# Torture in Warfare



## UserGone221 (May 8, 2017)

Hi all,

My daughter has been assigned a paper on torture (assuming it is in response to "water boarding", and I wonder if anyone has any recommendations on the topic (particularly in warfare) from the Reformers and/or Puritans. 

Thank you,

Peter Hyatt


----------



## RamistThomist (May 8, 2017)

First question that came to mind is what constitutes torture? What's the bare minimum? Waterboarding is an easy example, but what about sleep deprivation? WHat about just making someone uncomfortable over a long period of time?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hammondjones (May 8, 2017)

From William Gouge _Churches Conquest, §. 60. Of the lawfulnesse of shedding bloud in warre.
_


> Quest, May not enemies in any case be tortured?
> 
> Answ. Yes. 1. In case of question: when otherwise they will not confesse the truth.
> 
> ...


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A01974.0001.001/1:21.60?rgn=div2;view=fulltext


You may consider Cromwell's _The Soldiers Catechism _or Swadlin's _The Soldiers Catechism composed for the King's Army._
I believe the latter specifically addresses the question of "torments".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## UserGone221 (May 8, 2017)

Just what I was looking for! Thank you. I should check Baxter too. 

I have read the thoughts (and actions) of Robert E Lee regarding warfare, but wanted instructional material. 

thank you!


----------



## a mere housewife (May 8, 2017)

Re: reformation era, torture museums are a -- I hesitate to say a 'good' -- resource. It becomes abundantly clear that torture is about pain used as power to manipulate reality. It might also be worth researching how and why various Christians have stood against torture (like Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Couch, in our times).

Interesting that the above conclusions are drawn from narrative, in which the kings have often manifested their sinfulness.


----------



## Pergamum (May 9, 2017)

Waterboarding and intimidation and sleep deprivation are not torture.
If a captured terrorist can be justly put to death, they can surely be deprived these lesser things for the sake of extracting information.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Peairtach (May 13, 2017)

Deuteronomy 25:3 may be relevant. See comments on it by Reformed commentators. I don't believe torture - if it works - in extreme situations may not be warranted to save life.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## jwithnell (May 14, 2017)

I'd be interested in Gen. Lee's conclusions on the topic given his godliness and possibility that it might reflect on what was taught in our military academies at the time.


----------



## Pergamum (May 14, 2017)

God gave the command to stone people in the OT. Stoning was not an immediate death, but took some time usually. This seems to prove that we are not always obligated to dispatch the guilty as quickly as possible or with the least amount of pain. 

Thus we see in some Christian kingdoms some criminals were killed by decapitation or hanging, but some especially heinous cases were killed by drawing and quartering, impalement, or other slower and more painful means to stress the evilness of their deeds. These kings and executioners were not necessarily evil men who inflicted these cruel deaths and these deaths, too, were examples of just justice despite their cruelty.

And if we are allowed to kill convicted terrorists for their crimes, and to kill them in dreadful ways and not always in the most painless manner possible, we are allowed to inflict some lesser pains upon the guilty in order to save the lives of our soldiers and civilians.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 15, 2017)

Pergs, 
A) There are ceremonial things going on in the OT. There's no straight line from its penal code to your justification of torture (or even cruel/unusual punishments). 

B) Punitive/corrective measures (about truth) are in a different class than measures to manipulate a course of events (about outcomes). A penalty that is all about respecting the image of God does not grant ownership of that image. 

C) All history, like OT history, is full of things which prove that all of us, even kings, desperately need a Saviour. 

D) One can have a discussion about whether waterboarding and intimidation constitute torture but it would be theoretical. US practice has not been limited to these things.

E) Whatever logic works here works for both sides. Surely there would need to be very sound arguments for using a human created in God's image as an expendable to be recast into whatever image the torturer wishes to achieve, for the perceived 'greater good'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 15, 2017)

In warfare where countries respect some limits to warfare, we can try to limit war's damaging effects by "rules of war."

