Torture-is it ever right? or how i hate the fookin hypocritic so called advanced west

[RamblinYeti]

I was just watching newsnight now and was quite shocked to see how the trial involved with the men being tried about charges relating to 9/11 is being done. Some elements of 'torture' (im not going into the definition of this now but something called waterboarding which simulates drowning was used and accusatins have been made other types have been used e.g. sleep deprivation) were used and may be used as evidence in the trial.

Furthermore they will be tried by the US military where the jury will be made up of military officers- the very people who have a ''war on terror'' and they will have the power to sentence these men to death.


So i guess my questions are-should torture ever be used as evidence in a court?
and with this case in particular should they be tried differently?


Personally i think torture is barbaric and that is should not be ordained on an level-also i dont believe info gained this way would always be accurate. And with regards to this case i dont see how a military jury could be seen as impartial. TBH, i think that any trial with an american jury would not be impartial and that perhaps the trial should be done in a different country. Anyhoo over to you


PS, i haven't fully done my research on this subject so i admit i may have made some mistakes with my interpretation on this matter-please correct me if im wrong

[Boyinabox]

I agree with you fully that torture is always wrong, both morally and in terms of reliability but I don't agree with your point about a military jury or about being the trial being conducted anywhere other than the US.
For the first one I'd say that a military jury is more likely to have a greater knowledge of the sort of topics which I guess will be brought up in a trial such as this one than your average civilian (just look at the number of 9/11 conspiracies which exist due to a complete lack of understanding in the topics covered [structural engineering, airtraffic control, aviation, metallurgy, the list goes on]) and secondly by your reckoning other high profile trials with high profile coverage like the James Bulger murder or Ian Huntley should have been done in a different country as the jury may already be biased. Unless the jury members were all grown specially in test tubes for this trial or had lived in the Arctic tundra for a decade with no communication then any jury member will have some inherent bias, thats just the problem with the system.

[Smartie]

Problematically, whilst using torture, one can never guarantee that the "confessions" or information obtained is not simply made up in order to cease the torture.

If validity is in question, then it's inadmissable as evidence.

(I watched Waking the Dead last night, the one with the Fakirs in it (first part), which touched the issue of torture)

Unfortunately, Bush and his Government seem to think that it has ultimate power over what it can and cannot do to "terrorists", and cannot be touched, because he is an arrogant shit.

However, we should not be naiive enough to think that torture doesn't happen in every single country in the world in some form or another, particularly in countries without stable governments or those with military rule.

[gembird]

Problematically, whilst using torture, one can never guarantee that the "confessions" or information obtained is not simply made up in order to cease the torture.

I agree, if someone is being tortured the first thing they want to do is stop the pain. Intense physical pain which could end in your death is something that you obviously want to avoid, it's just instinct really. Humans have the power to reason, and there is the chance of a trial proving you to be innocent after all if your confession cannot be backed up by other evidence. However, because of the bias of a jury (which is pretty much unavoidable) this is unlikely to happen.

But yes, I think torture is wrong, I don't care what country it's in or how it's done. The US is, in theory at least, one of the most advanced countries in the world, and certainly one of the most powerful. In this case, I feel that not only is it morally wrong for the pain it causes to others, but it is an abuse of power from the US government.

[Disgruntledgoat]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

I believe these "terrorists" are being tried as "illegal combatants" and essentially, prisoners of war. On the whole, these guys were already prepared to give up their lives for their cause, and so "normal" interrogation is unlikely to wield any sort of response for them. They may happily confess their own part in any plot, but probably not reveal any new infortmation that will help the authorities.

The "terrorist" and the US authorities are essentially two enemies in a war, and with the terrorist not likely to ever see freedom again, they have proved themselves willing to become a martyr and lay down their own lives, and are unlikely to co-operate. Again, the interrogators also feel that they need to get information out of this person by whatever means possible.

Sleep deprivation are disorientation are fairly common (I was given the impresson, anyway) amongst military interrogation.

Disclaimer: Although some may argue that the above is necessary, I would personally question the whole "War On Terror" and say that it is never ever necessary to use torture to interrogate someone. First and foremostly for the reasons of basic human rights and cruelty, let alone the fact that information given under torture will be inaccurate.

[Pie hunter D]

In most cases, and as seems to be in this case, the torture isn't subjective to pain. There are methods which use pain as the lever to force a confession but you'll find that the mentaly abusive stylings are what gets results in these cases.
The theory is to wear down the mental barrier and hopefully get someone to spill the beans. What it actually does is give you eventual complete control of the subject. They will tell you anything you want to hear. Based on that sole fact, anything gleaned from these methods is entirely inadmisible in court.

