by publius
Via Andrew Sullivan, Steve Chapman raises a really good point – there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use. And I think he poses a difficult logical problem for torture supporters.
Chapman notes that if “effectiveness” is all we care about, any form of torture would necessarily be ok. One could, for instance, drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee. I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there. If they didn’t, that tells you pretty much all you need to know.
But if they do concede that certain methods go too far (i.e., that such things are relevant), then they’re stuck having to argue that the methods we used simply aren’t that bad. In other words, if they concede a line exists, then they’re forced to argue that these methods don’t cross it.
And defending these methods seems very difficult, if not completely disingenuous. I mean, it requires saying that heinous acts like slamming heads into walls, waterboarding, stress positions, striking faces, and locking people up in small boxes are all ok. And remember – those are just the formally legalized tactics. They exclude the grotesque acts that these tactics inevitably mutated into – things like murders and electrodes to testicles at Abu Ghraib.
All in all, it’s a fairly clarifying debate – one that will be remembered for some time.
I like this idea, as a strategy.
Unfortunately I think a lot of torture advocates might bite the bullet on this one, just as a practical matter of how people might react. What’s the argumentative strategy then? What if somebody just bites the bullet and says in a ticking time bomb scenario, you can pull the person’s children in front of them and gouge their eyes out?
One could, for instance, drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee. I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there.
John Yoo didn’t.
John Yoo, of course, is the guy Bush sought out to justify torture in the first place.
I thought we did capture children and use them against their father, with at least an implicit threat of mistreatment, as well as indoctrination.
In September 2002, Yusuf al-Khalid, then nine years-old, and Abed al-Khalid, then seven years-old, were reportedly apprehended by Pakistani security forces during an attempted capture of their father, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Reports by other detainees indicate that the boys were ill-treated while in Pakistani custody. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in March 2003 and was subjected to over three years of enforced disappearance, and to other torture and ill-treatment, by the US authorities before being transferred to Guantánamo Bay, where he is currently held.
After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s arrest in March 2003, Yusuf and Abed Al Khalid were reportedly transferred out of Pakistan to US custody — allegedly for questioning about their father’s activities and to be used as leverage to force their father to co-operate. A Sunday Telegraph (UK) article in March 2003 alleged that CIA interrogators had detained the children and that one official explained that: “We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children…but we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care.” In the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal in March 2007, he indicates knowledge that his children were apprehended and abused: “They arrested my kids intentionally. They are kids. They been arrested for four months[,] they had been abused.” Their whereabouts remain unknown.
link
a logical problem? well then, QED must be right around the corner!
except for the people who are pro-torture because it’s what you have to be if you want to remain 100% opposed to Obama and the Dems: they aren’t interested in logical proofs. and they dominate the conversation.
What did happen to the princes in the tower?
I believe they were sacrificed in the service of power.
All in all, it’s a fairly clarifying debate – one that will be remembered for some time.
It’s not a debate, publius. It’s a Rorschac Test. Some people are viscerally, biologically, genetically opposed to torture. Others are not. The latter are either cowards or sadists.
The current pro-torture crowd are trying very hard to pass themselves off as cowards: we must torture because we’re afraid of what will happen if we don’t. If they take positive pleasure from contemplating the infliction of torture, only proper interrogation would get them to admit it.
–TP
“Via Andrew Sullivan, Steve Chapman raises a really good point – there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use.”
It’s frustrating when you announce points, such as this, that have been well-stated and chewed over many times in discussion threads on this blog, publius, as if they were new thoughts, and not already extremely well-discussed here. Why not quote the contributors to your own blog, and why not do it in the weeks, months, or years past, that they’ve done so, than credit someone else, and as if they’ve had a new and original observation?
I’m personally frustrated because I’ve written at length about this point here dozens of times, but you write as if you’ve never read your own blog.
See here from just the other day, in the “More Things That Are Missing” thread, for example. But we’ve gone over this many many times.
“I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there. If they didn’t, that tells you pretty much all you need to know.”
You seem to have also missed the lengthy discussion here and elsewhere on John Yoo’s views on the crushing of the testicles of one’s enemies sons. See endless discussion on this thread from two years ago, for example.
You’re familiar with this video, right?
Speaking of logical problems for torture enthusiasts, Jim Henley definitively addressed the illogic of using the “Ticking Time-Bomb” scenario to justify torture in January of 2007, and forever ended rhetorical use of that particular fantasy. Um, not.
“Unfortunately I think a lot of torture advocates might bite the bullet on this one…”
Which is why I like the alternative version I’ve heard, where it’s not the prisoner’s child, but *your own* child, that you need to brutally torture (and perhaps even murder) to get the prisoner to talk.
I suspect this will give more of them pause, at least those who have children and aren’t complete sociopaths.
(The scenario does, of course, assume a rather twisted and unusual psychology in the prisoner, as someone who gains satisfaction from making his captor’s loved ones suffer to the extent of trading cooperation for it. But it’s not *completely* out of the question; something similar’s been the basis for some stories and movies I’ve come across. And anyone who’s seriously entertaining the “ticking time bomb” scenario as justfication for the US torture program is hardly in a position to complain about implausbility.)
Their whereabouts remain unknown.
They belong on this list, which is also missing several other children of people taken prisoner.
I can’t quite bring myself to engage in utilitarian arguments these days. But for those who can stomach it: Thanks to the OLC memos, the focus has been on prisoners who probably did have some connection to al Qaeda and terror attacks against the U.S.
But the policy resulted in thousands of people abused by or at the behest of U.S. personnel, hundreds of whom at least were innocent of any connection to terror. Two dozen or more were tortured to death.
Innocent prisoners even include {gasp} white people.
Torture always spreads, and it always spreads to cover many more innocent than ‘guilty’, and it always comes home.
—
links aren’t showing up in preview, so here they are:
disappeared prisoners
http://www.propublica.org/article/dozens-of-prisoners-held-by-cia-still-missing-fates-unknown-422?ref=fp8
Donald Vance
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/18/opinion/courtwatch/main2278325.shtml
I think the response to this is generally: well, we don’t need to pull out fingernails, or electrocute genitals, or harm children because the techniques developed by the CIA work just fine.
Is there any argument for torture (or any other subject, for that matter, when it comes to some people) that doesn’t reduce to “the end justifies the means”?
Kind of a side note to all this – but another aspect of the story is how common soldiers were asked (ordered even) to become torturers. Alyssa Peterson chose to take her own life rather than be involved with it. (via memeorandum)
Can the same logic be used for warfare generally?
Certain methods of disagreement go too far. Where is the line? Which side of the line is warfare on? Warfare is on the bad side of the line.
If we pursue this line of reasoning far enough then we’ll save a great deal of money on the defense budget.
I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line [at drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee
Why would you assume that?
There has long been some evidence that the US torturers in Iraq did just that.
