Justification for using torture?

[NewPhin]

Hey all,

This actually isn't asking for anyone's opinions. I'm working on debate right now with my kids, and I chose the following resolution:

"Resolved: The United States Government should adopt a policy allowing the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain information to prevent further attacks similar to 9/11."

I'm looking for any sources that you all have on this issue, on both the affirmative and negative sides. Links would be great, as I'm going to put them up on a website and let the kids sift through them.

I've found a few freeper articles on the affirmative and some commondreams/DU articles on the negative. I'd really like something a little bit meatier and academic than op-eds, though.

[mlyonsd]

There was a poll on the planet a few days ago asking that very question.

IMO you don't need to research any further, just point them to that thread and let them sift through the opinions of some of the finest thinkers in the world.

Ok, I almost got through that without chuckling to myself.

[NewPhin]

There was a poll on the planet a few days ago asking that very question.

IMO you don't need to research any further, just point them to that thread and let them sift through the opinions of some of the finest thinkers in the world.

Ok, I almost got through that without chuckling to myself.


I said meaty and academic, not shrill and vitriolic. ;)

I should say, though, thanks for pointing me to that thread! It's going to give me some food for thought.

[Boozer]

I think the Atlantic Monthly had something on the subject in the last couple of years, cover story, IIRC.

[Radar Chief]

Have you defined “torture” yet? It may sound trivial, but you can’t shoot a dirty look at a prisoner without it being called “torture” by some.

[Duck Dog]

Have you defined “torture” yet? It may sound trivial, but you can’t shoot a dirty look at a prisoner without it being called “torture” by some.


Aint that the truth.

To some (liberals *cough* cough*), having womens underware placed over your head and being led around on leash is torture.

:rolleyes:

[Mr. Kotter]

DEFINE torture? :hmmm:


Seriously though, no thanks. A serious proposal along these lines is ludicrous, unless one defines "torture" very, very loosely (forcing Islamic prisoners to listen to loud rock music! Oh, the inhumanity! ROFL )

[Chest Rockwell]

Aint that the truth.

To some (liberals *cough* cough*), having womens underware placed over your head and being led around on leash is torture.

:rolleyes:

Come on, I think everyone can agree it just depends on WHICH woman's underwear it is.

You want Lindie Englund's drawers stretched across your sniffer? I sure as hell don't, and would indedd probably consider that act torturous and wouldn't wish it on ANYONE.

[Radar Chief]

DEFINE torture? :hmmm:


Seriously though, no thanks. A serious proposal along these lines is ludicrous, unless one defines "torture" very, very loosely (forcing Islamic prisoners to listen to loud rock music! Oh, the inhumanity! ROFL )

Even though I’d consider forcing me to listen to whiney country music torture, many I work with would consider it a good Friday night.
Visa versa Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson or Rob Zombie. :shrug:
I’d think defining the subject to be an important part of any discussion.

[Radar Chief]

Come on, I think everyone can agree it just depends on WHICH woman's underwear it is.

You want Lindie Englund's drawers stretched across your sniffer? I sure as hell don't, and would indedd probably consider that act torturous and wouldn't wish it on ANYONE.

:LOL: Indeed.

[NewPhin]

Have you defined “torture” yet? It may sound trivial, but you can’t shoot a dirty look at a prisoner without it being called “torture” by some.

Defining torture is part of the affirmative side's responsibility.

So, no. That would be a great resource as well. Some studies on what is and isn't torture. I can tell you that organizations like Amnesty International have vastly different definitions than the US. If the affirmative side has any brains, they'll use an extremely conservative definition of torture, probably one that falls along the lines of what we currently employ (sleep deprivation, cramped quarters, force positions). The US likes to, as usual, play semantic games and calls our interrogation methods "stress and duress" instead of torture. Just like we call our POWs "enemy combatants" in order to bypass the Geneva Convention's code of treatment for POWs.