But in a civilizational struggle where terrorists target civilians and ought to be executed as soon as they are caught anyway, then harsher penalties and treatment are justified. If they are justifiably put to death, then water-boarding is a light penalty to extract information.

The main argument against torture is not so much the dignity or the rights of the victim. If he is a proven terrorist, then he deserves death. The real issue is that torture is not real effective in extracting truthful confessions.

For instance, in WWII there were "shoot on sight" orders for several SS Units responsible for carrying out atrocities. It is justifiable sometimes to enact extra measures of cruelty in warfare and even to give no quarter in some select scenarios.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 15, 2017)

Pergs that doesn't really deal with what I said above about the difference between penal actions and actions to manipulate outcomes. I didn't really mean to start arguing here though and won't continue. I have been in torture museums and seen for instance, the devices to rupture womens' reproductive organs -- it is really too terrible to stay in those places or to think much about these things. I just think that when one deals with a subject like this even in a grade school paper one needs to deal with actual historical/current realities, and be very wary of shaky justifications. I am an idealist but if anyone thinks the effort to gain control of someone viewed as expendable is limited to a perceived nice clean set of practices, they are able to be more idealistic than I am.


----------



## richardnz (May 15, 2017)

The problems with torture seem to revolve around two issues:

Is it an ethical way to treat a defenseless human being?
Does it work?

The weight of evidence is heavily on the side of it not working. In other words, it does not provide what is supposed to be its primary aim, the confession of truth that is being withheld. For example, when Stalin instructed his chief interrogator to make torture mandatory for all arrested people he reportedly said, “How I am I now going to find out the truth?”
Napoleon said, “The barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity.” Note that Napoleon saw it as inhumane as well as useless.
Mohamedou Slahi is the man Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Couch would not prosecute at Guantanomo. Both have written against torture practices and Slahi admits that he regularly confessed to things that were not true.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a supposedly high value terrorist is mentioned in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. NBC says,” And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records." Within two weeks, the deputy chief of the CIA's interrogation program concluded that the waterboarding of Mohammed "has proven ineffective".....

They waterboarded him 183 times in one month, presumably to encourage him to tell the truth.

Vladimir Bukovsky is worth a read. He was tortured and explains how it does not work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html

Allied to this is the issue of due process. In the powerful documentary, “Taxi to the Dark Side” a man going for a drive is tortured to death by US soldiers in Afghanistan because they thought he was a terrorist. This has always been a problem not only in war but in criminal cases as well. People get tortured without a trial because it is assumed they are criminals without any court procedure. People jump to conclusions. Christians should always be on the side of due process if they want justice. Evidence for and against needs to be heard. If it is wrong to torture suspects in a criminal case it is wrong to torture suspected terrorists.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (May 15, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> But in a civilizational struggle where terrorists target civilians and ought to be executed as soon as they are caught anyway



So the Germans should have executed captured British airmen who participated in the terror bombing campaign against civilians instead of according them the benefits of the Geneva Convention? After all, 'Bomber' Harris wrote that the purpose was "the disruption of civilized life" and that "the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale ... are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories".


----------



## Pergamum (May 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> So the Germans should have executed captured British airmen who participated in the terror bombing campaign against civilians instead of according them the benefits of the Geneva Convention? After all, 'Bomber' Harris wrote that the purpose was "the disruption of civilized life" and that "the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale ... are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories".



One transgression of the conventions led to another. And the intentional bombing of civilian centers is for another discussion. 

But a terrorist caught in the act of trying to blow up a school with a bomb-vest on... water-boarding and sleep deprivation is far less than what he deserves.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2017)

The issue is relative to the convention of the time and the extremity of the situation. War is a nasty business. Man fighting against man is dehumanising in itself. It is wonderful that the Christian value of mercy has had a humanising effect upon it. I cannot see how any other view of man could have had a similar effect. Recall that our Lord was chastised for the purpose of release when no fault was found in Him, and this was by a civilisation which emphasised law and justice, and is usually regarded as one of the forerunners of the ordered state. Christianity has done things in our world to change it for the better. At the same time there is no basis for claiming that there is any moral requirement for this humanising treatment. Rationality and morality dictate that the enemy has given up all rights the moment he took the sword in hand to kill another. As soon as he engaged in an unjust war he forfeited all appeal to kindness. Any humanitarian consideration is an act of mercy to which he has no real right. Such considerations are usually created by mutual agreement between the warring parties.