If you’re trying to tell me that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, who demanded that interrogators “take the gloves off” despite noncompliance and withdrawal by the FBI, despite strenuous opposition by some military brass, would order the “enhanced interrogation” stopped if they heard that a [brown, Iraqi, Muslim] child were physically abused, I have to tell you that I think you’re delusional.
Can the same logic be used for warfare generally?
The general rule for the military is to use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective.
Torture is not legitimate, so I think the analogy ends there.
Can the same logic be used for warfare generally?
Not really.
The law recognizes a difference between someone who is armed and free to act against you, and someone who you hold captive.
Most moral or ethical thinking other than pure pacifism on one hand, and advocacy of naked will to power on the other, likewise.
“When is war legitimate” is another question that IMO deserves attention right about now, but it is generally considered to be a different question than how to treat prisoners.
If you have a set of techniques of eliciting information which are acceptable and a set which are not acceptable there has to be a dividing line. What differs is where they draw the line between the least forceful unacceptable technique (which would be torture) and the most forceful acceptable technique (which would not be torture). Some techniques are clearly unacceptable, crushing testicles with pliers for example, some are clearly acceptable if a little unpleasant, leaving the suspect in the cells for a few hours before questioning them for example.
What differs is where they draw the line
My own stance is that the proper and justifiable treatment of suspects is that which I would still be willing to defend as proper and justified if
1. ) I myself was the suspect
2. ) I myself was wrongfully accused
3. ) I myself was treated in the manner under discussion.
You write as if these questions have never been considered by ethicists, philosophers, and politicians, d’d’dave: these questions all have well-considered, legally binding, answers:
“Certain methods of disagreement go too far. Where is the line?”
Where we’ve drawn them in the Geneva Conventions.
“Which side of the line is warfare on?”
On the acceptable side if it’s a just war, and on the other side if it’s not a just war.
“Warfare is on the bad side of the line.”
If you’re a pacifist, which most people aren’t.
Do you really believe there’s no line that shouldn’t be crossed when it comes to torture? Are you truly a supporter of Gestapo methods, and feel that the Nazis shouldn’t have been punished? Or what?
If you have a set of techniques of eliciting information which are acceptable and a set which are not acceptable there has to be a dividing line.
I got your dividing line right here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
Even if it doesn’t bug you, personally, to asphyxiate people or smash them against a wall over and over again, the law says you can’t do it.
I, as a red-blooded American woman, have no idea why you would designate testicle-crushing as “clearly unacceptable.” In my experience, it’s not really different from a moderate face-slap.
Ok, so I don’t mean that.
But I really am interested in how you reached the certainty that the question is settled on this technique if it isn’t settled on abusing a prisoner’s children (or insinuating that you would).
What Joel Hanes said.
I love the fact that we’ve finally found an issue where your standard issue wingnut sees nuance.
One think I haven’t noticed (a non-barking dog observation). Now that President Obama has released the memos, it seems clear that (a)some members of the United States did use torture, and (b) the highest executive level (and perhaps legislative level as well) authorized or at least knew about that use of torture, and authorized it or did nothing to stop it.
Interestingly, I have not seen any reports of concessions by movement conservatives due to the release of this information. Has any major movement or neo-con figure stood up and said they believed the US didn’t torture, then they believed only a few bad apples in the lower ranks got out of control, and now that the Bush Administration clearly did sanction torture, they no longer want any part of it or its defenders or inheritors? If not, or not yet, what does this say about what the Bush Administration and movement conservatism has done to your country?
If not, or not yet, what does this say about what the Bush Administration and movement conservatism has done to your country?
That for somewhere between thirty-five and ninety million Americans, when faced with a moral quandry, or the choice of a course of action, the decision making tool, the categorical imperative, is now effectively “In this instance, what course of action pisses liberals off?”
What is the point of “winning” the War on Terror if we turn into the very monsters we seek to defeat?
I am a member of a party I no longer recognize.
Clausewitz wrote “To introduce the principle of moderation into the theory of war itself would always lead to logical absurdity.”
The torture in question occurred in a context of war.
Bush drew this line:
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
2003 SOTU
So I guess it is okay to capture the kids, just not torture them in front of the parent, because that is evil.
“One could, for instance, drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee. I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there. If they didn’t, that tells you pretty much all you need to know.”
Maybe. But, then again, maybe it helps to imagine how they view our criticism of them — if, for no other reason, so that our disgust has some more justification than momentary disgust. Here’s a hypothetical defense:
You (the concerned citizen) believe that torturing people — whether the accused, his family, or anyone else — is never justified, even if it saves the lives of thousands of Americans. (OK, we may know it actually doesn’t, but we’re talking hypothetical justifications here, or justifications of hypothetical situations.)
What is the price of this torture (or rather, this hypothetical torture, which somehow not only works, but makes us safer)? Naturally, we have caused great harm to the victims, some of them possibly innocent; and, by your outrage and grief, it is plain it has done great harm to the conscience and virtue of our nation.
We have, in other words, dirtied our hands. Dirtier than most do, perhaps, bloody even — but that is the price, summarized.
The real question — according to our hypothetical defendant — is why, if you hold the security of yourself and your countrymen in any esteem at all, you would prove so willing to sacrifice it for a clear conscience?
Obviously I am being provocative here, as is my intention. I only ask that those who feel inclined to respond to bear in mind, should they consider arguments of persona or ad hominem, to direct such judgement at the defendant, and not his counsel.
And the simple answer to this hypothetical defendant is that, despite holding the security of myself and my fellow Americans in rather high esteem, I hold the honor and virtue of our nation in even higher regard.
The canard about getting information that will save lives fails to account for the reality that losing the combat multiplier of the Geneva Conventions costs more lives than whatever information gained is likely to save. Rooting out individuals from the rubble who might have otherwise surrendered but now prefer to die rather than be captured is the most intensive and dangerous fight we can face, and the most likely to continue to cost American lives. Think of Japanese sodiers in caves on Pacific Islands and the terrible cost in lives that we incurred. This is not going to be our last war, so even if it was true that in this circumstance torture and inhumane treatment would be more successful in ending the war or gaining key information, it does not account for the loss of lives in future wars due to the enemy not being willing to surrender for fear of expected treatment in American custody.
jrudkis
A life saved today is worth more than a life saved in the future.
b’b’b’baloney.
“Clausewitz wrote ‘To introduce the principle of moderation into the theory of war itself would always lead to logical absurdity.’
The torture in question occurred in a context of war.”
And thus d’d’d’dave does come out defending Nazism and Stalinism, as well as criminality.
Defenses of the techniques of the Gestapo, KGB, Stasi, etc.
That truly is hating America, and everything it stands for.
What is the price of this torture (or rather, this hypothetical torture, which somehow not only works, but makes us safer)?
Hypothetical crimes can be tried in a hypothetical court. We’re talking about real crimes here. Why muddy the waters?
what happened to “yes, torture should be illegal, but if there really were a ticking bomb, it’s OK to break the law and then take your chances in court after the threat has passed” ?
i used to hear that one all the time.
