Poll: "enhanced interrogation"

[MuggedByReality]

  This subject is quite topical (having featured in W Bush's memoir); thought I'd make a poll

[Chavi]

Terrorists forfeit their human rights from the moment that they partake in terrorism. I would say that for them, water-boarding is a fairly benign form of 'interrogation' (heaven compared to how they interrogate POWs in Gaza or Pakistan)

[/0]

Terrorists forfeit their human rights the moment they pick up the gun. I would say that for them, water-boarding is a fairly benign form of 'interrogation' (heaven compared to how they interrogate POWs in Gaza or Pakistan)

But many subjects tortured using this technique might only be terror suspects. Many of them may not have been through a court of law to prove they were planning terrorist actions.

Also... I think that no human should ever lose their human rights. When we start saying stuff like that it we are allowing ourselves to commit inhumane atrocities... we need only look to the holocaust as an example of that. I agree that waterboarding is not the worst torture out there, but it is torture nonetheless.

[TrueLight]

But many subjects tortured using this technique might only be terror suspects. Many of them may not have been through a court of law to prove they were planning terrorist actions.

Also... I think that no human should ever lose their human rights. When we start saying stuff like that it we are allowing ourselves to commit inhumane atrocities

yep

i was going to say what happened to the rule of law? going through due process. presumed innocent until proven guilty.

and many who have been accused of being terrorists have been innocent.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/

and besides waterboarding doesn't work. if i was waterboarded i would say whatever they wanted me to say too

this article sums it up nicely
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=110
ha and his warning that "At some point it becomes inevitable that these actions will be taken against U.S. citizens, perhaps for far simpler crimes." has come true... with Obama authorising the assassination of US citizens which he deems to be involved in terrorism http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations.

[Glockmeister]

Terrorists forfeit their human rights from the moment that they partake in terrorism. I would say that for them, water-boarding is a fairly benign form of 'interrogation' (heaven compared to how they interrogate POWs in Gaza or Pakistan)

But how would you make a determination on whether a person is actually a terrorist. Say someone like David Hicks (also having recently published a memoir too)?

[Chavi]

Also... I think that no human should ever lose their human rights. When we start saying stuff like that it we are allowing ourselves to commit inhumane atrocities... we need only look to the holocaust as an example of that. I agree that waterboarding is not the worst torture out there, but it is torture nonetheless.

Just as a murderer in the US loses his human right to life when he is condemned to death (e.g. Timothy Mcveigh) in a court of law, we see clearly that Human rights are simply 'entitlements' provided by the government - and those privileges that otherwise normal citizens enjoy can by taken away as a punitive measure. Is it inhumane? I wouldn't say so - (without getting off topic into the whole Capital Punishment vs Morality debate). If terrorists are guaranteed a furnished cell with internet access, three meals a day, TV, and an option to pursue a University degree - then they have no incentive to renounce terrorism for fear of retribution or punishment.

The comparison to the Holocaust is very far fetched and doesn't illustrate your point at all. Wheras Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Political Prisoners were murdered en masse by the Nazis because of their race or creed (i.e. they did nothing to deserve their treatment) - enhanced interrogation can be thought of a punitive measure against those who actively threaten innocent lives.

But how would you make a determination on whether a person is actually a terrorist. Say someone like David Hicks (also having recently published a memoir too)?

Obviously due process is extremely important in these cases - but I would like to ask you, if a person is conclusively proven as a terrorist (e.g. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), would you support using 'enhanced interrogation techniques in order to extract valuable information that could save lives?

As for David Hicks (aka Muhammed Dawood), I find his his version of the truth very questionable. He just 'happened' to be wandering around in Afghanistan, and then by 'chance' he joined a terror organization, and then 'somehow' he ended up fighting against coalition forces. He just portrays himself as a helpless victim of events beyond his control, when in reality he actively sought terrorism and knew what he was doing. Why does he deserve special treatment over all other terror suspects? Is it because he holds Australian citizenship and was lucky enough to be born here?

