I think it depends a lot on what one considers torture. People hear that word and it's conjures up really horrible images--it's the sort of term that needs to be qualified with specifics when it's used. I would be against any form of torture that was directly pain-inducing. But in some cases I could condone something like sleep-deprivation and even humiliation to get information we need if it will save lives.

Our policy should be that we won't subject any prisoner, any prisoner, to treatment that we wouldn't accept if our own captured troops were subjected to it. If we would consider it torture if it was done to our own troops, then we shouldn't be doing it to anyone else.

Kronus, agreed.

How do you define torture? If you mean maiming or disfigurement, I might be inclined to agree with a ban although the possibility of that sort of thing may assist in interrogations. If you mean physical or psychological stress or discomfort, I take a much more relaxed position - particularly for war criminals who do not wear uniforms or insignia, do not fight for a recognized nation, do not carry their arms openly, hide among civilians, and otherwise do not respect the conventions of warfare.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

How do you define torture? If you mean maiming or disfigurement, I might be inclined to agree with a ban although the possibility of that sort of thing may assist in interrogations. If you mean physical or psychological stress or discomfort, I take a much more relaxed position - particularly for war criminals who do not wear uniforms or insignia, do not fight for a recognized nation, do not carry their arms openly, hide among civilians, and otherwise do not respect the conventions of warfare.

That's my position. It's easy and convenient to make a blanket, unqualified statement like "our policy shouldn't be to torture any prisoner" when torture is an undefined concept. One could argue that discomfort or mental fatigue isn't really torture. On the other hand, someone could argue that even being in prison period IS a form of torture, and so we torture people by the very act of incarceration by our criminal justice system. Discussions about torture need to be dealt with in a way that includes specifics.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

How do you define torture? If you mean maiming or disfigurement, I might be inclined to agree with a ban although the possibility of that sort of thing may assist in interrogations. If you mean physical or psychological stress or discomfort, I take a much more relaxed position - particularly for war criminals who do not wear uniforms or insignia, do not fight for a recognized nation, do not carry their arms openly, hide among civilians, and otherwise do not respect the conventions of warfare.

Why should the status of the prisoner matter? If you wouldn't allow a certain form of treatment for a regular captured soldier, why would you permit it for others?

Torture of any degree, for any reason is unacceptable.

Force the prisoner to listen to an entire Celine Dion album for a good 5 hours; Now that would be torture.

I put no.

I voted no, but I have no idea why it says "It's Unamerican". What is that supposed to mean? America has tortured in the past. Does it mean it goes against American morals? If so, what are 'American morals'? And what about other countries, can they torture?

-Wez

Originally Posted by Kronus

Why should the status of the prisoner matter? If you wouldn't allow a certain form of treatment for a regular captured soldier, why would you permit it for others?

You can't judge a book by its cover, you can't judge the character of a person by the color of his/her skin, and you can't claim that a creature is human just because of a vague physical resemblance.

Soldiers who behave honorably and follow the conventions of warfare are entitled to be treated humanely. Terrorists are not, and should be disposed of like the mad dogs they are.

Originally Posted by Ooaman

Force the prisoner to listen to an entire Celine Dion album for a good 5 hours; Now that would be torture.

Or maybe Lee Greenwood's God Bless The USA 24/7 at 100db?

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

Soldiers who behave honorably and follow the conventions of warfare are entitled to be treated humanely. Terrorists are not, and should be disposed of like the mad dogs they are.

I would suggest that how we behave should not depend on the recipient of our behavior. If a behavior is wrong, then it is always wrong and it should never be indulged in. If torture is wrong, and the fact that you won't use it on honorable soldiers suggests you believe that it is, than to use it is immoral. The fact that the enemy is evil does not relieve us of our moral obligations. If you cast aside your morals because the enemy is evil, than how are you any different from them? After all, they're using dishonorable methods because they feel our evil warrants such measures. They say that any actions are justified in fighting the "Great Satan." How is that any different from your position?

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

You can't judge a book by its cover, you can't judge the character of a person by the color of his/her skin, and you can't claim that a creature is human just because of a vague physical resemblance.

Soldiers who behave honorably and follow the conventions of warfare are entitled to be treated humanely. Terrorists are not, and should be disposed of like the mad dogs they are.

But this is a very subjective interpretation. In a war, especially the one we are engaged in, who can claim to be an authority on what is 'honourable' or not? According to US supporters, the terrorists are simply 'evil' and, in your own words, 'mad dogs'. From the point of view of those who suffer as a result of US military action, it is the US who is 'evil'.

The only obvious difference between the tactics employed by the US and those employed by the terrorists or the resistance in Iraq is that the US has vastly more money and material. The phenomenon of suicide bombing has grown out of the lack of other available effective means of attack, as well as the extremist martyrdom aspect of Islamic culture.

Those who label the terrorists 'cowardly' because they do not use 'conventional' forms of warfare are ignoring the fact that there is no 'conventional' warfare; war has changed as technology developed and the US's strategies have changed as they have grown more and more absurdly supreme in the military sphere. It is hard to see how the large scale bombing of countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan and now Iraq can be justified as more 'honourable' than suicide attacks, and the only justification given is that this is 'conventional' warfare.

Therefore I disagree completely with your statement that "terrorists are not [entitled to humane treatment]" which you justify, in your first paragraph, on the grounds that they are somehow less than human. We cannot, in war, judge people by the methods they use, when those methods are simply the result of capitalising on the most effective tactics. No nation (or movement) in the world has a hope in hell of resisting the US using 'conventional' means, so we can only expect them to choose guerilla-style tactics over large-scale engagements every time. This does not make them 'evil'.

In conclusion, I fully agree with Kronus and will summarise my thinking on this in two points:

1) Our behaviour, even (or especially) in wartime should be consistent with the morals we believe our society stands for.

2) If we do believe our enemy to be truly 'evil', then surely we must maintain the moral high ground and retain what we see as 'goodness', otherwise we have achieved nothing.

The problem with the blanket use of the "do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them do-unto-you" philosophy at the national wartime-political level is that it doesn't take into account that sometimes extreme measures are needed in extreme cases. In such a case where the interrogation of one Nazi would save the countless lives of Jews, it would have been unfortunate and downright wrong to refuse to use (for the sake of the golden rule) things like sleep deprivation abd some humilation to extract much-needed and life-saving information.

In some cases, using such tactics might in fact be the only way to KEEP the golden rule toward those who will be saved by getting the information. That's why each situation has to be judged on it's own merits, not by a blanket dogmatic approach simply because of the negative connotations of the word "torture." (And again, the term needs to always be qualified.)

Originally Posted by jyoshu

In such a case where the interrogation of one Nazi would save the countless lives of Jews, it would have been unfortunate and downright wrong to refuse to use (for the sake of the golden rule) things like sleep deprivation abd some humilation to extract much-needed and life-saving information.

Would you accept sleep deprivation and humiliation being used on our troops?

Would you use branding irons and electro shock on that Nazi?