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 15, 2017)

richardnz said:


> The problems with torture seem to revolve around two issues:
> 
> Is it an ethical way to treat a defenseless human being?
> Does it work?
> ...



With all due respect, you're cherry picking your sources and a few anecdotes only tell us that it's success rate is less than 100%. Torture has never been a magic bullet as an interrogation technique and is not particularly effective if used injudiciously but history also demonstrates countless cases where it did yield the truth. In fact, some of the arguments to show its ineffectiveness actually demonstrate that it does work in the right applications. That men will admit to things they never did or divulge anything they think will get the torture to stop demonstrates that it is a highly effective motivator. If an innocent man will admit to a crime he never did when tortured, then a guilty man will surely admit to a crime he did commit. That's why judicious use and the ability to corroborate is still necessary. Modern intelligence officers would not have to be trained in resisting torture if it didn't work. Our own Presbyterian history sadly indicates the many times in which it was used effectively against our forebears.

That said, most of the arguments presented here deal with the retributive aspects of torture for which there is no question of it working since it is an end in and of itself. It seems to me that the Biblical allusions make it clear that it is not inherently immoral or unjust for the magistrate to use torture as a punishment for severe crimes or in warfare. Unless you are a theonomist you wouldn't argue that it is required either, but general equity does tell us something.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 16, 2017)

I understand the nuances in which they are set but as this thread develops the thought seems to come out more starkly. The thought seems more simply akin to thoughts that must justify even terrorists to themselves (cruel treatment is better than our enemy deserves); and there is less whitewash about supposedly humane limits (our enemy has forfeited all rights). The adoption of methods we condemn in the enemy is justified by their behaviour. These are indeed rationales requisite to a torture chamber, one way or another. 



MW said:


> The issue is relative to the convention of the time and the extremity of the situation... Christianity has done things in our world to change it for the better. At the same time there is no basis for claiming that there is any moral requirement for this humanising treatment.



I would cite Christ's more stringent, 'new' commands to love (Matthew 5:43-48; John 13:34,35) even enemies.


----------



## Pergamum (May 16, 2017)

There are no new commands in the NT that are at odds with the general equity of the laws of the OT. That seems a fundamentally dispensational ethic. Our God of love was also the God of the OT who commanded stoning and the annihilation of the pagan. We are not suddenly to become pacifists with Jesus.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 16, 2017)

But the love of God has been revealed more fully and Christ emphasises that this revelation binds us more fully. He is the one who spoke of a new commandment.

The ceremonial aspects of punishments which taught about what all our sins really deserve are fulfilled in Him. Otherwise I doubt you or I would get off better than some third party as far as what the strictness of those laws would allow for our sins. That also must be taken into consideration.

And general equity of even those laws forbade exceeding certain measures (no more than forty stripes, etc) so that we would not despise the image of God in one another.


----------



## MW (May 16, 2017)

a mere housewife said:


> I would cite Christ's more stringent, 'new' commands to love (Matthew 5:43-48; John 13:34,35) even enemies.



The new commandment is to love one another as Christ has loved us, that is, to lay down our lives; and even that is an old commandment with new motives and reasons. Our Lord has not instituted a new moral law. The duty to love others has always been required. Our Lord pointed to love as the summation and spirit of the law.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 16, 2017)

No, I didn't mean to suggest that it's a whole new morality; but that it's come clearer and fuller, with new force, especially in its application to enemies, in the revelation of Christ. (As marriage seems to have come more clearly into focus around him, where polygamy used to be more practiced.)