“A life saved today is worth more than a life saved in the future.”
Why?
To AJ and jrudkis, I’d say their is a value in trying to understand the moral arguments (and universe) of the other side. Sometimes that means taking their (admittedly, often delusional) view of reality as a hypothetical.
To Dan S — the unnerving thing* is you may be right; sometimes, the only moral rebuke you have is putting principle above security.
*Actually, in comparison to a lot of this discussion, “unnerving” isn’t so bad.
A life saved today is worth more than a life saved in the future.
Is there a formula for this? How many lives how far into the future are worth one present life? I’ve heard about this new math before. Maybe my kids will be able to explain it to me in a few years.
We have a Constitution, the US Code, the Geneva Conventions, and any number of other treaties that we have, of our own free will, agreed to, that all say torture is wrong, along with a very long history of eschewing torture, even in the face of significant threat.
Why do we give a sorry rat’s behind what Clausewitz says?
what happened to “yes, torture should be illegal, but if there really were a ticking bomb, it’s OK to break the law and then take your chances in court after the threat has passed” ?
i used to hear that one all the time.
I buy that one (though not the ok part). We ask soldiers and police to risk their lives every day: risking your freedom seems small in comparison.
If you are certain enough about your information and techniques that you will torture someone to stop the bomb, you should be willing to risk your freedom to save millions (or thousands, or one). It is a pretty good check valve on how sure you are that someone has information that is valuable enough to be worth the risk of your own freedom.
So really, the argument about the ticking time bomb is nonsense even in the event something like that happened…unless people in the CIA are not patriotic enough to risk their freedom to save a city.
cleek, I remember the argument you are referring to. However, I don’t remember anyone here who is currently on the “we don’t torture” side saying torture is okay then, just that it would be more understandable under those circumstances. Of course, the point is that there is no possible scenario where torture would wtrk under those circumstances, so it still wouldn’t be okay.
//”A life saved today is worth more than a life saved in the future.”
Why?//
Simple population growth arithmatic and compounding numbers. One today is two tomorrow and four the next day.
To AJ and jrudkis, I’d say their is a value in trying to understand the moral arguments (and universe) of the other side. Sometimes that means taking their (admittedly, often delusional) view of reality as a hypothetical.
This presumes that the pro-torture crowd is arguing in good faith. Most of what I’ve seen from them looks a lot more like the Wookie defense.
You know, I’ve been a commenter at ObWi a very long time, and I’ve always appreciated that we officially discourage people from calling other people Nazis. I’ve had trouble with it myself, as anyone who’s read the various threads wherein I called Charles a liar can attest. Nazi analogies, as a general rule, aren’t helpful even when they’re apt or contextually appropriate.
But if someone wanders into the forum and tells you that they’re a member of Stormfront and starts going on about our damn ni**er president, you have to stop and wonder where the line is drawn between a insulting them and a factually accurate description. I have no problem telling actual Nazis what they are and where to get off.
You are staring it in the face, people. In this thread and the previous, we have people who are repeatedly, unambiguously and enthusiastically defending what is in every real and legal definition the torture of one human being by another. They’re not dancing around the point. They’re not leaving it up to interpretation. They’re saying that the ends justify the means and it’s okay for us to torture people for national security, but if anyone else does it, then it’s a war crime. That our people should not be prosecuted for following orders. That the suspicion you pose a danger to national security justifies imprisonment and torture–again, only if it’s us. The best they can come up with to defend it, when fully informed of the history of what they’re endorsing, is feeble tu quoque arguments about Truman and Clausewitz, either of which are about as germane to the point as Jack Bauer quotes.
This is homegrown, domestic all-American Nazism. The philosophical distance between these proto-fascists and the people we convicted at Nuremberg is measured in the flag they wave and the minority they distrust. And I’m pretty much at an end to my ability to paint a smiley face over it and treat it as a legitimate difference of opinion. When someone walks into the room and yells “ni**er”, you call it racism. These people are walking in and cheerfully yelling “torture”. And it needs to be forcefully pointed out for what it is. The people who cheer for it need to be shunned by their community as the morally twisted things they are, just as we shun those who persist in bad hygiene or shouting racial slurs in public long after they have any excuse for not knowing better.
“… along with a very long history of eschewing torture, even in the face of significant threat.”
Although this point has been made a zillion times before, I’d reiterate that we fought the Axis powers, a genuine existential threat to the United States, and we banned torture, and didn’t use it.
We fought the Cold War, and we banned torture, and didn’t use it.
Now we have as enemies some pissant terrorist groups, who, while not ignorable, pose no existential threat to the U.S. whatever.
The idea that America needs to, in response, turn to the techniques of Pol Pot, Heinrich Himmler, and Lavrentiy Beria, is a profoundly cowardly notion.
Setting aside that anyone who proposes such things has no apparent moral sense, why are these people so terrified?
And why do they want to destroy the United States of America, which is an idea, an idea of freedom and justice, in order to “save” it?
Why do they hate America?
“This presumes that the pro-torture crowd is arguing in good faith. Most of what I’ve seen from them looks a lot more like the Wookie defense.”
I take your point –but I’m from the school that says people assume bad faith too often as it is; far better to assume good faith until rational discussion is exhausted and you can prove otherwise.
To Gary’s last post — Amen.
“And why do they want to destroy the United States of America, which is an idea, an idea of freedom and justice, in order to “save” it? ”
The same question I have been wondering but never asked. Thank you Gary for putting it out in the open.
There is a quote somewhere that goes something like (it depends on which version of the Bible you are reading from) ” How does it profit a man to gain the world if in doing so he loses his soul?”
These people are willing for our nation to lose its soul, its very reason for being.
This has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with the devolution of our democracy into a team sport. The blue team doesn’t like torture, so the red team likes it– no matter how illogical, or immoral, or ineffective, or contrary to our traditions it may be, and no matter what they believed beforehand.
“The blue team doesn’t like torture, so the red team likes it”
Perhaps we should discuss Byzantine history, and the Blues and Greens.
So if your immediate family is threatened with imminent death, it’s OK? After all, you, as the detainee, are not harmed. And if they are gratuitously executed? Well, then that’s murder, not torture.
Sorry. That doesn’t work for me.
catsy
I presume you were talking, in part, about me at 9:42p since I’m the only one who mentioned Clauswitz. My position is not as you have described. You probably don’t care what my position is but I’ll tell you anyway. I believe that as an individual, I should avoid physical conflict if at all possible. I believe my country should do the same. If I am forced into a physical conflict it would in all cases be initiated by the opposing party. I would be defending. My first recourse will be to do the maximum damage in the minimum time by any means at hand so as to disable the opponent. I would have an absolutely clear conscience because I did all I could to avoid it.
I believe my country should do the same. The problem is that my country doesn’t do the same. My country goes out looking for trouble. It has no moral high ground.