A military court would know exactly how this information was obtained, but by that time they have their scapegoat groomed. I wouldn't doubt that they had the papers and warrants for any actions actually signed yet in fact.
You might think this sounds entirely cynical, some kind of conspiracy theory, it just so happens I know the system.
If someone at the top demands results , they'll get results one way or another. This being the Us military I can only imagine whats going on there.

What should be done, (and I would have thought protocal would call for it) is that the guy should be tried in front of a UN panel in a neuteral country. Apparently not it would seem. :rolleyes:

[Disgruntledgoat]

Let's face it, a terrorism trial in the US has about as inevitable an ending as Saddam Hussein's trial. It will just be a formaility.

[Pie hunter D]

Exactly

[Paradigm^]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been shut down by now - I don't think you're going to see much debate on whether torture is good or not.

I do feel the need to mention something about waterboarding though. It is awful (not that the point of any torture method is to be particularly nice, but still). You're tied down to something, on your back, and set so that your head is lower than your feet. You then get cling film or the like put over your face (this is to stop the water running up your nose and you drowning). Next, water is poured over your mouth and nose, and within seconds, the primitive OH FUCK I'M DROWNING I'M GOING TO DIE instinct kicks in and you panic on one of the most base, animal levels possible. They don't keep it up constantly, as you won't be able to breathe with the cling film over your face, but they can happily keep it up for a good couple of minutes. Anyone lasting much over 30 seconds has done very, very well.

Waterboarding is very, very effective. You can get a confession (to anything you so desire, as earlier posters have pointed out) within less time than it took you to set the whole thing up. The side-effect is that it is too effective - the person on the receiving end often ends up with a fear of water so great that they can't even take a shower. Not nice.

Hypothetical situation to debate: Suppose torture is illegal (I'm sure it is under the Geneva Convention, but who cares about that these days?). You, as a judge, are presiding over the public trial of a terrorist who's being accused of some pretty epic plotting. Someone on the prosecution puts forward a pretty damning piece of evidence gained from someone who has been physically tortured (say, by waterboarding as described above), and guarantees the information is valid (let's forget about how / whether we can tell, and assume it is). As the judge presiding over this case, do you:
a) Accept the evidence, thus setting a precedent that information obtained illegally through torture can be used in criminal proceedings; or
b) Reject the evidence, essentially letting a known terrorist walk due to lack of evidence?

Don't think too much about UK law as it stands with respect to this - imagine you are the one who will 'create' the law in this respect (since much of UK law is based on what the last judge said).

What do you do?

[Pie hunter D]

Well if it was presented as Kosher evidence you would have no choice as the judge but to accept it. You might have an incling that it was procured through imoral means, but you yourself can't prove that fact.

Game over man, game over.

Unless the defence can dismiss the evidence with evidence of their own as to how the former was obtained. Which is most unlikely.

[Paradigm^]

No, you're missing the point. You know that a) the evidence was obtained illegally (through torture) and b) that it is valid (i.e. the person being tortured didn't admit to something that wasn't true). There is no case history, you are setting the precedent. What's more important to you: telling people that torture is worthless under the eyes of the law, or jailing a terrorist?

[TJPlatinum]

It's a hard one, but I'd say that setting the precedent that torture is worthless under the eyes of the law is more important than jailing a terrorist.

Even if a judge did somehow know that the evidence was valid, despite having been obtained illegally via torture, he should have no choice but to dismiss it, because there is little guarantee that evidence obtained via torture will be valid in future cases, and it doesn't set a good example for other judges. On top of that, illegally obtained evidence is not used in court for a reason, and that reason is a fairly good one; to protect innocent people. Is it really acceptable to use illegally obtained evidence to convict one without-a-doubt guilty person if it puts ten possibly innocent at risk of being punished for something they didn't do?

Another reason I'd choose let the free-a-terrorist-today option, is because I think that really, terrorism is something that can't really be blamed on one person. This person may have done something terrorist-like, but he wasn't alone, the people he was plotting with won't be arrested, and having him arrested won't change much. I don't think you can solve terrorism by arresting anyone that could be plotting.

Law in relation to crime should exist to punish people who have done something wrong, not lock up people who could be planning to do something wrong. Half of the reason for this is it is a lot more complicated to stop someone from doing something wrong, as anyone could do it. You'd have to suspect everyone of planning something all the time, as opposed to suspecting quite a few people of doing something that has already happened. 'Terrorists' have reasons, aims, and consciences. If you want to stop terrorism, then look at what extremes the terrorists are going to get their voice heard, listen, and come to some kind of compromise.

I kind of drifted from the topic a bit there, but all this torture stuff is very linked to the seemingly ever present threat of witches terrorists, so forgive me, please.

[Paradigm^]

Well reasoned, TJP. I made the criminal in question a terrorist fairly arbitrarily though - it could just as well be a rapist / paedophile / serial killer / whoever the media is hounding and will provoke a strong reaction. The crime in question doesn't really matter, as long as it's non-trivial and letting the person go free would in any other circumstance seem like a completely insane thing to do.

