What is torture?

[bluepheonix]

But there are no acts which can be defined, in and of themselves, as torture. Take the example of claustrophobia given above: locking someone in a small, dark closet make bring terror, or it may bring relaxation; it may be tortuous to the one, and pleasant to the other. Even being burned while living may not be torture; I recall footage of a Buddhist monk who burned himself in protest of something or other, and -- this gave everyone in the class total heebie-jeebies -- he say smiling as he burned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepheonix View Post
Take your definition, by which 'torture' is depended on capitulation. Under such a definition, torture could not fail, for as long as the mental forbearance of the second party remains intact, there has been no mental event leading to capitulation. No one could be tortured to death, no innocent or uninvolved individual could be tortured, as they lack to ability to capitulate, it therefore becomes patently absurd to define the actions as torture only in relation to their final outcome.

One cannot be tortured in this context without the direct actions of the 1st party.
You may be touching on a distinction in purpose: inflicting the intolerable to achieve capitulation, vs. inflicting the intolerable without caring about capitulation.

But I think capitulation is the essential element in both. No sadist would inflict pain on someone who merely say and hummed, or as a certain Roman philosopher once did, warned that if his afflictor continued applying pressure as he did, the philosopher's arm would break, and once it broke, merely said, I told you that would happen. "Torture" depends on, and thus is defined by, what takes place in the mind of the subject/victim: whether as an attempt to extract information, or merely to cause agony, there is no torture unless the subject 'feels' tortured.

No there are no acts in and of themselves which constitute torture, but nor does it solely rely on what the victim perceives. Assessing whether or not something it torture requires assessment of the intent of the afflictor, the act itself, and the perception of the victim. Take for instance what would be an interrogation complicit with international law. The interrogators would obviously act in a way which shows the victim has no chance of escape, they would be intending to bring about capitulation, and these two facts, combined with knowledge of their crime causes the target of interrogation severe emotional distress, which can in certain instance be so bad as to lead to suicide. In what practical sense can this be labelled as torture? The intent and perception are comparable, but the act itself of lawful interrogation is to benign to reasonably be called torture.

Take another example of a mentally ill patient being forcibly restrained and tube fed, in which case the mental and physical distress would be present, with the act itself, assuming a comparable lack of understanding of what was happening, enough to bring about such mental and physical distress in a reasonable person. In what practical sense does that constitute torture? The intent of the afflictor is clearly not to induce pain or suffering, but to help the victim, does this mitigate the circumstances in which it is done?

Finally this example you gave

But there are no acts which can be defined, in and of themselves, as torture. Take the example of claustrophobia given above: locking someone in a small, dark closet make bring terror, or it may bring relaxation; it may be tortuous to the one, and pleasant to the other.

As I recall this was done by police to extract information, knowing the phobias of the individual. In this case, the police intentionally acted to induce fear for the purpose of attaining capitulation but using a severe phobia of an individual, and using methods outside the standards reasonably acceptable (cruel and unusual methods if you will), they succeeded in inflicting severe emotional distress on the victim. I dont know what you would classify locking someone in a dark cupboard as, but in this case I would most definately classify it as torture.

So kuli what is it exactly that you are trying to achieve in your definition, what TYPE of torture are you trying to define,

a practical legal definition, eg "For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "

A philosophical convention with no practical application?

or a common vanilla definition of torture, "omg that chem final was torture"

 

[syntax]

Sorry syntax. The Bowden piece which contains the story is called "The Dark Art of Interrogation" and it was in his book Road Work which is a compilation of articles he wrote for various publications.

Thanks, NG. I'd just like to point out that killing two people to extract a confession from a third may or may not be torture, but, as you relate the story, it is double murder.

 

[Jack Springer]

Torture is going to a new dentist in a new town (Portland, OR) who has convinced you that she knows exactly what she doing but, finding out that she doesn't.

I still cannot bring myself to go back to another dentist after 3 years. Having the dental dam laid on my face and breathing it into my mouth (I'd never heard of a dental damn before), being hit on the lip with a dental instrument causing a bloody lip, having my eyes covered with extremely dark sunglasses, and listening to her and her assistant argue which end of the instrument was the correct end. My end was having the first and only panic attack.

Although, I went to the dentist on my own accord, I still believe it was torture. Torture happens every day and every night throughout the world. Little babies get tortured and murdered as they come to the bloody end of life in their mother's womb at the hands of an abortionist that believes that a breathing baby does not have any rights, children go to bed hungry and wanting - night after night, parents that trust their kids with the keys to a car and a drunken driver crosses a line and kills the kid --- I could go on and on -- all of this is torture to someone.

Getting information that may have saved the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of people through what many say is torture is Ok with me. These captured men were not innocent men -- they have confessed their crimes. Maybe their voluntary confessions need to be published again. If I remember correctly the confessions were not very well publicized.

 

[opinterph]

I think Clausewitz, in that context, was dealing also with another maxim, that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. There's another I recall -- possibly Clausewitz -- to the effect that battle is the art of mastering the unexpected.

Both of those axioms are from Moltke, who was a disciple of Clausewitz. To a great extent, Moltke focused upon what I’d call “contingency planning.”