Now, you folks are all talking about how torture is out of bounds but war is not. It’s a bizarre compromise that I do not understand. “I’ll kill you but I won’t hurt you.”
Many say: “But it’s against the law. We have treaties.” I do not dispute that. It is illegal. So prosecute them.
What I dispute is the logic of “it’s okay to kill that soldier but don’t hurt him” or “it’s okay to harm a few bystanders when you bomb a military target but don’t hurt that combatant you’ve captured if it might help your cause.” It is not rational.
What’s rational is to stay out of war.
You call me a nazi. That is meaningless. Nazis went out looking for trouble. I do not personally and I do not advocate for my country do do so.
We fought the Cold War, and we banned torture, and didn’t use it.”
Gary, you know the history better than me, so you’ll have to explain to me in what sense this statement is true, because if I start talking about Kubark and so on you will quite correctly inform me that you know all about it.
//”And why do they want to destroy the United States of America, which is an idea, an idea of freedom and justice, in order to “save” it//
// How does it profit a man to gain the world if in doing so he loses his soul?//
//These people are willing for our nation to lose its soul, its very reason for being.//
From my point of view, the soul is lost when we set out from our shores to attack someone else. The torture is just an ugly by product.
From my point of view: if you condone offensive war then your soul is already lost and you might as well do it more effectively and use torture.
“What I dispute is the logic of ‘it’s okay to kill that soldier but don’t hurt him'”
That isn’t anyone’s position. The distinction between a soldier who is fighting, and a helpless captive, is as broad and significant as the distinction between you right now, and you in a maximum security prison.
What’s right to do to a combatant, and what’s right to do to a helpless captive, are two entirely different things.
Otherwise, do you not accept distinctions between lawful combat, and unlawful means of combat?
“It is not rational.”
The fact that you’re unfamiliar with the theory of just war, or unlawful combat, makes you ignorant, rather than making other people irrational.
“Gary, you know the history better than me, so you’ll have to explain to me in what sense this statement is true”
We didn’t legitimize it.
As well, the manual (KUBARK actually being a code word for the CIA) itself did specify limits as regards legality:
Pain was advised against:
The first lines of the “Interrogator’s Checklist“:
I wouldn’t and don’t defend the KUBARK manual, but a) its use by Americans, was, so far as I know, highly limited; b) its guidance was a lot less harsh than that of the contemporary torture memos — there’s nothing resembling waterboarding, for example, and I’m quoting the harshest portions — most of the manual is devoted to non-coercive interrogation; c) the U.S didn’t stand up and proclaim that such methods were legal and acceptable; they were covert, which doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, and I didn’t mean to imply that they didn’t, but it’s not at all the same thing as a country saying such methods are acceptable or legal.
It’s not at all, in my view, the same as standing up and declaring that waterboarding, for example, isn’t torture, and is legal, and acceptable.
“From my point of view, the soul is lost when we set out from our shores to attack someone else. The torture is just an ugly by product.
From my point of view: if you condone offensive war then your soul is already lost and you might as well do it more effectively and use torture.”
The first two sentences I agree with. Where you lose me is in your advocacy of more effective soul-losing. Just because a war is wrong to begin with doesn’t mean you should compound its wrongness by committing war crimes. And anyway, our use of torture was a recruitment tool for the insurgents.
My impression of Americans who advocate war crimes is that some aren’t necessarily sadists or cowards. Some have just been indoctrinated with all kinds of pro-torture notions from popular culture, including much of our wonderful press corps, along with the usual racism that comes so easily in wartime. And the ticking time bomb argument probably comes up every single time I’ve talked about this with people in real life.
Devil’s Advocate: but I’m from the school that says people assume bad faith too often as it is; far better to assume good faith until rational discussion is exhausted and you can prove otherwise.
…that’s more than slightly ironic, coming from someone who is identifying themselves as a “devil’s advocate” – that is, someone openly arguing in bad faith.
“the U.S didn’t stand up and proclaim that such methods were legal and acceptable; they were covert, which doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, and I didn’t mean to imply that they didn’t, but it’s not at all the same thing as a country saying such methods are acceptable or legal.”
Okay, that makes sense. We also supported a lot of people during the Cold War who committed every sort of atrocity, but I agree that the Bush Administration and its defenders have broken new ground in openly defending torture.
What’s rational is to stay out of war.
Agreed.
There’s nothing all that rational about war, and net/net far more damage is caused by wars than by torturing individual people.
These days we fight wars within the limits of agreed-upon laws of war, which is kind of a perverse concept, but all things considered it’s probably better to have them than not.
The distinction between a battlefield situation and torture is that, in torture, you are harming someone you hold under your control. They cannot defend themselves.
It’s a distinction that probably doesn’t mean a lot if your house is the one that gets bombed, no doubt. But, there it is.
These days we fight wars within the limits of agreed-upon laws of war, which is kind of a perverse concept
i like to think that someday we’ll regard the concept of “laws of war” in the same way people today think of The Code Duello: with a giant “Killing each other? WTF? If you were actually harmed by the other party, take it to court. Otherwise, Grow The FU and STFU.”
If the sacred end that justifies any means is “keeping the American people safe” then these people should have no problem using these “techniques” on suspects in the U.S. Murder suspect? Waterboard him! Suspected rapist? Bolt him to the floor naked and leave him in a cold room for 7 days. That should get some confessions outta the bastards.
I don’t understand why suspected terrorists overseas are more dangerous to me than the suspected murderer in my own town. Ergo, it’s time we took the gloves off at home, too. Afterall, didn’t Scalia say that hurting suspects wasn’t “cruel and unusual punishment” because they weren’t being punished? — so it’s constitutional, too. Win win!
“I don’t understand why suspected terrorists overseas are more dangerous to me than the suspected murderer in my own town. Ergo, it’s time we took the gloves off at home, too.”
I’ve made this point a number of times in the past, as well. Let’s not forget child molestors! It’s for the children!
And, after all, if someone has kidnapped a child, surely we should used “enhanced interrogation” to find the child before it dies! What could be more important?
And how about any kidnapping? Surely people shouldn’t be left in a position where they may be killed!
But, also we can’t let murderers get away! They might kill again! Enhanced interrogation is necessary to protect lives!
But we also need to protect people, mostly women, from rapists! Rape is almost as bad as murder!
And so on. Why not use these entirely legitimate, thoroughly inoffensive, techniques all ’round?
If that’s the way it’s going to be spun.
And the nasty thing is that too many would actually find that kind of logic appealing*.
Admittedly I find appeal in the thought of Rummy gassed, Cheney boiled in oil and Bush quartered but I’d vote no, if I had to decide to it actually happening. But I am not the standard.
*after every grisly murder, some newspapers and radio/TV channels discuss reintroduction of the death penalty over here.
I don’t understand why suspected terrorists overseas are more dangerous to me than the suspected murderer in my own town.