[gembird]

I'm glad you've said that actually- I was going to question your reasons for using a terrorist as an example. My argument was going to be along the lines of terrorists being freedom fighters to others and so on, not sure where I was going to go with it really, but it's nice to have things cleared up like this :)

[Splush]

There's a good bit about the morality of torture in Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, talking generally about how our moral compasses are generally a bit out of whack, and specifically comparing the ethics of collateral damage in warfare and judicial torture during war, and concluding that collateral damage is ethically worse than torture in rational terms, but torture ethically appals us at a very visceral, personal level so we overstate its moral importance. Not that torture is moral, but that it's no less moral than modern warfare in general.

The book poses a fairly powerful hypothetical scenario in which we know there's a bomb set to go off in a place full of people, but we don't know where that bomb is. We're holding the bomber captive but he won't tell us voluntarily where the bomb is, and our only chance of gleaning the information is to torture him. So, in that situation is it morally right to torture him, or not? I suppose the simple answer is that it's morally wrong, but it's the lesser of two evils and therefore excusable. I think it's an interesting question though, it highlights the fact the gaps we often have between instinctive moral values and rational thought.

Although none of that really applies to the situation with terrorism trials in the US. While it's relatively easy to write-off torture evidence as the lesser of two evils when it's used to prevent a forthcoming attack, it's harder to justify when it's being used to 'bring justice to' people who orchestrated an attack in the past. Like Disgruntledgoat said, the outcome of a terrorism trial in the US is so inevitable that there probably isn't a pressing need for torture evidence. Things like this and the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay just undermine any right to moral authority that the US might have had, the whole thing is an outrage and the relative lack of public outcry about it is amazing to me.

Another reason I'd choose let the free-a-terrorist-today option, is because I think that really, terrorism is something that can't really be blamed on one person. This person may have done something terrorist-like, but he wasn't alone, the people he was plotting with won't be arrested, and having him arrested won't change much. I don't think you can solve terrorism by arresting anyone that could be plotting.
I think this is an intrinsic problem with the 'war on terror' in general, people seem to want to give evil a name and a face, but the aggressor is really an ideology, and locking up or killing any one individual isn't really going to make an impact. Or, if it does make an impact, it might be a negative one.

The republican presidential nominee John McCain said he will "follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell", which I guess has quite an impact on citizens for whom Osama has become a household name representing a vast cloud of poorly-defined evil that threatens the US, but for all that dramatically bringing Bin Laden to justice will make for a good show, I don't know what actual positive impact it will have on the threats faced by the US. Does anybody really believe that only Osama had the charisma to get people to follow him, or that only Osama possessed the genius to train a bunch of guys to hijack planes and fly them into buildings? Does anyone think that a captured Osama wouldn't just become a symbol for terrorists to rally around in future, that perhaps all potential terrorists would just shrug, say "oh well, they got him!", and abandon their dreams of martyrdom?

And that's my rant, i suppose.

Sorry about all the words.

[Spudwiser]

Unfortunatly I feel this is going to be a trial run (no pun intended) of sorts. If the evidence can be used that was obtained by torture then this may be a starting point for cases using the same type of methods for obtaining a confession.

The US is the first one to denounce a country for somthing, but are also the first to bomb the living snot out of you and rebuild your country as a peace offering. In my opinion the United States of America has gone from one extream, fighting communism, to another which is fighting terrorism. As a Canadian is sickens me to think we went to war for these people and they left us holding the towel.

If they get away with this, my true fear is that we will be next. The world is watching and unfortunatly we tend to mimic what we see.

[Lawrence]

although i don't agree with some of America's foreign policy, as an american, i think that often security should trump human rights. Feel free to disagree...

[gembird]

I would class feeling secure as a human right, however, I don't think the rights of others- no torture, a fair trial etc- should be compromised so a particular country can have what is basically vengeance. If people are found guilty, then and only then should they give up some of their rights, and even then I don't think they should be deliberately hurt by those in positions of authority. It's an abuse of power and, in the case of terrorists, they acted in a way that they thought was right even if those of us in other places disagree.

[Lawrence]

Yeah, I certainly agree. I think that the government should find alternate means to prevent terrorist attacks, but there are probably times when there's little other choice. When it comes to a fair trial, i think that that shouldn't be taken away. All I'm saying is that, in some cases, giving an enemy combatant a little motivation in order to prevent an attack can be justified.

[Lawrence]

Ok, am i allowed to change my views mid-debate?

After much thinking, I've decided that torture should never be an option.
As long as we continue torturing enemies, we lose our moral high-ground.

I'd also like to add that, in the gulf war, thousands of Iraqis surrendered because they knew that American troops would treat them humanely. This prevented a huge amount of casualties for america...