Torture or not?

[Silent_One]

DemoCoder wrote:

The problem with the "torture warrant" idea (if torture is going to happen ANYWAY because of ticking bomb scenarios, it should atleast be transparent in the rare circumstances it occurs) is that people will point to that aspect being codified into law and say "See, the Americans are barbarbians

Yes but that problem already exists-Americans are already being called barbarians for the mistreatment of "enemy combatants" in Guantánamo. The US is losing the High Moral Ground, critics say.

Alan M. Dershowitz writes:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/22/ED5329.DTL

In my new book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age," I offer a controversial proposal designed to stimulate debate about this difficult issue. Under my proposal, no torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge.

An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.

The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture. The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.

It may sound absurd for a distinguished judge to be issuing a warrant to do something so awful.

But consider the alternatives: Either police would torture below the radar screen of accountability, or the judge who issued the warrant would be accountable. Which would be more consistent with democratic values?

Those opposed to the idea of a torture warrant argue -- quite reasonably -- that establishing such a precedent would legitimize torture and make it easier to extend its permissible use beyond the ticking bomb case.

Those who favor the torture warrant argue that the opposite would be true: By expressly limiting the use of torture only to the ticking bomb case and by requiring a highly visible judge to approve, limit and monitor the torture, it will be far more difficult to justify its extension to other institutions.

The goal of the warrant would be to reduce and limit the amount of torture that would, in fact, be used in an emergency. This is an issue that should be discussed now, before we confront the emergency.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3044.htm

RN: "Why is it better to have it out in the open, if it is still going to go on regardless?"

"Because it might not go on if we do it out in the open. There might be public protests against it. There will be limitations imposed, for instance the distinction between lethal and non-lethal physical force, the requirement of a high degree of necessity. The only way you get limitations is with public accountability, otherwise you get the slippery slope."

RN: "You have spoken a little about a torture warrant, where investigators who are trying to get information from a suspect would have to get a warrant, say, from a judge. Could you just explain to me how that would work and under what circumstances."

"Well, I don't myself approve of torture. But I am arguing that every democracy – the Netherlands, England, France, Germany, every democracy, the US, Israel – will engage in torture, and my requirement would be that if you are going to do it, you have to give advance approval, you have to show the justification, you have to explain the sources of your information, you have show it's the last resort, and you have to allow the judge to impose limits on what you're allowed to do. For instance, in Jordan, they torture the relatives of terrorists; we would not permit that in a democratic country under any circumstances, the torturing of innocent relatives. But a guilty terrorist, being subjected to painful but non-permanent injury, might be permitted. These are the kinds of distinctions and limitations that civilised society ought to be discussing."

 

[pax]

Ok some details of the capture of the hussein boys are coming out... so there were only 4 guys total in that compound? And we had to use gunships and 200 guys pummeling the place into the ground? How about gassing them with some tear gas next time. Intelligence is important ya know!

 

[epicstruggle]

@pax:
-how can you "accuratly" tell how many people are in house that was so fortified?
-Not sure why they didnt use tear gas, maybe their sypply depot did not have it.
-i think using 10 missiles was a bit much, but after all the explosions that house was still standing in pretty good shape considering all the ordinances that were used.
-in certain enviromnents/situations you can hold a position that is so well protected and advantages that you can hold off a much greater force.

later,

 

[pax]

It was reported today... 4 guys total in that house... held up 200 gi's for 6 hours?? Also this was a known major baath villa owned by a cousin of Saddams... grabbing those guys alive should have been seen as important. This wasnt a mere streetfight. Im still not 100% sure that some of the wmds we know or dont know about havent made their way into the hands of terrorists...

Its about time that huge military industrial complex produced gasses or sophisticated weapons of some kind to help our intelligence agencies get their hands on some of these guys... alive.

 

[Deepak]

Good idea pax, in situations like this we don't need weapons like tanks, gunships etc....we need some gas which can knock of people (not kill them)....it can also prove useful in riot etc..