What is your opinion on torture?

[mogster]

I've made this poll because of a BBC-sponsored poll just out now.

Is the BBC whitewashing torture here?

One-third support 'some torture'



Nearly a third of people worldwide back the use of torture in prisons in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.
Although 59% were opposed to torture, 29% thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism.

While most polled in the US are against torture, opposition there is less robust than in Europe and elsewhere.

More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture was acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.

Some 36% of those questioned in the US agreed that this use of torture was acceptable, while 58% were unwilling to compromise on human rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm
-----------------------------------------------
The full result of the poll is at the bottom of the article.

There are several things about this article and the survey that's strange.

The headline, as it should have been:

The world says NO to torture

That's the gist of the survey. One paragraph confirms it:

"The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), whose organisation helped conduct the survey.

As it is, the headline says: Bush have some support for his new law. Does he really?

More; why is not any Scandinavian country surveyed? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland - they're all very concerned with human rights, and I'd suggest that the 'pro-torture' number would have dropped if they'd been asked.

"The survey was carried out for the BBC World Service by polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)."

PIPA is an American institute:
"The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is an institution devoted to research on the public opinion of international politics. It is jointly run by the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland at the School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park.

PIPA has investigated topics such as the public perceptions of United States international politics and of international organisations (NATO, the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund). It maintains the Americans and the World website, described as a "source of comprehensive information on US public opinion on international issues"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_on_International_Policy_Attitudes

Without knowing one bit about this institute; is it's intentions likely to be flawed by the political situation in the USA?

Globescan is working for the corporate segment, as well as doing surveys for the BBC:

"Corporate communications
Overview
GlobeScan has developed a unique approach to communications research, designed to provide strategic input at every stage of the communications process. We help organisations to:

Understand their target audiences and how to reach them.
Develop focused messaging.
Measure media coverage and audience penetration.
Measure outcomes - stakeholder impact and behaviour.
Use research to develop KPIs and scorecards for communications."
http://www.globescan.com/cc_overview.htm

Now for some quick questions from me about this poll/article, feel free to comment:

How do you poll ordinary people in China? Do you have free access to ask them anything, or will the govt. control/intervene?
How were the selection of respondents in each country conducted, by the polling institute?
Why is Israel focused as having the highest number of pro-torture respondents when India is the only country with a larger precentage of pro-torture respondents than respondents against torture?
On which basis was the countries picked for the survey?

As you'd probably surmise, my faith in the institutions carrying out polls is not very high.

This is the questions asked, and the questions in this DU poll are the same.

"*27,000 respondents in 25 countries were asked which position was closer to their own views:
1. Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.

2. Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives."

[Swamp Rat]

1. I am against torture 100% in any and all situations, no matter what.

[mogster]

3. I agree with you

No excuse for torture, whatsoever. The worst thing is that we're even discussing it as an option.
Tell me; wasn't torture regarded as a method that would produce flawed intel, back in the (happy) time when people based their opinions on facts, not their facts on opinions?

[Swamp Rat]

5. Torture has NEVER worked.

The tomes of history verify that fact.



Bushler has taken us back, to a New Dark Ages.

[mogster]

7. I agree again

There's also one thing that's wrong in this survey:

"governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture"

There's no such thing as 'some degree on torture' if we break it down. Either one allows for use of violence during interrogations or one does not. As for the Bush-administration's new powers, it's ambiguous because they can define on the fly what should be regarded as torture and what should not. As it goes, they will define as torture what suits the daily needs. The daily politics.
The torturer gets to decide what's torture and what isn't.

This survey looks more and more suspicious to me.

[AngryAmish]

25. That is, of course, nonsense

Torture is immoral but...

Torture is a very effective tool for finding out the truth. The key to it is stopping the pain when the tortured has given up the truth.

I commend the book "Bravo Two-Zero" by Andy McNab to you. He was an SAS commando in the first gulf war was was captured and tortured in -guess where - Abu Grahib. At the time he was among the most highly trained soldiers on earth and after a while he gave up the details of his operation to make the pain stop. Some people never crack but most people do.

Now if torture is done correctly then you break the person then check his facts. If the facts do not match up to reality then the torture begins again. Also sleep deprivation is very effective.