[Mr. Kotter]

Defining torture is part of the affirmative side's responsibility.

So, no. That would be a great resource as well. Some studies on what is and isn't torture. I can tell you that organizations like Amnesty International have vastly different definitions than the US. If the affirmative side has any brains, they'll use an extremely conservative definition of torture, probably one that falls along the lines of what we currently employ (sleep deprivation, cramped quarters, force positions). The US likes to, as usual, play semantic games and calls our interrogation methods "stress and duress" instead of torture. Just like we call our POWs "enemy combatants" in order to bypass the Geneva Convention's code of treatment for POWs.

You are the one proposing this; it's your responsibility to define it, I'd say. Why isn't that reasonable?

Dude, you aren't a "Greenbacker and Loving Liberal"....you are a Socialist who doesn't want to admit it because of the pejorative meaning. :shake:

Be proud, wear it on your sleeve. Call it what it is. You may love your community and country--I'm not questioning that; but you sure seem to hate our government and just about anything our govenment does....at least under this current "dispicable leadership." My, oh my.

[Radar Chief]

You are the one proposing this; it's your responsibility to define it, I'd say. Why isn't that reasonable?

Dude, you aren't a "Greenbacker and Loving Liberal"....you are a Socialist who doesn't want to admit it because of the pejorative meaning. :shake:

Be proud, wear it on your sleeve. Call it what it is. You may love your community and country--I'm not questioning that; but you sure seem to hate our government and just about anything our govenment does....at least under this current "dispicable leadership." My, oh my.

Where the hells that coming from? I’ve known New Chief for a while now and though he may not agree with everything Bushy does, I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to call him communist. Unless, I’ve missed something pretty drastic that is.

[NewPhin]

You are the one proposing this; it's your responsibility to define it, I'd say. Why isn't that reasonable?

Dude, you aren't a "Greenbacker and Loving Liberal"....you are a Socialist who doesn't want to admit it because of the pejorative meaning. :shake:

Be proud, wear it on your sleeve. Call it what it is. You may love your community and country--I'm not questioning that; but you sure seem to hate our government and just about anything our govenment does....at least under this current "dispicable leadership." My, oh my.

Do you contest that we're not playing semantic games? This administration freaking loves it. Clean skies, healthy forests, enemy combatants, stress and duress. They're experts at relabeling with a great sense of irony.

I won't respond to your attacks on me. As for definitions, it's the affirmative side's job within a policy debate to outline their plan, which in this case means outlining their definition of 'torture.'

As for my own political leanings, they don't interfere here. All the kids are saying, "Torture is terrible, you can't make a case for it. The affirmative has an impossible job." and I dutifully show them all the ways that there are very good cases for it. Would you rather I "wear it on my sleeve" and say, "I'm a socialist you little ****ers, you're right, you can't make a case for it, but the evil republicans are trying to?"

[Radar Chief]

Defining torture is part of the affirmative side's responsibility.

So, no. That would be a great resource as well. Some studies on what is and isn't torture. I can tell you that organizations like Amnesty International have vastly different definitions than the US. If the affirmative side has any brains, they'll use an extremely conservative definition of torture, probably one that falls along the lines of what we currently employ (sleep deprivation, cramped quarters, force positions). The US likes to, as usual, play semantic games and calls our interrogation methods "stress and duress" instead of torture. Just like we call our POWs "enemy combatants" in order to bypass the Geneva Convention's code of treatment for POWs.

Well, I’d think not being with a standing army and not wearing a uniform would have a little something to do with it also.

[NewPhin]

Well, I’d think not being with a standing army and not wearing a uniform would have a little something to do with it also.

But there's been cases of that sort of thing in the past where they still got POW treatment, but you're right. That's the argument. No standing army, no country of affiliation, no uniform, no formal rank structure/hierarchy. There's definite reasons for it, I'm not arguing against that.

