saves lives. One-in-a-million chances just don't cut it.

 

-

 

No, I can't say that his points of view in this article hold water, really. And I particularly scoff at his repeated use of the term "war on terror" as if it's a legitimate term. His comments in the second document are marginally less ludicrous, however.

[Achilles]

Interesting. You seem to take his editorial as argument in favor of torture. I viewed it more along the lines of him holding up a mirror to the majority beliefs. I don't think he would disagree with you that the ticking time bomb scenario is more hypothetical than anything else. By the same token, I don't think that you would disagree with him that in such a scenario, torture would be justified.

 

FWIW, I highly recommend Letter to Christian Nation. It's a short read that you could probably work through in an afternoon.

[Achilles]

And by saying the war on terror is unjustified I take it you don't want justice for September 11, or any victims of terrorism. Or do you believe they are done by America and Israel?

I know this wasn't directed specifically at me, but I would like to offer my 2 cents, if I may.

 

First, the "war on terror" is a misnomer. It's a propaganda machine used by the current administration to create a rallying point for patriots. When US bomber drop ordinance in Afghanistan, they aren't bombing "terror". They are bombing terrorists (at least we hope they're terrorists, right?). The "war on terror" seems to result in an awful lot of dead Afghanis and Iraqis. I don't see a lot of headstones with "Terror" etched on them.

 

Second, the War on Iraq (to use the correct wording) is unjustified. The justification put forth by the administration for the invasion of Iraq has been found to be completely bereft of anything vaguely resembling factual evidence. At best they lied to us. At worst, they didn't do their homework or check their facts before sending 3000+ American soldiers off to die in a foreign country. The latter scenario is completely unacceptable performance from a man who is supposed to protect the citizens in his charge.

 

Was Saddam a slimeball? Certainly. Do I think he should still be in power? Absolutely not. However I think if we were going over there to take care of the monster that we created 25 years ago, we should have just said so.

 

What do you consider to be "justice for 9/11"? Considering 9/11 happened because we drew the ire of fanatics who were pheonomenally pissed at us for screwing with their countries for the past 100 years, do you think launching a war against them is going to act as a soothing balm for the situation? 9/11 was planned by bad men. 9/11 happened because our government failed us. If we want justice, we should be prepared to string our own people up along side those that actually orchestrated it (FWIW, I don't think that's the answer either). A generation from now, a whole new army of Islamic fundies are going to be after us for this war...in the name of justice.

 

I'm not advocating that the people who masterminded 9/11 should be given a pass. I do think we're taking the wrong action. Instead of spending $61 billion on homeland security and $400 billion on an unjustified war, I'd look to swap those numbers.

[Spider AL]

Interesting. You seem to take his editorial as argument in favor of torture.

On the contrary, it's quite clear that he's in favour of torture as part of the US "war on terror". He states as much with "I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."

 

I don't think he would disagree with you that the ticking time bomb scenario is more hypothetical than anything else. By the same token, I don't think that you would disagree with him that in such a scenario, torture would be justified.

Absolutely. However, I do disagree with his statement that:

 

"While rare, such “ticking-bomb” scenarios actually do occur."

 

I've never heard of such a rarified situation as the "ticking bomb scenario" actually occurring, and I think his assertion is abject nonsense.

 

FWIW, I highly recommend Letter to Christian Nation. It's a short read that you could probably work through in an afternoon.

I certainly shall read it, he seems like an interesting writer.

 

-

 

To say I'm amoral in respect to torture is not only an extrapolation but ad hominim. I could say that opposing it's use makes you sympathetic to terrorists.

Nancy, you clearly don't understand what an ad-hominem fallacy IS, and I'd encourage you to go and read up on it before waving it around. Suffice it to say that stating that your stance on torture is amoral is NOT an ad-hominem fallacy, it is merely plain fact.

 

You've stated that you support the use of torture in the "war on terror":

 

"My feelings on torture is that in order to fight terrorism any and all means should be utilised, but it has to serve a purpose."

 

And supporting US torture of untried terror suspects- effectively innocent people- is amoral. Therefore your stance is amoral. End of story.