But there is nothing even in OT laws to provide a basis for cruel treatment as a means of establishing truth: one cannot support torture in an investigative process from anywhere in the Bible. One can try to make a leap between retributive measures that appear in narrative, or certain punitive measures that were available after due process with unco-erced witnesses & in a ceremonial system which in a very significant way pointed to Christ -- but it's very much a leap.

I am sorry to have spoken up so much here -- it's a morbid subject. If someone insisted that God's word provided a basis for aborting babies because of the little ones who are dashed against the rocks, many would protest (I would). I feel as strongly about how we use God's word for this. To the original question -- Richard T was right above that various commentaries on Deuteronomy 25 might be useful: I looked up Calvin and Matthew Henry and both seemed relevant. 'Men must not be treated as dogs.' (-- I don't think MH was advocating mistreatment of dogs, either ...)


----------



## MW (May 16, 2017)

War is a gruesome reality of life in the fallen world and is part of the judgment of God upon it. The sword itself inflicts grievous harm, and this is the instrument of retributive justice appointed by God. That Christians have brought the demands of love into the arena of war is a wonder in itself, but it cannot be used to overrule the claims of justice or the use of legal force as the necessary means of protection and order. If there is a convention for the treatment of prisoners it should be followed; but what that entails is a matter on which the parties must come to agreement. The ethical demand to lay down one's life is akin to selling all our goods to give to the poor. It is addressing the heart, not dictating an action. He who told us to turn the other cheek did not Himself literally turn the other cheek, but questioned why He was smitten.


----------



## Pergamum (May 16, 2017)

Humans should not be treated like dogs in general. But dangerous dogs often must be put down. And an evil man is many times more dangerous than an evil dog, and therefore must be put down all the more decisively.


----------



## Edward (May 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Humans should not be treated like dogs in general. But dangerous dogs often must be put down. And an evil man is many times more dangerous than an evil dog, and therefore must be put down all the more decisively.



I have no problem with the idea of putting down bad dogs, either human or canine, but we should do it in a humane fashion, and not revel in prolonging suffering. We should be cognizant of the teachings of the Sixth Commandment and not use as an excuse for breaching it an argument that the other guy was bad first.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (May 17, 2017)

Edward said:


> I have no problem with the idea of putting down bad dogs, either human or canine, but we should do it in a humane fashion, and not revel in prolonging suffering. We should be cognizant of the teachings of the Sixth Commandment and not use as an excuse for breaching it an argument that the other guy was bad first.



I am not sure it is a provable proposition that we are always obligated to kill the enemy in the most humane way possible. The chief concern is to carry out justice, which demands death in many cases. 

There have always been a gradation of sufferings designated to fit a gradation of crimes, for example in public executions of old a killer may be hanged, but a particularly heinous killer may be first drawn and quartered. I will not fault the justice system of those kingdoms for such methods. Executions should be horrible, and possibly public, in order to show justice being done.

Just like OT stoning, many customary execution methods did not kill in a totally painless fashion and such demands seem to be of modern invention. Surely God is not at fault for ordaining stoning when hanging is much quicker and more painless. Part of the reason for choosing stoning may have been the horribleness of it.

I would support, for instance, castration just prior to execution for convicted rapists or pedophiles.


_Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil._ --- Ecclesiastes 8:11.


----------



## Edward (May 17, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I am not sure it is a provable proposition that we are always obligated to kill the enemy in the most humane way possible.



The Larger Catechism teaches that, in our dealings with others, we are to avoid sinful anger, hatred, desire for revenge, oppression, striking, and wounding. Torture strikes me as being a bit oppressive. 



Pergamum said:


> I would support, for instance, castration just prior to execution for convicted rapists or pedophiles.



Castration before release as part of rehabilitation and prevention of recidivism might well be justified. Castration before execution is merely revenge, and is thus specifically proscribed.


----------



## Pergamum (May 17, 2017)

If the Catechism is taken that way, then all war is prohibited by the reformed. 

Retribution and giving examples of justice are not revenge.


----------



## Edward (May 17, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> If the Catechism is taken that way, then all war is prohibited by the reformed.