Why hasn’t Terry Nicholson, a convicted domestic terrorist in US federal custody, not been waterboarded so that he reveals co-conspirators that are currently free to plot more terror attacks?
Some guy on torture:
You might wonder who this weak, wussy, liberal is, who refuses to face the facts on the need for torture.
Other guy on torture:
There is also evidence cutting against the CIA’s claims. A.B. Krongard, who was the agency’s executive director when the coercive interrogations began, told author Ron Suskind that KSM and other Qaeda captives “went through hell and gave up very, very little.”
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
That depends on what exactly you mean by severe pain, as opposed to moderate pain, which is allowed. Any attempt to define torture generally is going to have some edge cases where opinions can reasonably differ.
See, this is exactly the kind of sociopathic rationalization that’s wrong with this whole debate.
Maybe it’s just my wussy liberal nature, but I don’t think we have any business inflicting pain on other human beings because they might know something useful to us.
Protesting that something should be legal because it involves inflicting moderate pain rather than severe pain strikes me as being akin to a child molester arguing that what he did wasn’t that bad because it didn’t involve penetration. It’s completely beside the point. You crossed the line by doing it at all in the first place. How, exactly, do you quantify the line between “moderate” and “severe” pain? Do you stop and ask the suspect to rate it on a scale of zero to 5, or some other pain scale variant?
The problem isn’t with the subjectiveness of defining pain levels, the problem is that you’re attempting at all to determine how much you can hurt a suspect in the name of national security without crossing the legal line. The fact that you’re trying to identify that line at all means that your concern isn’t whether or not we should torture, but how much torture we can get away with it by keeping it below some arbitrary threshold. To paraphrase a (possibly apocryphal) Churchill quote: “we’ve already established what kind of person you are. Now we are haggling about the price.”
That depends on what exactly you mean by severe pain
Actually, the bar is severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Some of these guys were forced to stand for, literally, days at a time. Their ankles were shackled to the ground and their arms were tied above their heads. If you stand in place for more than 18-24 hours straight, you develop extreme swelling and edema in your legs, possibly extending up into your thighs. You develop blisters that sweat the fluid that is separating out of your blood. If you fall asleep, you suspend your entire weight from the handcuffs used to hold upright, and your wrists and hands develop deep, painful cuts.
Not sleeping at all for a few days will make you psychotic. You see things, you hear things, you develop paranoid fantasies, you lose your grasp of what is real and what is not. You go clinically nuts. The OLC guidelines allowed for subjects to be kept awake for up to 11 days.
Asphyxiation is, well, asphyxiation. If all goes according to plan, they snatch you back before you actually die, but not before you experience all of the physical and psychological effects of imminent death. And, of course, they keep a doctor on hand just in case.
I agree, there are edge cases about which reasonable people can disagree as to whether they constitute torture.
I’d say none of the above qualify.
It’s interesting to talk about this stuff in the abstract, and speculate about where, exactly, justifiable harsh interrogation ends and torture begins.
It’s also interesting to imagine the real ticking bomb situation, where we have only precious minutes or hours to extract information that will surely save the lives of hundreds or thousands.
None of that isn’t what we’re talking about here. Some folks will say it was justified, some will say it sucked but we needed to do it, but I don’t think there’s any serious question that what went on was torture with a capital T.
Let’s talk about what actually happened, and why.
The problem isn’t with the subjectiveness of defining pain levels, the problem is that you’re attempting at all to determine how much you can hurt a suspect in the name of national security without crossing the legal line. The fact that you’re trying to identify that line at all means that your concern isn’t whether or not we should torture, but how much torture we can get away with it by keeping it below some arbitrary threshold. To paraphrase a (possibly apocryphal) Churchill quote: “we’ve already established what kind of person you are. Now we are haggling about the price.”
Regarding the appalling conduct of the warring European powers during the Great War (what we today call WW1), Churchill once wrote: “When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian states had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility.”
Since we are now in the midst of a surreal debate about whether just a little bit of torture is OK, is justifiable given sufficient utility, pace Churchill I have to ask if the same principles apply to cannibalism? If it would make America safer for us to dine on the flesh of KSM and the others, should we do so? Would it be right?
What about just a taste? Would that be OK?
Or perhaps it would be OK if our designated gustatory officers were just to chew the long pork, but didn’t actually swallow it? If Mike Tyson can do it, why can’t the CIA? Huh?
Or maybe if we were just to bite them (the prisoners, that is), but didn’t actually tear off any flesh? Would that be OK?
Do those questions strike anyone as depraved, disturbing and deeply weird? Translate cannibalism back into torture, and it shows just how deep into bizzaroland this debate has descended.
Before we put on our armor and take up arms in defense of civilization as we know it, perhaps we should make an effort to actually behave like, well, like civilized people. Which means no torture and no cannibalism. Not even a little bit, even in extremis (like say between 1914 and 1918). Or at least that seems to be where Churchill at least drew the line. What a wimp.
Churchill experienced nothing like 9/11. everything is different now. also.
Churchill: “When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian states had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility.”
In this modern day of science and godlessness isn’t everything a question of utility?
Churchill experienced nothing like 9/11. everything is different now. also.
Well, that changes everything, doesn’t it now? It is becoming painfully evident that squeamish liberals are endangering America with their effeminate opposition to cannablism. I have it on authority (and I might say authority at least as convincing as the notion that torture can produce accurate and actionable intelligence data) that if I eat the heart of my enemy, I will gain his courage, and if I sup on his brains I will gain his knowledge.
Knowing this, the following dilemma presents itself: if you had in your custody a terrorist who knew the location of a ticking time bomb hidden somewhere in an American city, and you could find out where that bomb was hidden by cooking and eating him, would you do it?
Well?
How could you not, if there is even a 1 percent chance that by eating our enemies we can defeat their plots and strike fear into the hearts of any that may be tempted to follow in their footsteps. Are precious American lives to be imperiled by your outdated scruples and creeping vegetarianism? Praise the Lord and pass the BBQ sauce!
TLTABQ
I think you’re right. But, the brain should be eaten raw for two reasons. First, the ticking timer means time is of the essence. Second, the cooking process probably scrambles the knowledge one is hoping to acquire.
In this modern day of science and godlessness isn’t everything a question of utility?
I have a sneaking suspicion that more god-botherers than atheists are pro-torture in this modern day of science and godlessness.
–TP
I think you’re right. But, the brain should be eaten raw for two reasons. First, the ticking timer means time is of the essence. Second, the cooking process probably scrambles the knowledge one is hoping to acquire.
Good point! In that case, would it be un-American of me to skip the BBQ sauce and garnish the brains with wasabi instead?
The cite of Churchill is interesting. There are lots of anecdotes around about Churchill, who famously suffered from depression, (he termed it his ‘black dog’, which seems to capture a lot of the feeling, at least for me) and one of them is going to visit Truman and wondering about whether they were guilty of war crimes, so much so that they set up a mock trial.
