Torture in Warfare

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CatRandy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:
...
6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach
of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the
invading forces, without having had time to form themselves
into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly
and respect the laws and customs of war.

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]

"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