I'll excuse that error since you are a Baptist and can't be held to a Presbyterian's familiarity with the Larger Catechism, which specifically recognizes (in the same question and answer) the legitimacy of "taking the lives...of others... in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence".


----------



## Pergamum (May 18, 2017)

Edward,

You misuse the catechism by only quoting a small portion of the catechism without context. These things fall under public justice, lawful war, and necessary defense and are not personal vengeance, etc.


----------



## Pergamum (May 18, 2017)

My position is that water-boarding is not "torture" - all intentional discomfort given to the enemy is not immoral. In some cases it is justifiable. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" like sleep deprivation and the like are not torture.

In various articles against torture, they state categorically that these things are torture and that torture is never permissible but is always wrong. I say no to both assertions. These things are not torture, and no, torture is not innately and always wrong. 

In times past, especially heinous prisoners of war had hands cut off as signs of infamy. Or armies would refuse quarter to some prisoners. These things are condemned today, but regularly practiced in centuries past (summary executions of enemy units involved in the killing of civilians, "kill on sight" orders, etc). I believe perhaps a similar policy should be enacted against any known member of ISIS who bore arms willingly on their behalf. Prisoner of war laws do not apply to terrorists. 

Other articles irresponsibly says things like "non-combatants" shouldn't be tortured. But a person caught with a strap-on bomb vest and who has a suicide martyr video found with his confession on it is not a "non-combatant." Really, these folks should be shot on sight, but if they can be useful for information, then the military should use them for such. The real travesty against justice is that many of those are still alive on technicalities and take up space when they should have been executed long ago.


----------



## Pergamum (May 18, 2017)

> the 172 detainees at Guantanamo. Some of the remainder will be released when they are no longer considered a threat. But the central problem is the hard core – around 48 of the current detainees – who will be neither tried nor released. The fact that there is not sufficient evidence to try them does not mean they are likely to be innocent: the evidence that they are hard, determined terrorists is often overwhelming. But it may have been obtained by covert means, which cannot be revealed without endangering the lives of innocent people, or revealing your surveillance methods, to the benefit of terrorists still at large.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Bay-detainees-are-not-ordinary-criminals.html



> Of course, these are prisoners who have been tried and convicted, not detained without trial – but the majority will have murdered at most a handful of people. Yet some of those in Guantanamo, or elsewhere, have murdered – or been trained to murder – hundreds or even thousands of innocent people. If it is thought certain that they would try to commit such atrocities if released, should the acceptability of their incarceration be judged by the same criteria as we apply to "ordinary" crime?
> 
> This is a far more serious issue than the question of whether suspects should be detained for 14 or 28 days. We are talking here about terrorists who have been trained to kill hundreds, where the evidence against them may be very strong. And we may have to steel ourselves to the need to incarcerate these few individuals in our midst who are, or would be, mass murderers, in order to prevent them from carrying out their evil purpose.



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431807/guantanamo-bay-detainees-why-not-shoot-them

Why not just shoot them?



> The prisoners held at Gitmo are, for the most part, what is known under international law as “francs-tireurs,” non-uniformed militiamen who conduct sabotage and terrorism operations against occupation forces. Under Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions, fighters eligible for the protections extended to prisoners of war are obliged to meet several criteria, including the wearing of uniforms or fixed insignia and — here’s the rub for the Islamic State et al. — conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Non-uniformed militiamen and insurgents sawing the heads off of Wall Street Journal reporters do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections. They are, under the applicable international law, subject to summary execution, as are captured spies, terrorists, and the like. So: Why not shoot them?
> 
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431807/guantanamo-bay-detainees-why-not-shoot-them


----------



## Edward (May 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> You misuse the catechism by only quoting a small portion of the catechism without context. These things fall under public justice, lawful war, and necessary defense and are not personal vengeance, etc.



Then your lack of knowledge of military history is even greater if you think soldiers aren't sometimes driven by passion. You've never read of captured snipers who didn't quite make it back to the POW facility? US soldiers who, in the heat of passion, murdered unarmed prisoners (and had the charges killed by the Corps commander)? 