But I'd say that the reason we don't call them POWs is because we don't want to have to treat them as POWs. We then make the argument (albeit a good one) up to suit our ends.

[Radar Chief]

Do you contest that we're not playing semantic games? This administration freaking loves it. Clean skies, healthy forests, enemy combatants, stress and duress. They're experts at relabeling with a great sense of irony.

I won't respond to your attacks on me. As for definitions, it's the affirmative side's job within a policy debate to outline their plan, which in this case means outlining their definition of 'torture.'

As for my own political leanings, they don't interfere here. All the kids are saying, "Torture is terrible, you can't make a case for it. The affirmative has an impossible job." and I dutifully show them all the ways that there are very good cases for it. Would you rather I "wear it on my sleeve" and say, "I'm a socialist you little ****ers, you're right, you can't make a case for it, but the evil republicans are trying to?"

Had you posted “all administrations” in place of “this administration” I’d have agreed with ya, but claiming “this administration” as any worse propagandists than a prior administration is ridiculous.

[Boozer]

Where the hells that coming from? I’ve known New Chief for a while now and though he may not agree with everything Bushy does, I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to call him communist. Unless, I’ve missed something pretty drastic that is.

Must be "Batshit Cheerios Friday" at the Koetter household.

[Radar Chief]

But there's been cases of that sort of thing in the past where they still got POW treatment, but you're right. That's the argument. No standing army, no country of affiliation, no uniform, no formal rank structure/hierarchy. There's definite reasons for it, I'm not arguing against that.

But I'd say that the reason we don't call them POWs is because we don't want to have to treat them as POWs. We then make the argument (albeit a good one) up to suit our ends.

Dude, you start’n to sound like your tinfoil hat’s shifted.
It couldn’t possibly be because the “admittedly good argument” can stand on it’s own merits but because of some ulterior motive.

[Radar Chief]

Must be "Batshit Cheerios Friday" at the Koetter household.

Ah, Kotter’s a good guy. I think he just lets his emotions get ahead of his keyboard sometimes.

[Radar Chief]

Back on topic though, I guess when the word “torture” is mention I immediately think of it as illegal.
I should remember that there are legal forms of “torture” like sleep deprivation, physical stress, uncomfortable housing. Course in the Army we called this training. :shrug:

[NewPhin]

Dude, you start’n to sound like your tinfoil hat’s shifted.
It couldn’t possibly be because the “admittedly good argument” can stand on it’s own merits but because of some ulterior motive.


But do you not think that we stand to gain certain advantages in the methods we can employ against said detainees if they aren't officially POWs? We don't have to give them a tribunal. We don't have to worry about the pesky thing about releasing them once the "war" is over (which would open its own can of worms. When does a war on terror ever end?). We, basically, don't have to abide by any of the stipulations of the Geneva Convention's treatment of POWs as long as we don't call them POWs. If we start calling them POWs, then we make ourselves liable. As is now, we can stave off the efforts of Amnesty International, the UN, and other outside organizations to oversee our treatment/interrogation of these people by keeping the argument on the level of "They aren't POWs. Until you can show they're POWs, we don't have to do shit."

[NewPhin]

Back on topic though, I guess when the word “torture” is mention I immediately think of it as illegal.
I should remember that there are legal forms of “torture” like sleep deprivation, physical stress, uncomfortable housing. Course in the Army we called this training. :shrug:

That's right. I see how my word choice in the proposition immediately puts the affirmative at a disadvantage. That being said, the proposition must represent a change in the status quo. Thus I couldn't say, "We should adopt a policy allowing tough interrogation methods" as we already allow that. It had to represent some change in the existing policy. Thus, the choice of the word torture. As I said, it's now up to the kids to define what that means.

