Torture vs Drones

[kochman]

I would like to know where all the anti-torture people have been while Obama has escalated the Drone war?

When the Dreaded Bush Juggernaut was torturing, it was the end of the world if we continued... but...

Torture generally doesn't kill the target... maybe gets valuable info (see Bin Laden raid facts)... doesn't directly hurt 3rd parties...

Drones kill the target... drones get not intel... drones piss other countries off... drones kill 3rd parties....

Which is worse?
Better question... are not both wrong, so the degree of how wrong should be at least weighed against the benefits if it must go on?
Must either go on?

 

[Borachio]

Torture: inefficient, unreliable, inflicting pain is immoral
Drones: efficient (because no risk to pilot), reliable and as accurate as the aeroplane, killing is immoral

 

[Ajidica]

Drones are of questionable legality, torture is flat out illegal.
Truth be told, I dislike drone attacks but at least we aren't committing torture any more.

 

[Borachio]

Don't you believe it. Torture will go on. I think people like it. The UK authorities have been assuring me for as long as I can remember that it doesn't happen either directly or at their behest. It turns out they've been lying to me all along. So there's no reason to believe they'd tell the truth now.

 

[kochman]

Drones are of questionable legality, torture is flat out illegal.
Truth be told, I dislike drone attacks but at least we aren't committing torture any more.

You think that's stopped?

 

[Ajidica]

You think that's stopped?

I like to think it has.

 

[kochman]

I know we are told it has...
Personally, judging by non-trial executions, damn the standerbys, it seems more likely to me that it hasn't. Drones are easily more cruel than torture...

I think they've really trimmed the frequency of it, but that it still goes on... and I think Obama knows about it.

 

[Ajidica]

Drones are easily more cruel than torture...

There is a major philosophical difference. Torture is the intent to cause pain in order to extract information or to change a type of behavior. Drone killing is simply execution. The intent is not to cause pain.

 

[Agent327]

Torture generally doesn't kill the target... maybe gets valuable info (see Bin Laden raid facts)... doesn't directly hurt 3rd parties...

Torture doesn't hurt third parties? Like family, you mean?

AFAIK Bin Laden was found via carefully planned intel, not torture...

 

[kochman]

There is a major philosophical difference. Torture is the intent to cause pain in order to extract information or to change a type of behavior. Drone killing is simply execution. The intent is not to cause pain.

It's to CEASE A LIFE!!!!

Torture doesn't hurt third parties? Like family, you mean?

I mean, read every word I put in my sentence... "direct" in this case.

AFAIK Bin Laden was found via carefully planned intel, not torture...

Intel gained via torture was also used.

 

[Ajidica]

It's to CEASE A LIFE!!!!

There is still a difference philosophicaly.

Plus, torture is illegal under just about every convention on human rights, uncluding the UN Convention Against Torture. Drone strikes are simply of questionable legality and not a blatant violation of international law.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Drones can be hijacked by supercompetent terrorists. Torture can be used to hijack supercompetent terrorists.

Anyway, are there any good objective measures for how effective torture is? I can see some for drones.

 

[kochman]

There is still a difference philosophicaly.

Plus, torture is illegal under just about every convention on human rights, uncluding the UN Convention Against Torture. Drone strikes are simply of questionable legality and not a blatant violation of international law.

Death is worse than temporary pain... that's the philosphical difference.

Drone strikes will be illegal by UN law too, I imagine. It hasn't been around since fire has been around, like torture has, so the momentum is building.

Regardless... are you trying to say, just because something isn't technically illegal YET it is ok?
That's a poor argument. Wrong is wrong, whether international law states so or not, at this moment.

Do you personally think drone strikes are Ok?

 

[Ajidica]

Death is worse than temporary pain... that's the philosphical difference.

Sure, but there is also the intent behind the action.

Regardless... are you trying to say, just because something isn't technically illegal YET it is ok?

Until something is formally illegal or legal it exists in a sort of legal limbo where it can be viewed as legal.

Do you personally think drone strikes are Ok?

Rather questionable. As currently used they really need to be re-evaluated. I have no objection to the use of drones, but rather the frequency with which they are used and how they are used.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, I'm referring to the, "look! there's a "terrorist", zap him!" approach being used these days.

Drone strikes on military targets, all for it.


And, that's a total cop out... until it's officially illegal... that could excuse a LOT of evil that has and does occur... such as rather frequent and questionable drone assassinations in sovereign countries.

 

[trader/warrior]

Are drone strikes worse than cruise missiles or manned airstrikes?

Not sure about killing vs torture though. Killing is very often worse, but also much more situational.

 

[kochman]

Are drone strikes worse than cruise missiles or manned airstrikes?

Too vague a question...
Cruise missiles fired into, say, Iraq, during the Iraq war... quite different than cruise missiles fired into Yemen to kill a "terrorist" and those near him. In that case, it is just a way more expensive drone strike.
It's not the actual missile used that I'm concerned about, but the targeting procedures, violation of sovereignty, collateral damage, etc.

Not sure about killing vs torture though. Killing is very often worse, but also much more situational.

Sure, I mean, killing under the drone circumstances...

 

[Borachio]

Death is worse than temporary pain... that's the philosphical difference.

I'm not sure that is absolutely true. At least not for the sufferer. And the effects of torture can last a life-time, both physically and psychologically.

And I don't think torture is a good thing for the torturer either. Most torturers will have experienced torture themselves. I have heard tell that is how they can bring themselves to inflict it on others. Though the Cambodian experience would tend to show that torturers can be induced to it simply through fear.

One popular form of torture is the fake execution: you tell someone that you're going to shoot them. Take them out. Stand them against a wall. Point a gun at them. And shoot blanks.

Apparently this is quite effective against people. They have been known to beg to be shot rather than go through the same experience again.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Gitmo and Abu Ghuraib were a big deal because such blatant human rights abuses committed by the USA were new to the public (not counting lesser known proxy villainy like Operation Ajax or the School of the Americas).
I guess by now people have just gotten used to the idea that the USA is the closest the world has to an Evil Empire and we just kind of expect the US military or CIA to randomly murder (yes, signature strikes are pretty much random murder) brownish people.
In all honesty, I don't know either why the media over here doesn't make a bigger deal out of it.

 

[kochman]

To be fair, a lot of those people are white... many arabs are. Look at OBL himself...