I know a guy who used to be an air force pilot. He went through the training. Even without physical torture (in training) the sleep deprivation, being kept cold and confused made him spill the personal information he was not supposed to spill. It happens.

Sometimes torture is used just to extract a false confession (gulag, witch trials). But when done to seek the truth the truth usually comes out.

[Swamp Rat]

26. THAT is nonsense and I find it repulsive its use is even considered.

While the one might obtain some, inaccurate information, it has more transformative power on the torturers: Americans who torture are instantly transformed into the enemy.

"Now if torture is done correctly..." That's disgusting. :puke:

"But when done to seek the truth the truth usually comes out." - No, the TRUTH is lost.

Let me repeat, torture NEVER works.

[AngryAmish]

27. The use of torture is immoral

It should not be used. But to say it is never effective ignores thousands of years of human history. Whenever a city was taken the invaders would round up the rich folks in town. They would ask the rich folks where they buried the gold. if proper responses were not forthcoming then the torture started. If rich guy A said the gold was buried in location B and it wasn't, the torture was used until he pointed out where the gold was really buried. The gold was usually found.

[mogster]

30. You talk like we're living in the middle ages

I used to think we've progressed somewhat.

We're talking about information input into an intricate picture here, not the whereabouts of a chest of gold. Besides, you're not dealing with rich folks that has buried their gold, but radicalized people that does not really own anything but their religion, and is proud to die for their goal.
We're talking about a realm of unknowns as far as the interrogators aim and foreknowledge go in terms of knowing what to ask for - when applying the torture. They won't be asking questions simply about locations, but a range of known facts they want answered or placed into a picture, which is supposed to give a direction to the actions taken. To inflict upon the individual you're questioning bodily harm will also produce mental illness, illusions and mispercetptions of reality.
The intentions of collecting data that way does not correlate with the uncertainty of data released, if the investigation is fact-based. If you're just out for something you can use against the accused individual or otherwise use in a political procedure, nevermind the data, then torture is OK - although not ethically of course.

It is faith-based investigation, not fact-based investigation.

[Swamp Rat]

34. Well, I suppose our disagreement is embedded in the meaning and use of

the word effective.

Two decades of historical and literary research has informed me that torture is never effective because it always produces deleterious, unintended consequences that turn temporary gain into inevitable doom, a fated bane.

[AngryAmish]

35. Fair enough

It seems monstrous to use this saying in this context but I try to live by this motto (among others) "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good". So, some bad results have been produced via torture (Doctor's Plot, et al.) but to say that it is always ineffective is misstating reality.

Torture is bad for a host of reasons. Inefficacy is not one of them.

[Solon]

43. They tortured them for the fun of it, not to get information...

don't be naive here, its far more reliable to just sack the city, you get 99% of the treasure from that alone anyways. The need for "intelligence" is always just an excuse, and many of these people were tortured to death anyways after the torturers get all the treasure/information they want.

It has been proven that torture is unreliable at best, how many false confessions are attributed to it through human history? Millions if you count the 20th century alone.

[aquart]

2. I fantasize terrible things for my enemies.

Would you really want me to have the power to act on my inclinations?

No one can be trusted with such power.

[Zybelline]

6. send neo cons to Guantanamo

neocons have done more long lasting harm to our posture and strength in the world than any attackers

but Cheney would probably scare the nasty dogs

[mogster]

9. Exactly

That's the basis for democracy, really. Rules at the bottom, protecting the individual from government excess.

[emanymton]

4. No Torture PERIOD Ever PERIOD

[mogster]

15. That's the only stance I can support

If we don't look after the individual citizen of the world and secures a bare minimum of protection from govt. transgression in terms of violence, democracy stops working because of fear of dissenting. Dissent is good for democracy, not bad. It refines it and produces debate, difference of opinion. No democracy can embrace torture and still remain a democracy.

[0rganism]

8. against, but not because of 'reason 1' alone

also factored in are its high probability of failure, and the high chances of applying "some degree of permissable torture" that "may gain information" to an innocent person.

The "ticking bomb" scenario is a corner case discredited completely by its lack of advance discernability.

[mogster]

10. Ya, especially to us that has followed the development through

the DU and blogosphere, the 'ticking bomb' scenario does not seem too valid. The urgency which they claim should justify torture 'to save innocent lives' may just as well cause the same torture to affect innocent people.