But those both deal with the unplanned. In terms of planned surprise, the point is that the plans, and the physical implementation thereof, are not what constitutes surprise; surprise is what happens to the enemy commander's sense of control.

And therein lies the necessity for strong leadership and moral principles, according to Clausewitz. Surprises are to be expected in battle, but their success or failure will depend upon the degree to which they confuse and/or break the courage of the enemy’s warriors. Inherent in this reasoning is the recognition that a surprise rooted in “loose principles” may end up surprising the commander who instigates it, rather than the adversary for whom it is intended.

CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ
"ON WAR"
BOOK III. OF STRATEGY IN GENERAL
CHAPTER IX. THE SURPRISE *​

torture: coercion by application of measures which the subject finds sufficiently intolerable that surrender occurs in the mind.

You are proposing that the decision to capitulate takes place in the mind of the person being coerced. If that’s true, then perhaps it is reasonable to consider that the objective of the person who is outwardly “surrendering” is, in fact, to retain some degree of control over the immediate circumstance. It is at least debatable that his apparent compliance in such an outcome represents a true surrender. Arguably, it more likely represents the captive’s attempt to preserve his status of independence apart from his captors. Perhaps he will survive to fight another day.

Revealing information under situations of duress is quite different from a discretionary conversion to the opposing point of view. I suspect that situations of “shock and awe” tend to be reciprocated, as opportunity allows. ~Another axiom relates: He who laughs last laughs best.

Much depends here on the general relation in which the two parties stand to each other. If the one side through a general moral superiority can intimidate and outdo the other, then he can make use of the surprise with more success, and even reap good fruit where properly he should come to ruin.*

 

[Kulindahr]

You are proposing that the decision to capitulate takes place in the mind of the person being coerced. If that’s true, then perhaps it is reasonable to consider that the objective of the person who is outwardly “surrendering” is, in fact, to retain some degree of control over the immediate circumstance. It is at least debatable that his apparent compliance in such an outcome represents a true surrender. Arguably, it more likely represents the captive’s attempt to preserve his status of independence apart from his captors. Perhaps he will survive to fight another day.

Revealing information under situations of duress is quite different from a discretionary conversion to the opposing point of view. I suspect that situations of “shock and awe” tend to be reciprocated, as opportunity allows. ~Another axiom relates: He who laughs last laughs best.

Sounds like the economist was right: it's an attempt at a bargain -- I'll do this much for you, if you stop (at least for a while). Then the game is one of revealing as little as possible without tripping over something your torturer already knows.

I think that capitulation, here, would be equivalent to being broken, and having no further resistance; you're pointing out that there's a middle ground.

 

[Kulindahr]

So kuli what is it exactly that you are trying to achieve in your definition, what TYPE of torture are you trying to define,

a practical legal definition, eg "For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "

A philosophical convention with no practical application?

or a common vanilla definition of torture, "omg that chem final was torture"

I'd say I'm trying to get to the essence of what we mean by torture, so that from there we can get a practical definition.

As for the chem final reference, there's a grammatical term which covers that usage -- which I can't recall right now -- to the effect that one is really saying "that final felt like torture". I'll note that if a final is torture, it's self-inflicted... and you even pay to do it!

Torture is going to a new dentist in a new town (Portland, OR) who has convinced you that she knows exactly what she doing but, finding out that she doesn't.

I still cannot bring myself to go back to another dentist after 3 years. Having the dental dam laid on my face and breathing it into my mouth (I'd never heard of a dental damn before), being hit on the lip with a dental instrument causing a bloody lip, having my eyes covered with extremely dark sunglasses, and listening to her and her assistant argue which end of the instrument was the correct end. My end was having the first and only panic attack.

Although, I went to the dentist on my own accord, I still believe it was torture. Torture happens every day and every night throughout the world. Little babies get tortured and murdered as they come to the bloody end of life in their mother's womb at the hands of an abortionist that believes that a breathing baby does not have any rights, children go to bed hungry and wanting - night after night, parents that trust their kids with the keys to a car and a drunken driver crosses a line and kills the kid --- I could go on and on -- all of this is torture to someone.

Getting information that may have saved the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of people through what many say is torture is Ok with me. These captured men were not innocent men -- they have confessed their crimes. Maybe their voluntary confessions need to be published again. If I remember correctly the confessions were not very well publicized.

The proper term for this is "agony", not torture; properly speaking, torture requires an actor and a subject -- someone who inflicts torture, and the person on whom it is inflicted (when the two are the same, we call it masochism).

 

[opinterph]

I think that capitulation, here, would be equivalent to being broken, and having no further resistance.

If the process to induce capitulation results in complete destruction of the mind, then it is inappropriate to suggest that surrender somehow occurs in that particular facet of the individual. It would be no different than discovering maps or code books on a dead body left on the battlefield.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the process to induce capitulation results in complete destruction of the mind, then it is inappropriate to suggest that surrender somehow occurs in that particular facet of the individual. It would be no different than discovering maps or code books on a dead body left on the battlefield.

Well, sure -- but who's suggesting going that far? For that matter, in complete destruction of the mind, what's left to find out???