[Cianyx]

Torture as a form of interrogation often yield false information and people will admit to being a 'terrorist' under extreme duress. Look at Guantanamo Bay for example. Most prisoners, which are from Pakistan, admitted to be involved in terrorist activity. In reality, many of these people were arrested based on some false claim (which yields a high bounty (a five year wage of an average Pakistani)) and later tortured daily until they admit so.

Plus, the 'ticking time bomb' scenario is not always a good one to bring up. I usually resist the urge to refer to the slippery slope argument but I view it to be necessary here. There has been countless cases where legalised torture has led to mass amounts of people being tortured in replacement of a proper or formal investigation. To accept torture as a means of interrogation would legitimise the use of torture to oppress a population.

Whether or not it defies human rights law is irrelevant or of no concern to me, but nevertheless,  the act is destructive and places too much power in the hands of the government (which is likely to be abused).

[Chavi]

Enhanced interrogation methods are sometimes the only way to coerce a terrorist into revealing important information. I'd be interested if you would provide one example of a democratic country that has resorted to oppressing its citizens after legalizing torture against suspected terrorists. And yes, if the government has the power to detain criminals and go to war, then they most probably have the power to interrogate those prisoners (unless you consider all the aforementioned examples as 'abuses of power' in which case the point is moot, as any form of government control is already evil in the eyes of libertarian ideology).

[Cianyx]

If it is the only way, it is extremely flawed. I'll reiterate: Anyone would admit to anything under torture (cause fuck euphemisms). Even the FBI admitted to this. Ever since the US received the green light for 'professional interrogation techniques', there has been a step up in these activities. There are plenty of cases where Western citizens are extradited to black sites under the guise of accusations of suspicious activity (Maher Arrar, Khalid El-Masri). If you consider Pakistan to be a democracy, there is a goldmine of cases.

If the US has gone so far to allow for FBI surveillance without warrants and COINTELPRO, it is quite likely that unreported tortures has occurred without our knowledge. Torture is extremely destructive and only perpetuates and inflames the vicious cycle of war (Abu Ghraib anyone?).

[Chavi]

But what of 'enhanced interrogation' by enlightened countries where torture is simply a 'means' to extract info, rather than an end in itself? (I'm assuming that in non-democracies torture is a political weapon)

I do agree somewhat with the idea that the way a country handles prisoners reflects on its government and democracy ... but there is a clear line between pacifist appeasement to terror - and interrogating suspects for the sake of preventing further attacks.

[Cianyx]

I see it as an extreme act of desperation. Even if the source was reliable, I would prefer to see the army or government exhaust every means of investigation and clearance from impartial channels (both civilian and official) before I agree to its usage.

Any sane person (or state) would agree that it is better to sacrifice one enemy to save the community. However, the regulations on it must be tightened up and preferably not used so liberally as we are witnessing right now. For this to occur,  great transparency and an unbiased court of law is needed. None of which are being implemented in the military at the moment.

[Russ]

I oppose torture on the grounds of intrinsic human rights, but I'm not particularly hard line about it.

as any form of government control is already evil in the eyes of libertarian ideology

Yeah but selling the public on no torture is much easier than convincing them not to support democracy as a process.

[Chavi]

I see it as an extreme act of desperation. Even if the source was reliable, I would prefer to see the army or government exhaust every means of investigation and clearance from impartial channels (both civilian and official) before I agree to its usage.

Any sane person (or state) would agree that it is better to sacrifice one enemy to save the community. However, the regulations on it must be tightened up and preferably not used so liberally as we are witnessing right now. For this to occur,  great transparency and an unbiased court of law is needed. None of which are being implemented in the military at the moment.

I don't think torture methods are being used liberally - if at all, in the Western world today. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are a couple of isolated incidents that received wide media coverage (kudos @the mass media) - and something that the Obama administration has vowed never to repeat. Not to mention over-documentation by a string of NGOs such as Amnesty and HWR on every minor slip up a democratic country makes. (On a side issue - I watched a recent interview with the Dubya, and he mentioned that he was only prepared to authorize waterboarding if it was legal - turns out it was. Make of that what you will)

And whilst I remain ambivalent about this entire issue (of legalized interrogation techniques), I doubt that opening up civilian courts to try terrorists will be very effective. Mostly because these people don't operate within the framework of International Law or democratic values (in fact, many don't even recognize America/Australia's right to exist - let alone to operate courts of law). I do agree that everyone must have a right to a trial, but I see no problem with extracting valuable information to prevent further bloodshed.