[LWolf]

11. Might does not make right,

regardless of how those who aspire to "mighty" status spin it.

[mogster]

17. Have you noted the terms they use?

Bush is 'freeing' Iraq, giving the Iraqis 'democratic freedom' although by now anyone would see that the country is not progressing towards a democracy. Overuse of democratic terms is a sign of anti-democracy, like in 'Democratic Republic of North Korea'.
Or old DDR.

[Chulanowa]

12. There is never justification.

The "ticking bomb" scenario is a canard, just like the "if we increase minimum wage, Wal-Mart will send those jobs overseas" canard.

[ContraBass Black]

13. Torture is wrong and doesn't work.

[dubykc]

14. There is never a reason for torture to be used, and the

scariest thing to me about the use of torture by our government is that I still feel the purpose for the torture is to get false and or fabricated information to draw the attention from the true culprits of the 9/11 attacks.

There are far too many unanswered questions..from stock trading in United Airlines to the physics of the collapse of the WTC buildings...to think our government wasn't, at least, aware of if not deeply invloved in the entire plot.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. Always say NO to Torture- the one exception to the never say never rule-

Torture is NEVER 'ok'-
NEVER-

period.

[mmonk]

18. Besides being a barbaric act usually engaged in by rogue states

it is unreliable since the victim will confess to anything the torturer wants just to stop the pain or fear of death. It's not worthy of the 21st century and any and all countries that practice it are immoral.

[treestar]

23. If the tortured is a suicide terrorist, it would also seem silly to think

it is going to work - they are willing to die, aren't they?

Right wingers are such morans.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

37. There is a huge difference in the speed with which you die.

A person who is willing to die fast in a bomb blast may have serious problems with a slow painful death.

[treestar]

45. So he'll tell?

All the plans of Allah for victory?

Actually we dont' know that. They may be willing to put up with the slow and painful death as many Catholic/Protestic fanatics were in the medieval period.

Does this mean you would tell if threatened with a slow painful torture? Enought to get the rest of us killed? I can only imagine those who think that whoever Bush labels as "unlawful enemy combatant" will tell under torture assumes they and our troops would tell to when subjected to this kind of treatment.

Which we cannnot object to if we think it's OK for others.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

49. EVERYBODY has a breaking point - no execptions.

Further, modern torture is very different from what most people think when they hear torture. Most people think of torture as severe pain until you talk. Modern torturers are professionals who have a firm understanding of psychology. They use a variety of techniques to destroy the victim's mental will. Once the will snaps, the victim will often genuinely want to please his torturers.

Modern, scientific torture is, in many ways, worse than the old fashioned kind because it often destroys the person's ability to think clearly, while not leaving any marks on them. Many victims never recover.

There are a number of books on the subject.

[treestar]

59. Do they tell "the truth" or just what the torturer wants to hear?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

36. The thread is about gaining intel, not about getting confessions.

In war, you don't care about confessions. You want information. Different thing entirely.

I do not support torture, but I am not naive either.

[mmonk]

38. I didn't mean confessions to a crime that has been committed..

I'll fix it for you.
"it is unreliable since the victim will say anything the torturer wants just to stop the pain or fear of death."

You're not naive and I'm not dumb.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

41. Unfortunately, modern torture is extremely effective at gaining intel.

Modern torture has married old methods with knowledge from modern psychology. Most people think of torture in the manner you seem to - extreme pain until they talk. That is one dimensional and not very effective.

Modern torture is a mind game that the victim can't win. The objective is to break the victim's will. Once the victim's will snaps, they will usually talk, and truthfully too. And EVERYBODY has a breaking point - EVERYBODY. To give false info requires mental ability, concentration, and imagination. If the person is emotionally and physically exhausted, has been rapidly taken through different emotional states, has had their bodily rhythms scrambled, they simply don't have the energy to lie. The victim will be in a kind of daze, not in full possession of their thinking mind but still in possession of their memories, and will usually talk. They will do what their captors say to do. Back in the 1950's it was called brainwashing.

I'm sorry, but that is the reality of modern torture. The mental damage can be so severe that the victims never fully recovers.