 

As for accusing me of being sympathetic to terrorists because I oppose the use of torture... That would just be stupid. A total non-sequitur. I'm in favour of giving those accused of criminal acts a fair trial. Does that make me "sympathetic to criminals"? Of course not. It makes me in favour of morality.

 

And by saying the war on terror is unjustified I take it you don't want justice for September 11, or any victims of terrorism. Or do you believe they are done by America and Israel?

You've participated in many Senate threads discussing the so-called "war on terror", and you seem to have absorbed zero facts during all that time.

 

The "war on terror" has increased the threat of terrorism. The "war on terror" has not provided "justice for 9-11", nor for any victims of terrorism. The "war on terror" is a misnomer, as one literally cannot wage a "war" on terrorism. The "war on terror" is illegitimate tactically and morally. The "war on terror" is merely an EXCUSE for international aggression and for removing our civil rights at home.

 

Therefore... it's unjustified. If you can't see that by now, you're never going to absorb it, frankly.

[Spider AL]

Re: Ad hominem.

 

THIS is an example of an ad-hominem:

 

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest."

 

Instead of addressing Bill's arguments, Dave contends that because Bill is biased, the arguments need not be addressed. This is fallacious.

 

Now when I point out to you that your stance on torture is utterly amoral (which it obviously is) I'm not discounting your arguments on that basis. I am also ADDRESSING whatever arguments you attempt to put forward. Thus, there is NO FALLACY.

 

As much as I hate wikipedia, I have no time to find a superior source for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Go and read that. Possibly you might understand the distinction after doing so.

[Spider AL]

Bored now.

 

You're still attacking the person rather than the topic and that's good enough for me.

Wrong, I'm criticising a person's amoral stance on torture, AND addressing the topic. That doesn't qualify as ad hominem, so it's irrelevant whether it's "good enough for you".

 

You don't get to decide what is and is not a logical fallacy, because there are clear and intractible technical definitions of fallacies. My posts did not contain any ad hominems. Go and re-read my previous post, post #19, until you understand that.

 

but saying that I'm ignorant and evil to say that I would utilise any and all means is ad hominem.

I didn't say you were ignorant or evil, go and find a quote in which I call you ignorant or evil. Go on. You won't find one.

 

I called one of your STATEMENTS supporting torture ignorant and evil, and I called your STANCE ON TORTURE amoral. Both are true, neither is ad-hominem.

[Spider AL]

Sigh. Nancy, you can go and talk to the mods about whatever you want. That's your prerogative.

 

Once you've spoken to them, why don't you PM me and we can take this rather silly discussion somewhere that won't clog up this illustrious forum any more than it has already. Frankly you've derailed your own thread and continuing this circular, never-ending nonsense here will do the board no good.

[Spider AL]

After emails from other members, mods even, airing similar sentiments,

I believe you. In point of fact, I could probably make a fairly accurate guess as to the identities of a large proportion of those who have sent you such messages. Including "mods even". Well, one or two.

 

But that doesn't change anything. It makes no point, it contains no coherent argument. In point of fact, I'm certain that I'd be quite PLEASED to be in the bad books of most of the people you're referring to. Frankly I think there are some people in the world that I have a moral duty to be disliked by.

 

A sensible person hardly goes to a dedicated debating forum to "win friends and influence people". This isn't a cocktail party, it's a debating forum.

 

I could be wrong, but maybe there's a reason why hardly anybody comes here anymore.

Well first, I don't know whether to be flattered or not. You're certainly ascribing a great ability to influence to me, and frankly I don't think I have that level of influence.

 

Secondly, if I DID have that level of influence (which I do not), all I do is debate rigorously and logically. If that were to drive some people away from a debating forum... well, let's just say it wouldn't be a very bad thing.

 

Thirdly, I've been debating here for a long time, and always with the same ethic and the same style. The place has never died because of me in the past, there's no reason to suppose it is doing so now.

 

I think that's fairly well addressed. Perhaps now peace and quiet will reign.

[ET Warrior]

Well maybe I should inform the mods, let them decide.

I've been informed, I have decided. There aren't any ad-hominem attacks, at least not in the specific posts in question. There are a few sneaking into the subsequent posts, and I shall be modifying them.

 

It would be marvelous if this thread were to stay on topic from here on out, or I'll just close it.