Moving back up thread a moment.



Pergamum said:


> For instance, in WWII there were "shoot on sight" orders for several SS Units responsible for carrying out atrocities.



So in your theology, it's OK to extrajudicially kill a soldier who may himself be innocent but is wearing a uniform that indicates he is associated with soldiers who have engaged in extrajudicial killings? Or have I misunderstood your post? 



Pergamum said:


> You misuse the catechism by only quoting a small portion of the catechism without context. These things fall under public justice, lawful war, and necessary defense and are not personal vengeance, etc.



And I fully and uncategorically dispute this statement. Each of the points made is supported by its own, separate, proof text or texts, and is fully capable of standing alone.


----------



## Pergamum (May 18, 2017)

Edward, 

During the WWII Battle of the Bulge Otto Skorzeny's English-speaking spies put on American uniforms and sneak behind enemy lines during Operation Greif in order to work sabotage and spy. The Allies were to shoot them when captured (if they were in American uniforms and it was determined they were German). This was not an unjust order and followed the Hague Convention rules of 1907. 

Your use of the words "extra-judicial" and "innocent" referring to soldiers such as these is dishonest. 

Capturing someone in a bomb vest with a known suicide video should also be grounds for summary execution...unless information can be extracted.

Killing normal prisoners of war is sin, and nobody has said it is not. But under certain conditions executions are allowed at the unit-level.


----------



## richardnz (May 19, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> With all due respect, you're cherry picking your sources and a few anecdotes only tell us that it's success rate is less than 100%. Torture has never been a magic bullet as an interrogation technique and is not particularly effective if used injudiciously but history also demonstrates countless cases where it did yield the truth. In fact, some of the arguments to show its ineffectiveness actually demonstrate that it does work in the right applications. That men will admit to things they never did or divulge anything they think will get the torture to stop demonstrates that it is a highly effective motivator. If an innocent man will admit to a crime he never did when tortured, then a guilty man will surely admit to a crime he did commit. That's why judicious use and the ability to corroborate is still necessary. Modern intelligence officers would not have to be trained in resisting torture if it didn't work. Our own Presbyterian history sadly indicates the many times in which it was used effectively against our forebears.
> 
> That said, most of the arguments presented here deal with the retributive aspects of torture for which there is no question of it working since it is an end in and of itself. It seems to me that the Biblical allusions make it clear that it is not inherently immoral or unjust for the magistrate to use torture as a punishment for severe crimes or in warfare. Unless you are a theonomist you wouldn't argue that it is required either, but general equity does tell us something.


----------



## richardnz (May 19, 2017)

I could be accused of cherry picking if there was a wide range of conclusions about the effectiveness of torture, but there is no such range of views. You can see it in the Senate Intelligence Committee Study on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. The CIA started off knowing that all of their studies showed that torture did not work. These people are not stupid. They can study the history of torture like anyone else. I suspect someone in CIA management thought maybe they could do it better. After a while the “hands-on” torturers reported to CIA management that it was not working (surprise!). CIA management reported to the politicians that it was working, but they were proven to be deceptive by the subsequent investigation. The SIC Study is an illuminating read for anyone who thinks that torture works.

It is not quite right for me to say that the is no range of views on the effectiveness of torture. There are plenty of people who have never been involved in “hands-on” torture who think that it works. That will be a perennial problem such that another generation will arise who will try it again.

When we talk about “effectiveness” we need to be clear on the objective, which is to extract true and useful information. The problem that the CIA ran into, as they all do, is that there may be truth being confessed, but there is no way of knowing where it is. It is logical when you think about it. The tortured is saying whatever he thinks will cause the torturer to stop, whether it be the truth or a lie does not matter. He is highly motivated to satisfy the torturer, but not necessarily motivated to tell the truth. You could argue that torture sometimes causes the confession of truth, but where the truth is amongst the many statements of the tortured is impossible to say. Napoleon gave up because of this problem. The CIA eventually worked it out but kept it quiet.