Modern torture rarely leaves any marks on the body, thereby enabling those who would use it to deny that the victim was tortured. Or if it is proved, the torturer claims that what he did wasn't torture. "I only made him a bit uncomfortable. I fed him at odd hours and didn't stick a regular schedule with the lights. That's torture? What do you want for him - a room at the Hilton?" Sound familiar? That what we hear from those who would use it. Since in the popular mind, torture mean pulling the fingernails out one by one, modern torture can be made to sound like mild discomfort. "So I scared him by shooting a blank at him. It didn't hurt him." - and the average person thinks that is OK.

In late seventies a book came out called Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. The book dealt with the methods that cults use to control members. Much of the same stuff applies.

You may also want to read:
Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing

To win this battle, we have to first understand what modern torture is all about, then educate the public.

[mogster]

52. I call bullshit on this

Torture never worked.

"Unfortunately, modern torture is extremely effective at gaining intel"

Extremely effective, oh yeah. Nice little headline.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

53. Perhaps you should read up on the subject.

Would you like me to suggest some books?

Modern scientific torture by professionals is not your father's torture.

It is NOT pain-until-they-talk. It is the precise destruction of the victim's personality. In it's early days it was called brainwashing. After the personality cracks, then they talk fairly freely and truthfully.

And EVERYONE has a breaking point.

[mogster]

54. You know, my father didn't torture people

And I suspect that if he'd come to life again tomorrow, he'd suggest we're out on a limb politically as he experienced WWII and the nazi's.

There are so many things that's wrong with your posts.

"Modern scientific torture"

I wondered when somebody would term torture as science. It suggests an unwholesome attitude towards the matter. Both science and torture, actually.

"In it's early days it was called brainwashing. After the personality cracks, then they talk fairly freely and truthfully."

Do you see the contradiction of 'brainwashing' and 'truthfully'? I mean, if you're gathering intel that's supposed to be facts that's usable for further investigation?

"And EVERYONE has a breaking point"

First it's the slow destruction of the victims personality, then it's 'breaking point'. Do you usually disagree with yourself in the course of two sentences, or is it just the occation?

And no, I would not like you to recommend any books on the proficiency of torture.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

57. I was refering to the Oldsmobile commercial.

I didn't mean your personal father. I was using it to mean that there have been signifigant changes.

Sadly, some have applied science towards it. That can happen with science. Remember that such evil things as nukes, poison gasses, Agent Orange were all applications of science. Science can be made to serve any end.

The problem with arguing that torture doesn't work is this. You will try to persuade an on-the-fence legislator to vote your way, using the argument that it doesn't work. But the legislator will know that IT DOES WORK, because he will have been shown intel gained by torture. He will see your claim, know that you don't know what you are talking about, and will dismiss the rest of what you say.

We have to argue against torture using other arguments, because modern torture is very effective.

And yes, everybody does have a breaking point, a point at which their resistance completely crumbles.

[stella]

19. Torture is barbaric and immoral.

[dkofos]

20. I am for torturing the torturers

If it's good enough for them they shouldn't mind

[treestar]

22. Or if they support its use on others, Cheney, *, etc.

If we really need some information they know at any time, but refuse to give us.

[dkofos]

24. Yes Them too

[treestar]

21. Anyone supporting torture is telling us that if they were tortured, they

would give up the information the enemy needs to kill some of us. If it "works" on terrorists, it will "work" on US soldiers or civilians caught and tortured by the bad guys. Well, if it works, then that means they would give up the information if captured and tortured themselves.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

31. Everybody has a breaking point.

And modern torture can get a person to his breaking point far faster than old-fashioned methods that rely upon pain only. Once a person's will has broken, they are usually fairly truthful, because it takes willpower and mental concentration to be able to lie about intel. Torture destroys the ability to mentally concentrate. Torture victims take a long time, sometimes years, sometimes never, to mentally recover.

The question, as posed, is a variation on the "ticking bomb" scenario.

I don't trust the answers of those who said "No." They are taking a stance of absolute moral purity from the comfort of chairs in front of computers. Their life isn't on the line. I have seen what happens to moral purists when it suddenly becomes real personal. Typically, they throw away their morals and will do anything to survive, including torture to get immediate intel.