However, Sven Lindqvist, in _A History of Bombing_, notes that Churchill, as a fervent supporter of the Royal Air Force, had them use aerial bombing to ‘pacify’ civilians in the Middle East during the 1920’s. There was an excerpt from the book in Harpers, which is behind the sub wall now. It is quite possible that Churchill’s personal reflections on war reflect his own history.
Note that I have avoided being specific about what I would consider acceptable. The point I am making is that there will be some techniques where you are uncertain as to whether they are torture. Some of the people you are having a disagreement with don’t disagree on the general principal of opposition to torture they draw the line in a different position.
From a purely practical position harsh techniques are fairly useless as they obtain largely unreliable evidence. In fact questioning a vulnerable suspect so as to avoid false confessions is rather difficult, even without using anything anyone would consider torture.
The ticking bomb scenario never seems to actually happen anyway.
“However, Sven Lindqvist, in _A History of Bombing_,”
I read that book–it was great, except for the incredibly annoying way it was put together. I’ve never seen that before (sort of like following a series of weblinks from paragraph to paragraph) and hope to never see it again.
“and if I sup on his brains I will gain his knowledge.”
What America needs are more zombies to defend our country as they search out BRAAAIINNS.
They’re still fashionable!
“…Churchill, as a fervent supporter of the Royal Air Force, had them use aerial bombing to ‘pacify’ civilians in the Middle East during the 1920’s.”
Not just “the Middle East,” but specifically Iraq, after the British-French creation of the country, and he was extremely keen on gassing Iraqis.
The British maintained control of, and prevented revolt in, Iraq primarily with air power.
I have a theory that every ObWi thread with more than 50 comments contains at least one really good band name. This thread’s is “Creeping Vegetarianism”.
I don’t think there will be many cases in which you really need to think very hard about what’s “severe” as opposed to “moderate” pain or suffering. If the treatment you’re inflicting feels bad enough that the victim will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to make it stop, it’s pretty fair to assume it’s severe.
there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use.
If torture is effective then refusing to torture in any circumstances is not always the way to minimize the amount of torture that takes place.
If torture is effective, being more skilled at torture than your opponent and also willing to renounce torture if your opponent renounces torture may be the way to minimize torture. Thus the Geneva Conventions and what not.
I say “may be” because your opponent may have less to lose from being known as a torturer than you do. Some situations are not symmetrical.
The moral question for the do not ever torture anyone crowd is this:
If refusing to torture your opponents would increase the number of people tortured, and you believed this with certainty, would you still refuse to torture your opponents?
If refusing to torture your opponents would increase the number of people tortured, and you believed this with certainty, would you still refuse to torture your opponents?
Why would I believe something with certainty that is not only utterly implausible but completely untestable? This question is about as meaningful as, “Would you torture one person to death if it would cure one thousand children with cancer?” What’s the point in playing that game?
“If refusing to torture your opponents would increase the number of people tortured”
I have no idea how or why this would work. What are you talking about?
This question is about as meaningful as, “Would you torture one person to death if it would cure one thousand children with cancer?”
No, it’s more like would you torture one person to death if it would save two other people from being tortured to death.
Would you?
What’s the point in playing that game?
It’s not a game. Would you refuse to torture people if you knew that the refusal would result in more people being tortured? Not a game. No ticking clock.
I have no idea how or why this would work
I explained precisely how and why it would work.
Reading is fundamental.
“I explained precisely how and why it would work.”
You haven’t explained anything.
I can see this will be just more of your usual trollery. Forget I asked. Bye.
Some people can handle hard questions, some people can’t.
Would you do something horrid if you knew, with certainty, that it would decrease the amount of horrid things done in the world?
I don’t know the answer, but I won’t run and hide from the question.
“I don’t know the answer, but I won’t run and hide from the question.”
That’s a question for a freshman philosophy class, not the situation in which we find ourselves.
They wont answer the question, you won’t answer the question, whatever.
Would you torture one person if you knew with perfect certainty it would keep one thousand other people from being tortured?
I’m not trolling, at the moment.
I want to know. Would you?
“I’m not trolling, at the moment.”
Sorry, once you lose credibility, you can’t get it back with “I’m not trolling, at the moment.”
“I want to know.”
Sucks to be you, then. Try not trolling for a few months.
Would you torture one person if you knew with perfect certainty it would keep one thousand other people from being tortured?
Would you be able to walk faster if your legs suddenly morphed into bicycle wheels?
There is a point beyond which tossing around hypotheticals becomes solely the realm of idle speculation and has no chance of producing useful insights. You’ve gone well beyond that point.
My answer is “NO”. Although the scenario is ridiculous, the answer is clear. And it really does go into the ticking bomb scenario. It requires absolute certainty about things one cannot be certain about.
We fought the Cold War, and we banned torture, and didn’t use it.
(…)
We didn’t legitimize it.
I’m glad you backed off on the first claim, because it’s an all too familiar and wrong notion that pre-Bush II everything was just dandy as far as torture was concerned. If we include torture by proxies, funded and trained by the US, a case could be made that torture was actually much more widespread then.
Any attempt to define torture generally is going to have some edge cases where opinions can reasonably differ.
Defining torture is one thing, but defining how we should treat detainees is piss-simple: we treat them the exact same way we expect our servicepeople held by enemies to be treated, full stop.
That puts us at a disadvantage, but that’s one reason why we spend more than the rest of the world combined on military capability.
To answer the Devil’s advocate;
The Devil knows one thing and doesn’t another.
What He knows: That he can inflict as much pain and suffering as He wishes on his captive.
What He doesn’t: That said infliction of pain and suffering has any utility over His available alternatives.
The Devil opts to maximize pain and suffering for no rational gain whatsoever. One can only conclude that He does this for personal satisfaction. That’s why he’s the Devil.
Would you torture one person if you knew with perfect certainty it would keep one thousand other people from being tortured?
No, probably not.
If you could shoot a baby in the head, and by shooting that baby in the head save 1,000 other babies from being shot in the head, would you shoot the baby in the head?
Would you throw your grandmother under a speeding train if you knew it would save 1,000 other grannies from being thrown under speeding trains?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
You have a unique talent for reducing important questions to pointless hypotheticals.
If you could shoot a baby in the head, and by shooting that baby in the head save 1,000 other babies from being shot in the head, would you shoot the baby in the head?
I don’t see that as being a pointless hypothetical. My answer is that I should shoot the baby in the head, but I probably would not, not out of an aversion to killing but rather out of moral cowardice – fear of being reviled as a baby killer and put in prison.
You can revile the people who authorized torture as monsters and I would like to see some of them put in prison. But I bet they struggled with the same type of considerations.
If you want to minimize the number of wars fought, categorically ruling out ever fighting a war is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for war than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with nations that are also willing to do so. I don’t see why the same type of argument does not apply to torture, if torture is effective as a tactic. No one here has put forth any convincing argument to the contrary.
now_what,
What you fail to understand is that the problem with the use of some tactics, regardless of their effectiveness, is that they open the door for wider application. If shooting the odd infant can avoid a war, why not do it seems to be your suggestion. Yet the act that would (if we take the hypothetical seriously) guarantee victory would make it hollow.
