Let’s not forget the Milgram experiment either.

As for the ‘if I don’t, someone else will’ argument, that’s nothing more than a rationalization for a failure of courage and morality, a failure to accept responsibility for heinous action. The people who order torture, from the top all the way down, the doctors and psychologists who enable it, and the people who carry out the actions are all equally vile, equally culpable, and should suffer the severest punishment available.

And they should get additional punishment for incompetence, since torture is the least reliable way of gathering useful intelligence and is a waste of resources and time.

Sadly, this is also what leads to atrocities being carried out (easy when the other side are thought of as less than human), and will make finding any long term solution impossible.

Rights in both the UK and the US are tossed aside in this “war on terror” because we’re fighting the “other” although, there is no “other”. We know who we’re fighting against, we know where they’re from. We might not be able to say their names or speak to them in their native Arabic tongue. Hell, both countries have considerable populations of the “other”. But because they’re the “other”, we’re absolutely terrified of them. It’s like a modern day reworking of global-centric Crusades. We’re all scared of the minimal fanatical population of the Middle East, so we’re going to war with all of them for good measure.

I mean, you don’t see either country going to war with terrorists in Southeast Asia, India, or Russia. Or any other place with terrorists.

However, I don’t think it is always such a cut and dried situation. The military are there to (supposedly) implement the will of the nation and there is an element of “if I dont do it, some one else will” that stops people from walking away from horrible tasks, not to mention the punishments for failing to carry out your duties.

I am not, in anyway, trying to excuse their actions. You are completely correct in saying they are “choosing” to torture, the torture victim is the one who can not just walk away. I think, and I think heather was trying to say, though, that no matter how much the “torturer” may feel s/he can handle the after effects this is not likely.

If we, as a society, send people out to torture and they carry out our orders, what sort of person will return home? (Thinking back to the Stamford Prison Experiment… )

Good post, except for that bit. None of them ‘have’ to commit torture. They can say no and walk away. Instead they would rather retain the approval of their fellow criminals and their overseers, and hang on to their jobs or their position in the military or the clandestine service. Every person who tortures chooses to do so. Every one. They deserve whatever they may suffer. They are criminals of the most vile sort and should be treated as such.