[NewPhin]

By the way, Kotter. Our primary source that we're starting out with is a CQ Researcher article. If you don't use these in your classes, you should check them out. Absolutely awesome coverage of current events and social issues. Extremely even handed and thorough. They always have a debate question, too where they let various experts and authorities present both sides of a case. Your school's library might have them. If they don't, they should get them. Here's the website:
http://www.cqpress.com/lib/the-cq-researcher.html

[Radar Chief]

But do you not think that we stand to gain certain advantages in the methods we can employ against said detainees if they aren't officially POWs? We don't have to give them a tribunal. We don't have to worry about the pesky thing about releasing them once the "war" is over (which would open its own can of worms. When does a war on terror ever end?). We, basically, don't have to abide by any of the stipulations of the Geneva Convention's treatment of POWs as long as we don't call them POWs. If we start calling them POWs, then we make ourselves liable. As is now, we can stave off the efforts of Amnesty International, the UN, and other outside organizations to oversee our treatment/interrogation of these people by keeping the argument on the level of "They aren't POWs. Until you can show they're POWs, we don't have to do shit."

Even then, that wouldn’t make it the sole reason for doing so. What advantages would there be to claiming them as POW’s when by just about any definition used they aren’t?

[BCD]

Just like we call our POWs "enemy combatants" in order to bypass the Geneva Convention's code of treatment for POWs.Give me a ****ing break! The treatment of these scum in Gitmo is better than the conditions in Afghanistan...
:rolleyes:

[Logical]

Hey all,

This actually isn't asking for anyone's opinions. I'm working on debate right now with my kids, and I chose the following resolution:
....

You are debating against your kids? Interesting parenting technique.

[mlyonsd]

You are debating against your kids? Interesting parenting technique.

Pretty common one too.

[NewPhin]

You are debating against your kids? Interesting parenting technique.


The students in my class, and I'm not debating against them. They're on debate teams. They debate against each other.

[Logical]

The students in my class, and I'm not debating against them. They're on debate teams. They debate against each other.

So you have the students in your class (what grade are you in?) debating. I am guessing you are a Junior.;)

[NewPhin]

So you have the students in your class (what grade are you in?) debating. I am guessing you are a Junior.;)


Umm. Yeah. Jeezus. This thread has been the biggest waste of time. I come here to the Planet, which I consider to have some of the best conservative (and liberal) minds that I've seen. I ask a simple request: link me to some substantive documents that make some good arguments for and against the usage of torture (maybe I should have said "aggressive interrogation tactics") against suspected terrorists so that I can turn my students loose on them. I get nothing.

It's alright, though. I've been researching it this weekend and have enough. I guess I just saw the Planet as more of a resource than it turned out to be in this instance.

The students are in high school. And Vlad, this response isn't really directed at you so much as the thread in general.

[Logical]

Umm. Yeah. Jeezus. This thread has been the biggest waste of time. I come here to the Planet, which I consider to have some of the best conservative (and liberal) minds that I've seen. I ask a simple request: link me to some substantive documents that make some good arguments for and against the usage of torture (maybe I should have said "aggressive interrogation tactics") against suspected terrorists so that I can turn my students loose on them. I get nothing.

It's alright, though. I've been researching it this weekend and have enough. I guess I just saw the Planet as more of a resource than it turned out to be in this instance.

The students are in high school. And Vlad, this response isn't really directed at you so much as the thread in general.

I take it all in good humor, I really had no resources for you. I really am suprised you found much on the topic. People are so afraid of broaching the idea. Darn NAZIs really killed torture as a calling.

However doing a google I did find this site which may be of some interest.

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2005/04/torture-chamber.html

[NewPhin]

I take it all in good humor, I really had no resources for you. I really am suprised you found much on the topic. People are so afraid of broaching the idea. Darn NAZIs really killed torture as a calling.

However doing a google I did find this site which may be of some interest.

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2005/04/torture-chamber.html


Thanks a ton. One of the main problems the affirmative (those wanting to implement the policy) must overcome is showing that torture actually does produce reliable evidence. Fortunately, there's quite a bit of information out there saying that it's possible that it does.