One could draw an analogy to steroid use. If using it somehow guarantees superstardom, why not, and follow all the measures to mask such usage? While one could make a cost/benefit analysis, at some point, one’s health and possibility of living beyond middle age has a value beyond any possibility of riches.
Likewise, the possibility that our society becomes one that accepts torture as a normal activity is too high a price to pay. If you believe it isn’t, it is up to you to show us how a societal norm of torturing people is acceptable, not up to commentators here to somehow refute the idea that torture is, in some strained hypothetical, acceptable.
Your argument that somehow, it is only the moral cowardice that prevents people from torturing to save society is an act of moral inversion that raises rationality to a higher value than fundamental human values. While human society has on any number of occastions raised rationality to a higher place than fundamental human values, I am hard pressed to think of a case that would argue for its blanket application.
now_what,
I know a foolproof way to eliminate thousands of generations’ worth of human suffering: wipe out the human race tomorrow. By your moral calculus, would that be good, bad, or ridiculous?
–TP
What you fail to understand is that the problem with the use of some tactics, regardless of their effectiveness, is that they open the door for wider application
The slippery slope argument. I’m not buying.
One could draw an analogy to steroid use
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
Likewise, the possibility that our society becomes one that accepts torture as a normal activity is too high a price to pay
Minimizing the amount of torture that occurs is not accepting torture as a normal activity. The opposite.
Your argument that somehow, it is only the moral cowardice that prevents people from torturing to save society is an act of moral inversion that raises rationality to a higher value than fundamental human values
I don’t get this. Is rationality fundamentally inhuman? It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.
I know a foolproof way to eliminate thousands of generations’ worth of human suffering: wipe out the human race tomorrow
Given that I am advocating minimizing the amount of torture, war, and needless death in the world, I do not wish, at this time, to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don’t get this. Is rationality fundamentally inhuman? It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.
I really don’t understand why you’re talking about rationality while at the same time positing hypotheticals that necessitate perfect certainty. Nothing like perfect certainty exists in the real world, so your hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to how rational people understand the world.
I really don’t understand why you’re talking about rationality while at the same time positing hypotheticals that necessitate perfect certainty
Throwing away perfect certainty doesn’t change the result, it just makes the math harder.
That’s all very pretty, now_what, but the fact remains that you are advocating that torture be an acceptable tactic. Maybe the one of last resort, but if we’re pushed that far, well, we don’t want to tie our hands.
No.
Period.
We draw the line here. On one side of the line are examples like Pol Pot, Nazi Germany, the KGB, Iran, and others throughout history who’ve allowed this to be done in their name.
On the other side of that line is the United States of America, and other civilized nations that have decided there are some things We Don’t DO.
If you want to jump across the line and count yourself with history’s monsters, that’s your prerogative. But be absolutely clear that this is the choice you’re making. And then find another country to do it to.
That’s all very pretty, now_what, but the fact remains that you are advocating that torture be an acceptable tactic.
I’m arguing that if torture is unacceptable, we should take steps to minimize the amount of torture that takes place.
You are disputing this.
Given the choice of more torture or less torture, you choose more torture. And then you compare me to Pol Pot.
Have a nice day.
Throwing away perfect certainty doesn’t change the result, it just makes the math harder.
I disagree. We know that once institutions permit torture, the illusion of certainty compels those institutions to torture ever more, no matter how pointless and ridiculous the torture is. And thus we end up with mentally defective travel planners getting waterboarded a hundred times per month. Torture requires certainty and the human mind rushes to supply the needed certainty using the power of self-deception.
I’m arguing that if torture is unacceptable, we should take steps to minimize the amount of torture that takes place.
Banning torture seems like a good way to minimize the amount of torture that takes place. Certainly, the prospect of long prison sentences for torturers should reduce the amount of torture performed. I’m pretty sure Catsy has spoken out in favor of enforcing the legal prohibitions against torture, so I really don’t see what you’re complaining about here.
Given that I am advocating minimizing the amount of torture, war, and needless death in the world …
In the most generous possible reading, your “given” is that a little torture, today, might prevent a greater amount of torture in the future. (You have not been silly enough, at any rate, to posit a hypothetical wherein a little torture, today, somehow undoes past torture.) Torture, today, can be a “given” — we can choose to do it. The consequences in the future are not “given” — for the future is a very long time. You can postulate that torturing one person, today, will save a hundred people, tomorrow. But then come all the days after tomorrow. Days, years, generations during which millions of people may suffer torture because of the precedent you set. Not the precedent of saving a hundred people over whom others had power. The precedent of torturing the one person over whom you had power.
I don’t think you’re advocating torture, now-what. I think you’re advocating a sort of intellectual fearlessness. You’re just not brave enough to carry your intellectual boldness to its logical conclusion.
–TP
We know that once institutions permit torture, the illusion of certainty compels those institutions to torture ever more, no matter how pointless and ridiculous the torture is.
We don’t know that.
Banning torture seems like a good way to minimize the amount of torture that takes place
You can’t ban things in places you do not control. This is the whole point.
Certainly, the prospect of long prison sentences for torturers should reduce the amount of torture performed
You will not be imprisoning the people to whom you lost wars.
There’s a bum begging in front of a hospital. He has an IQ of 80, a nasty character and at most 2 years to live. Inside the hospital there’s a Nobel prize winner who was about to find a cure for cancer, but now needs a heart transplant. Do we kill the bum to provide the Nobel prize winner with a new heart so that he can cure cancer? No.
Seriously, now_what, go take a class on utilitarian ethics at your local college. It’s not as if intelligent people haven’t concerned themselves with such questions before.
If you want to minimize the number of wars fought, categorically ruling out ever fighting a war is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for war than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with nations that are also willing to do so. I don’t see why the same type of argument does not apply to torture, if torture is effective as a tactic. No one here has put forth any convincing argument to the contrary.
That’s because argument by arbitrary analogy doesn’t work. Not all nouns are created equal. What happens if we try it this way:
“If you want to minimize the number of nuclear wars fought, categorically ruling out ever fighting a nuclear war is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for nuclear war than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with nations that are also willing to do so.”
or this way:
“If you want to minimize the number of rapes, categorically ruling out ever committing rape is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for rape than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with people that are also willing to do so.”
How does that sound to you?
I don’t see that as being a pointless hypothetical.
But actually, it kind of is.
Torture is, plainly, wrong. It’s wrong to cruelly abuse people who you hold and who are not in a position to defend themselves. It’s wrong when it happens in the prison system, it’s wrong when it happens in times of war, and it’s wrong when it happens in the course of intelligence investigations.
It’s wrong. I’d like to take that as our starting point. If we’re not on the same page so far, there’s little point continuing.