[Glockmeister]

But how would you make a determination on whether a person is actually a terrorist. Say someone like David Hicks (also having recently published a memoir too)?

Obviously due process is extremely important in these cases - but I would like to ask you, if a person is conclusively proven as a terrorist (e.g. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), would you support using 'enhanced interrogation techniques in order to extract valuable information that could save lives?

As for David Hicks (aka Muhammed Dawood), I find his his version of the truth very questionable. He just 'happened' to be wandering around in Afghanistan, and then by 'chance' he joined a terror organization, and then 'somehow' he ended up fighting against coalition forces. He just portrays himself as a helpless victim of events beyond his control, when in reality he actively sought terrorism and knew what he was doing. Why does he deserve special treatment over all other terror suspects? Is it because he holds Australian citizenship and was lucky enough to be born here?

To the first question. The answer is never. Even if the person might have valuable information, you don't know whether the person is going to spin you a yarn if you go about torturing people. This is not to say that police can't interrogate people. They can. But there are proper legitimate methods of doing things and there isn't. Waterboarding is not a legitimate way of interrogating people. The Law Enforcer must also be bound to the law, lest they become a farce.

To the second point, the most important thing to realise that first of all, David Hicks has never ever been charged with conducting or preparing any terrorist offence. Indeed, had he been captured by Australians, he could not be charged with any offence. Despite the conditions in Guantanamo Bay which favoured the prosecution, the only charge they could pin him with was "providing material support for terrorism", which required a retrospective law change to achieve. He probably pleaded guilty just to get out of the place. The point isn't really what he did, which no one doubt was quite naive at the time. The point is what happened afterwards. He has never had the chance to put out a defence in a proper open court like any other criminal and has never had the chance to answer to the allegations that you at the moment accusing him of because of the actions of the Bush Administration. It's likely that we'll never know what exactly happened.

I see it as an extreme act of desperation. Even if the source was reliable, I would prefer to see the army or government exhaust every means of investigation and clearance from impartial channels (both civilian and official) before I agree to its usage.

Any sane person (or state) would agree that it is better to sacrifice one enemy to save the community. However, the regulations on it must be tightened up and preferably not used so liberally as we are witnessing right now. For this to occur,  great transparency and an unbiased court of law is needed. None of which are being implemented in the military at the moment.

I don't think torture methods are being used liberally - if at all, in the Western world today. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are a couple of isolated incidents that received wide media coverage (kudos @the mass media) - and something that the Obama administration has vowed never to repeat. Not to mention over-documentation by a string of NGOs such as Amnesty and HWR on every minor slip up a democratic country makes. (On a side issue - I watched a recent interview with the Dubya, and he mentioned that he was only prepared to authorize waterboarding if it was legal - turns out it was. Make of that what you will)

And whilst I remain ambivalent about this entire issue (of legalized interrogation techniques), I doubt that opening up civilian courts to try terrorists will be very effective. Mostly because these people don't operate within the framework of International Law or democratic values (in fact, many don't even recognize America/Australia's right to exist - let alone to operate courts of law). I do agree that everyone must have a right to a trial, but I see no problem with extracting valuable information to prevent further bloodshed.

First of all, you can not say that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are 'minor' incidences. They pretty much shot any moral legitimacy that the Western World has to talk to other nations about Human Rights abuses or even being the righteous people.

I wouldn't trust anyone in the Bush Administration for legal advice. The only way that it could be seen to be legal was to rely on the creative interpretation (read: bullshit) by the-then US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales. I'm glad that Obama has vowed never to repeat what happened in the eight years of Bush's presidency.

Look, the British managed to do so with Pam Am bombing, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I don't see how a person's viewpoint about the legitimacy of a court should influence one iota where a person should be tried.

[jaccerz]

water boarding wasnt done at gutmo bay.

it was done in american "terrorist prison bases" in Europe so that the USA could bypass the pow treaty(geneva convention) or whatever it is.

if the us did it on their soil. they would be fucked for it. so they did it in other countries.