Another problem is showing that the US citizenship will actually support the policy.

Finally, they've got to be able to frame their plan in such a way that it doesn't immediately turn off the judges.

I was probably unfair in using this proposition. I originally thought that it would be a good one because it was so far from my own personal beliefs. Since it's stated in the affirmative (this is what we should be doing), I thought that would help me get in the frame of mind of playing devil's advocate from my own beliefs (which it has) and aid the affirmative a bit. Anyway, it's been a really fun, rewarding learning activity for me and my students. The debates will be the latter half of this week, so I'll let you all know how it goes. Unfortunately, there's such a discrepancy in the learning and interest levels of the students that I anticipate the debates being slaughters, with the winners generally being those students who actually worked hard and the losers being those students who didn't really care or had a hard time with the assignment. Regardless of which side of the argument they're on, the "good" students will probably win.

Edit: I actually didn't check the link before I posted originally. That's an awesome link and should definitely help us to deepen the debate considerably. Thanks again.

[Boozer]

Umm. Yeah. Jeezus. This thread has been the biggest waste of time. I come here to the Planet, which I consider to have some of the best conservative (and liberal) minds that I've seen. I ask a simple request: link me to some substantive documents that make some good arguments for and against the usage of torture (maybe I should have said "aggressive interrogation tactics") against suspected terrorists so that I can turn my students loose on them. I get nothing.

It's alright, though. I've been researching it this weekend and have enough. I guess I just saw the Planet as more of a resource than it turned out to be in this instance.

The students are in high school. And Vlad, this response isn't really directed at you so much as the thread in general.

Go f*ck yourself. I gave you a resource, sorry if I didn't spell it out for you. Mark Bowden, The Art of Interrogation: A Survey of the Landscape of Persuasion, Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 2003.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200310/bowden

[NewPhin]

Go f*ck yourself. I gave you a resource, sorry if I didn't spell it out for you. Mark Bowden, The Art of Interrogation: A Survey of the Landscape of Persuasion, Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 2003.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200310/bowden

And it's a good resource. Thank you. I shouldn't have been so harsh in my condemnation of the thread. You gave me a source, and mylon (I think) pointed me to the other thread that had information in it. I was just expecting MORE!

[NewPhin]

Just an update, since it's the end of the week:

5 debates so far.

1 draw
3 Affirmative (for torture) wins
1 Negative (against torture) win.

I've been pretty happy with the excercise. The kids haven't synthesized information quite as effectively as I'd hoped, nor have they plunged in and really dug into the issue as much as I'd hoped, but I did see kids doing this:

One side delivers a constructive. The other side actually consults each other, looks through their notes, discusses their options quietly, and begins to prepare their constructive. Meanwhile, the audience is chomping at the bit, exchanging knowing glances, whispering back and forth, etc. etc. It was really great to see the kids (from high to low level gradewise) get competitive with knowledge. I'm definitely hooked on teaching debate in my classes even if I suck at it on here. I'll be doing a ton of research on this over the summer and trying to work this into my curriculum a lot more. I think it really teaches a lot of valuable skills: research, critical thinking, prolonged attention span, synthesis of divergent sources, and oral delivery. Very cool. I'm stoked. Thanks to the Planet for your help with the resources and links. They were useful.

[mlyonsd]

Here's a good hypothetical to give them...

Say ole dad is being held hostage by some group for a political reason... and they successfully grab someone in the group.

Would torture be a viable option to gain the release of ole dad?

[NewPhin]

Here's a good hypothetical to give them...

Say ole dad is being held hostage by some group for a political reason... and they successfully grab someone in the group.

Would torture be a viable option to gain the release of ole dad?


Yeah. Those scenarios are called the "ticking time bomb" scenarios in all the literature on the issue because a lot of those scenarios involve an imminent threat with a set amount of time before the threat comes to reality. They made frequent use of them.