[Solon]

44. I say no because Torture is unreliable, this is a given...

Even in the ticking bomb scenario, which is unrealistic itself, the torture, no matter how quick, would be far slower than more practical ways to get intel. The most obvious would be to let a suspect go and observe him over a period of hours or days. This includes wire tapping(WITH WARRENTS, issued afterward if FICA applies), or good old fashioned spying.

Not to mention that, in the process of getting tortured, a suspect that knows something will first try deflection, stopping the torture, but not revealing the truth, they will lead the torturers on wild goose chases well before their will is broken. Even if they are telling the truth, it will still have to be verified through independent corroboration. Not to mention that the suspect, whether they are guilty or innocent, will only have one thing happen to them after the torture, death, for no confessions/information gleaned from the torture can be used in a civilian court of law, and they very well cannot be set free.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

47. Torturers are rarely concerned about civilian legal procedures.

They want intel for future operations, not for legal procedures. Death, is indeed, the normal end.

We agree that the ticking bomb scenario is unrealistic.

Professional torturers are extremely skilled in knowing when the victim's will has been truly broken, and when they are faking. Once the will is broken, the victim will often identify with his torturers. It sounds crazy, but that is true. It is a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

Unfortunately, modern torture really is extremely effective. Immoral, but effective.

[treestar]

46. So you're admitting you would sell out the US under torture

And you believe the fanatical Muslims will sell out their terrorist plans. Good. Just make sure you never learn anything of substance they could use, OK? so when they torture you to death you won't have told them anything except what they wanted to hear?

The truth? You'll tell them what they want to hear. Those who are torturing you don't want the truth. They want to hear what they want to hear. That's what you'll tell them, when you sell out.

I may be behind a computer now, but I know I won't sell out the US to any torturer. Which is how I understand how useless it is.

You we can't be so sure about.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

50. Everyone has a breaking point. That is a simple fact.

You do too. It is pretentious to think that you don't. And modern torture techniques can get anyone to that point where the will snaps. In many ways it can be called a kind of mental death of the person, but the body and the memories still live.

I am of an age that I will never be active in anything like that. I will never have any info that anybody needs. But even if I did, I am not so naive as to think that I can't be broken.

[treestar]

60. So you do admit you would sell us all out?

In fact, there are people who have beat torture.

They would not say anything and died instead.

[Change has come]

28. No to torture

What ever happened to Sodium Pantethol (sp) Does truth serum not work? Is it considered torture?

[ContraBass Black]

51. It's unreliable.

Like torture.

[PerfectSage]

29. Torture doesn't work

From Sun Tzu's The Art of War

The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.



The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

Torture violates the Moral Law principle, so those who use torture lose wars. That's one of the reasons why the US is getting beat in Iraq.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

33. Sadly, modern torture does indeed work.

In modern torture the emphasis is upon the mental anguish, of which physical pain is a part. The objective is to break a person's will. Once their will is broken, they pretty much do what is wanted of them. They lose the ability to resist, and will answer questions, usually truthfully - once they are broken.

Acknowledging that modern torture can be effective DOES NOT mean that I endorse it. It only means that I acknowledge it's power.

[savemefromdumbya]

32. torture doesn't always unleash the correct information

[Lilith Velkor]

39. No degree of torture will work if you get the wrong guy.

It just astounds me how many people don't seem to understnad that.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

42. They don't care. The wrong guy is just collateral damage. NT

[lonestarnot]

40. I say the two people who voted for torture should be tortured to see what

they know, better yet what they don't.

[mogster]

55. It is a tempting comment

And I thought about making that comment too ;-)
Some people are incredibly uneducated, and lack the imagination to put themselves in the situation of the torture victim.

If the question had been: 'Do you support torture even if it is directed against yourself' I suspect we'd get a full 100% nay.

[Raksha]

48. Only one answer is possible for a human being.

Option #2 is a slippery slope leading straight to hell.

[NuttyFluffers]

56. easy. useless things/tactics/ideas should be tossed aside and avoided.

torture belongs on the ash head along with plenty of worthless things we've discovered throughout history. it is a pointless and destructive wild goose chase when used for gathering information.

now if it was for entertainment among consenting parties...

[The Stranger]

58. Anyone who practices or has practiced torture should be arrested right now

and indicted. If they are in office, they need to be impeached and arrested immediately.