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 19, 2017)

richardnz said:


> I could be accused of cherry picking if there was a wide range of conclusions about the effectiveness of torture, but there is no such range of views. You can see it in the Senate Intelligence Committee Study on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. The CIA started off knowing that all of their studies showed that torture did not work. These people are not stupid. They can study the history of torture like anyone else. I suspect someone in CIA management thought maybe they could do it better. After a while the “hands-on” torturers reported to CIA management that it was not working (surprise!). CIA management reported to the politicians that it was working, but they were proven to be deceptive by the subsequent investigation. The SIC Study is an illuminating read for anyone who thinks that torture works.
> 
> It is not quite right for me to say that the is no range of views on the effectiveness of torture. There are plenty of people who have never been involved in “hands-on” torture who think that it works. That will be a perennial problem such that another generation will arise who will try it again.
> 
> When we talk about “effectiveness” we need to be clear on the objective, which is to extract true and useful information. The problem that the CIA ran into, as they all do, is that there may be truth being confessed, but there is no way of knowing where it is. It is logical when you think about it. The tortured is saying whatever he thinks will cause the torturer to stop, whether it be the truth or a lie does not matter. He is highly motivated to satisfy the torturer, but not necessarily motivated to tell the truth. You could argue that torture sometimes causes the confession of truth, but where the truth is amongst the many statements of the tortured is impossible to say. Napoleon gave up because of this problem. The CIA eventually worked it out but kept it quiet.



Torture is not merely a means of extracting information. Torture means nothing more than the infliction of severe pain or distress and may be used in retributive justice as well, for which the end and the means are the same. With respect to the specific use of torture you are discussing, again I think that you are evidently wrong on your own premises.

If "There are plenty of people who have never been involved in “hands-on” torture who think that it works" then the only people who use it would be those that have never tried it before but we know that this isn't the case. We can debate exactly what constitutes torture, but the US Gov't still uses methods of interrogation meant to induce a state of severe distress where the captive is motivated to give up information to make the distress cease, as do many other intelligence/military organizations, because it works.

"The problem that the CIA ran into, as they all do, is that there may be truth being confessed, but there is no way of knowing where it is." This is simply not true. There are very often ways of knowing where it is, it's called corroboration. Intelligence and police forces have to do it all of the time. If there's an intense interrogation with no torture involved, then confessions can be just as suspect and you must corroborate them. If a terrorist, tortured or no, tells you where a training center or munitions cache may be you still need to corroborate it in some manner before acting on it. In some cases they're lying. In other cases they are not and it turns out to be good intel. If not knowing immediately whether the subject is telling the truth renders torture useless it renders all interrogation useless.

You admit that the subject of torture is highly motivated to tell the torturer whatever he can to get the torturer to stop. You say whether it is a lie or a truth doesn't matter, but if the torturer has a way of corroborating the truth or at least making the subject believe that he can tell truth from a lie then that strong motivation you describe tends only towards revealing the truth. Again history is replete with examples of accurate intelligence being given in response to torture. Look at any sustained persecution, whether of Jews under Hitler, Covenanters, Huguenots, Russians under Stalin, etc. and see where it was effective to reveal intelligence even if in these cases repugnant.


----------



## UserGone221 (Jun 4, 2017)

My daughter's question raised some fascinating discussion. 

Menachem Begin wrote about his experiences. He was tortured and gave some information, but eventually, he was put in total isolation for 30 days. Even food was delivered in a manner where he could see no one and not hear a human word. He wrote that after 30 days of no human contact, he gave them far more information than he had under physical coercion. 
This is reflective of being created in the Image of God.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2017)

Peter Hyatt said:


> My daughter's question raised some fascinating discussion.
> 
> Menachem Begin wrote about his experiences. He was tortured and gave some information, but eventually, he was put in total isolation for 30 days. Even food was delivered in a manner where he could see no one and not hear a human word. He wrote that after 30 days of no human contact, he gave them far more information than he had under physical coercion.
> This is reflective of being created in the Image of God.


