Well, isn't this deeply disturbing?

[Artega]

And I'm sure you've seen it used both ways and can provide us with detailed accounts.

No, I haven't. I'm a lazy eighteen-year-old American that sits at his computer and says things that he has no idea of. Is that what you're trying to imply?

I don't allow my emotions to factor into what I do and the decisions I make. This is why I'm often at ends with people who do, and you (and what seems to be the majority of people everywhere) seem to be one of those people.

1.) Do you think psychological torture is an effective way to gather information from someone unwilling to talk?
2.) Do you think psychological torture is immoral or necessary? How about in this war?
3.) Do you psychological torture will cause long-term mental health problems? If so, what proof do you have of this?
4.) In your mind, is there a difference between psychological torture and physical torture?

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to throw my two cents into the pot just the same.

I do think that torture of various kinds can be very effective. Starvation and deprivation of basic daily routines are what come to mind here, though I believe that those have been classified as being psychological torture, and not physical.

I believe that torture can be effective. Whether or not it is essential is for a high-ranking official or officer to decide. As I said earlier in this post, I don't allow my emotions to factor into my decision-making process, so whether it's immoral or not isn't of consequence to me. I frankly don't consider this debacle to be a war, at least not in the conventional sense.

I don't have Googled links at the ready, but I would have to say that, yes, torture of any kind (particularly that of the psychological nature) would have lasting, long-term effects. Just look at rape victims; oftentimes, they need psychological counseling and/or medication(s) to overcome the psychological trauma. I have a close friend who was raped, and she has to use medication to keep the nightmares from coming back, so I guess that is as close to proof as I can submit - though your believing that is dependant on whether or not you consider what I say to be truthful. It's not "torture" per se, but wouldn't the long-term stress syndrome sometimes experienced by war veterans also be viable proof?

The obvious answer is that yes, there is a difference; one involves playing "mind games", while the other simply relies around beating the prisoner into submission. That's about as basic an answer as I can give.

[NuurAbSaal]

Normally I try to stay clear of discussions like this one, but right now I can't help but chime in.

Artega wrote:

I don't allow my emotions to factor into what I do and the decisions I make.

Never? Really?. But you still have emotions, don't you? How anybody could live like this is a mystery to me. How do you ever come to a decision in your life? On what grounds do you make them?

This is why I'm often at ends with people who do, and you (and what seems to be the majority of people everywhere) seem to be one of those people.

I hate to break it to you, but "the majority" you are talking about comprises (imho, of course) about 99% of the human population, about every "normal" human being out there.

Now let me say I'm sorry if I offended you with my last statement, I truly am, but I'm not quite done yet.
Warning: The following is wild speculation, feel free to shoot me down.
I can't help but think that you wrote what you did because you deem it "cool" but there's just no way I can believe you. Never did something to make somebody happy without expectng something in return? How did you choose your Avatar? No emotions at all? Plan on having children? Why (not)? Love someone?

Going through life without emotions (and if you're not fatcoring them in in your decisions, why bother with them at all?) makes you miss out on a great deal of "life". And yes, this sounds silly coming from a notquite 25-year-old, but hear around, chances are older folks would agree.


On topic: never trust the camera. Chances are it is omitting at least as much as it is showing.


Greetings

Nuur

[Artega]

Perhaps I was a bit rash, and exaggerated somewhat.

It would be more correct to say that I distance myself from my emotions, not that I don't have them. Sometimes my emotions escape my restraint, and I don't really like being open like that.

I'm sure it's "just a phase" that's a result of my angsty 18th year on this planet.

On topic: never trust the camera. Chances are it is omitting at least as much as it is showing.

So very true. You mind if I borrow this for use on another forum? ^_^

[--Pete]

Hi,

It would be more correct to say that I distance myself from my emotions, not that I don't have them. Sometimes my emotions escape my restraint, and I don't really like being open like that.

I'm sure it's "just a phase" that's a result of my angsty 18th year on this planet.

I'm sure you're right. I entered that phase about the time I turned 16. I'm sure that I'll pop out of it anytime now -- after all, it's only been forty one years :)

BTW, welcome. You've made the grade from "rationalist" to "rational". But beware, the back slope's a bitch :)

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

Well, let's put it this way: how would you feel about these so-called "mind games" if it was American soldiers that were being tied together naked, placed in sexually suggestive poses, and threatened with attack dogs. How would their children feel, seeing their fathers treated as such? These people are just as 'real' as we are. It's barbaric and unnecessary. Perhaps it would be necessary if there was any kind of immediate threat known to officials, but that is simply not the case at this particular prison. Vengeance is not an excuse for the torture of common infantrymen with little to hide.

[Chaerophon]

Pete (and, last paragraph, Artega),

First of all, I do agree with you, a decided detachment from the emotions is necessary in order to behave in a rational manner. However, that doesn't mean that they are unimportant. Decisions reached without emotion CAN be in danger of hurting more people than they help. Case in point? Look to Africa's present AIDS epidemic and the inability of the people to obtain cheap drugs because of the 'rational logic' behind American patent laws. If they could see the dead piling up for themselves, certain advocates of pharmaceutical protectionism (which is, no doubt about it, rationally justifiable) would, no doubt, find it quite difficult to continue to "step outside of their emotions". I know, I know, there's a whole mess of theory behind the whole patent issue, but the fact remains that millions die every year because of a lack of price regulation in the pharmaceutical field. I have a hard time believing that drug companies need charge what they charge, but... I digress.

By the same token, I understand the emotional duress that may have led soldiers to torture prisoners in Iraq; however, that doesn't make it right, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that we had a similar discussion a couple of years ago regarding the bombing of Dresden, where you accused me of tainting my opinion that it was a morally reprehensible act with 'emotion'. At the time, I argued that there was nothing wrong with that fact. Since then, not only have I made a "hard charge to the center", but I believe myself to have proven that I am fully capable of acting 'rationally', and of stepping outside of my emotions. However, I feel the same way about Dresden today that I did back then, and no amount of 'rational' appeal can change my opinion that, given the circumstances, the torture in Iraq was morally wrong (and stupid, besides, from a rational perspective).

A simple shared tenet among humans is that "the end cannot always justify the means" (although the kind of torture that has taken place could, theoretically, be justified if the situation was right - I just don't think that that is the case here, see my post above to MEAT) and one primary reason that this is often the case is because our moral compass is centered in the emotions and not our rationality. Call morality what you want (and I don't think that you would go this far): a contrivance, a herd instinct, a sign of weakness or even of stupidity; it is our inability to detach entirely from our emotions, particularly when we are directly exposed to the subject at hand, that guides our compassionate instincts. I, for one, understand the point that you are making; however, Artega's example, I think, goes too far. Without emotion, we lose our ability to sympathize, and without sympathy, our common humanity goes flying out the window. If I cannot place myself in another's shoes and, at least in part, feel what they feel, then my decisions are worth about as much consideration as are those of the unreasoning bleeding-heart. To my mind, the key is to know when to shove emotional response to the back burner, and when to listen. I suppose that this, in itself, is a function of rationality; or not. Meh...

[SwissMercenary]

Let us imagine for a moment, that torture can be justifiable in cases of terrorism, allright? But what if the same techniques are used on, say, people like those described in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1211374,00.html

A unit goes out on a raid and they have a target and the target is not available; they just grab anybody because that was their job

I've read reports from capturing units where the capturing unit wrote, "the target was not at home. The neighbour came out to see what was going on and we grabbed him,"

Fun stuff, no?

[Artega]

Wrong place at the wrong time, ne?

Somehow, I can see that scenario happening and being parodied on a skit show like MadTV or Saturday Night Live.