Many classify such isolation, too, as torture (it doesn't only have to be physical), and they would condemn this practice as well, though it seems to have proved useful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CatRandy (Jun 5, 2017)

Torture is never justified. If we justify torturing our enemies, we at the same time justify their torturing us. Once the use of torture is justified, the reasons for using it can be determined as needed at the whim of the torturers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ThomasT (Jun 9, 2017)

CatRandy said:


> Torture is never justified. If we justify torturing our enemies, we at the same time justify their torturing us. Once the use of torture is justified, the reasons for using it can be determined as needed at the whim of the torturers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You've offered a practical argument against torture but not a moral one, and yet you assert that torture is always unjustifiable ("torture is never justified"). One doesn't argue that it's immoral for a husband to cheat on his wife by pointing out that she may follow his example and cheat on him. One explains why adultery is wrong independently of the consequences when one is seeking to identify adultery as an evil.


----------



## ThomasT (Jun 9, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> You say whether it is a lie or a truth doesn't matter, but if the torturer has a way of corroborating the truth or at least making the subject believe that he can tell truth from a lie then that strong motivation you describe tends only towards revealing the truth. Again history is replete with examples of accurate intelligence being given in response to torture. Look at any sustained persecution, whether of Jews under Hitler, Covenanters, Huguenots, Russians under Stalin, etc. and see where it was effective to reveal intelligence even if in these cases repugnant.



Excellent points. There's a lot of talk in the media about information obtained under torture being unreliable, but this assumes that the information can't be verified. As you pointed out, torture has been used historically with great effectiveness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 11, 2017)

I'm not a Law of War expert but took an elective during Command and Staff college while on active duty. One of the complexities in this discussion is to whom the Geneva Conventions apply. The Conventions afford _lawful combatants_ conventions under the treaty. In order to be considered a lawful combatant, the combatant needs to be idenntifiable as a combatant. It's one of the reasons that military personnel wear uniforms and carry idenfification cards. When a person wears clothes and does other activities that allow them to blend in with the population then they are not afforded protections of the Geneva Convention. The whole issue of Guantamo Bay is complicated by the fact that many of the captured terrorists, under the Laws of War, could be rightly executed on the spot and do not have rights under the Geneva Conventions.


----------



## Edward (Jun 11, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> In order to be considered a lawful combatant, the combatant needs to be idenntifiable as a combatant. It's one of the reasons that military personnel wear uniforms and carry idenfification cards. When a person wears clothes and does other activities that allow them to blend in with the population then they are not afforded protections of the Geneva Convention.



Generally, but not always. 

Say country "A" invades country "Q" and a reconnaissance in force (or whatever they are called now) rolls toward a village. The villagers grab personal guns, diver for cover, and start trying to defend their homes and neighbors. 

According to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, Part One, Article 4, such people, although not uniformed or organized, are entitled to be treated as Prisoners of War if captured. 



> ART. 4. — A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present
> Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following
> categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
> ...
> ...



Now, I do understand that your 'blend in' qualification might remove your example from the 'carry arms openly' requirement, and a case - by - case fact finding would be necessary.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 12, 2017)

"The prisoners held at Gitmo are, for the most part, what is known under international law as “francs-tireurs,” non-uniformed militiamen who conduct sabotage and terrorism operations against occupation forces. Under Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions, fighters eligible for the protections extended to prisoners of war are obliged to meet several criteria, including the wearing of uniforms or fixed insignia and — here’s the rub for the Islamic State et al. — conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Non-uniformed militiamen and insurgents sawing the heads off of Wall Street Journal reporters do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections. 

They are, under the applicable international law, subject to summary execution, as are captured spies, terrorists, and the like. So: Why not shoot them?"

There is an easy way to clean up Gitmo. Bullets are cheap. 

If any insurgent caught in the act of terrorism is subject to summary execution, you still can kill them after you extract info.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431807/guantanamo-bay-detainees-why-not-shoot-them


----------