There may be times when torturing someone seems necessary, or at least justifiable. We hold some who has kidnapped a child, the child will die in an hour or two if we don’t find him or her, *we know all of these things*, and the person will not tell us where the child is. So, we beat it out of them and try to save the child.
Did the person doing the beating break the law? Yes. Will they be punished for it, or will they be given a pass due the to the circumstances? It depends. Cases like that are *exceptional*, and must be considered individually, in light of the actual, concrete facts.
Which is why the hypothetical situations you describe for us are pointless in the context of what we are actually discussing.
Waterboarding Al Qaeda operatives will not result in a net decrease of torture overall. If anything, it will have the opposite effect.
No credible example of a “ticking bomb” averted by our use of torture has been presented to date, and in fact the more we find out, the less credible any claims made so far turn out to be.
We have Dick Cheney’s word. If that works for you, great. It doesn’t work for me.
The actual situation we’re discussing is a systematic attempt to covertly introduce an organized regime of torture, in the face of US and international law prohibiting it. That, followed by a years-long effort to suppress its disclosure.
Not the same thing as your ticking time bomb, not the same as your reduction of global torture levels. Something else entirely.
So, IMVHO, your hypothetical scenarios have nothing to do with, and nothing to contribute to, the actual topic of conversation.
This isn’t about late night dorm-room “what ifs”. It’s about profound and disturbing levels of deliberate corruption in the US executive used to justify a systematic program of criminal brutality. It’s about Arendt’s banality of evil coming to live here in the US.
If you want to actually talk about that, great. But the imaginary “what if” stuff you’re bringing to the table has nothing to do with it.
Torture is, plainly, wrong.
So is killing but most people have no problem with the killing of a few to prevent the killing of many. Most people do not even have a problem with killing ten of the other tribe to prevent the killing of one of their tribe. Many people do not even have a problem with killing ten of the the other tribe to avenge the killing of one of their tribe. Yet they would still agree that killing is wrong. I don’t see the difference with torture.
We have Dick Cheney’s word. If that works for you, great. It doesn’t work for me.
But for the purposes of this discussion we are taking the effectiveness of torture as a given. I was originally responding to this, “there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use”. That’s the statement under discussion.
The actual situation we’re discussing is a systematic attempt to covertly introduce an organized regime of torture, in the face of US and international law prohibiting it
I don’t care about the law, and arguments based on it are not going to be convincing to me. The law often has nothing to do with what is moral, and is only adhered to by the powerful when it is in their interests.
What happens if we try it this way:
“If you want to minimize the number of nuclear wars fought, categorically ruling out ever fighting a nuclear war is not the way to do it.
Half the world’s population lives in countries that have nuclear weapons, with much of the other half living in countries protected by countries with nuclear weapons. Yet the only times they were used were against a country without means to respond in kind.
I’d call this one an own goal on your part.
“I was originally responding to this, “there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use”. That’s the statement under discussion.”
And yet you have not introduced any kind of a statement to counter the original statement. You have created impossible scenarios which would, apparently, in your mind justify the use of torture. But that does not challenge the original statement.
now_what: But for the purposes of this discussion we are taking the effectiveness of torture as a given.
We? I wasn’t aware you were plural. Or Royal. How many of you post under the sobriquet “now_what”?
Good point Jesurgislac, I should have made clear that my use of “we” only included those who weren’t intending to disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake.
Thank you for the correction. Now back to the discussion at hand, the one that began:
And yet you have not introduced any kind of a statement to counter the original statement
Of course I have. If torture is an effective weapon, its use can help achieve strategic aims, and those aims can include the reduction in the use of torture by others.
The relevant question is, “Is it morally acceptable to use a morally repugnant tactic to reduce the incidence of the morally repugnant tactic being used”? It could be torture, killing, locking people in cages, the use of weapons of slightly greater destruction than regular old fashioned bombing, anything.
And the answer to the question, it seems, is “I’d rather not discuss hypothetical questions, even though that’s what we do all day here”. Next thing you know, the excuse will be that people don’t want to comment on an ongoing investigation.
I was originally responding to this, “there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use”.
OK, that makes more sense. I think I see where you’re coming from now.
So, my answer is no, I would not torture one person if it meant that a thousand other people would not be tortured. Not out of moral cowardice, but because it is freaking wrong to torture people.
I can only control what I do, not what other people do.
And, in terms of real cases, as opposed to hypothetical conjecture on blogs, there is no actual situation where there is a meaningful relationship between torturing one person and a thousand others not being tortured. It’s a made-up situation, intended to make a point.
These aren’t questions you answer to make a point. They are questions that means that some real, actual person gets slammed repeatedly against a wall, or gets stripped naked, doused with water, outfitted with a diaper, and then gets chained to the ceiling and the floor, or some real person is asphyxiated repeatedly, day after day, for a month straight.
The hypothetical question isn’t really relevant. Torture is wrong, and if someone wants to argue that they were forced, by circumstance, to engage in it, because of the result that was achieved (i.e., “it was effective”), they need to demonstrate what that result was, and why no other path was available to achieve it.
And they would still be culpable, the only question on the table would be what would happen to them as a result.
There is no general permission to commit torture because, in some theoretical case, it might be effective. There are, perhaps, cases where specific acts of torture do not result in punishment for the torturer, because of the specific and concrete circumstances in which they occurred. That is all.
now_what: I should have made clear that my use of “we” only included those who [were deluded into thinking torture can ever be effective].
Fixed that for you.
now_what, you still have not countered the original statement. That asked if torture could be justified solely by its potential effeictiveness. You have thrown in all sorts of conditions that takes it out of the “solely” realm.
And you say if it is effective (not of course defining effective) than it can be used in all sorts of strategic aims, including stopping the torture of thousands of unknown others. But you refuse to actually state how that is supposed to work.
Several people have already answered you “impossible to actually happen scenario” hypotheitical questions, whereas you have refused to answer the question of “How”.
Your attitude, which IMO borders on extreme arrogance, probably has served you well in life. It is always better to be demanding of others than to have them demanding of you.
Fine. I don’t have the patience to argue about whether nuclear brinkmanship is a good thing.
Let’s go this route:
“If you want to minimize the number of rapes, categorically ruling out ever committing rape is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for rape than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with people that are also willing to do so.”
Every bit as valid as your analogy. Which is to say, not at all.
Or, if you prefer an atrocity that’s more likely to be committed on a country-wide scale:
“If you want to minimize the amount of genocide, categorically ruling out ever committing genocide is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for genocide than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with nations that are also willing to do so.”
So, my answer is no, I would not torture one person if it meant that a thousand other people would not be tortured. Not out of moral cowardice, but because it is freaking wrong to torture people.
It is wrong to kill people too. But we still kill to prevent others from being killed.
To take it out of the realm of the hypothetical, US navy SEALS killed 3 Somali pirates when they threatened a hostage. Without having been there, I believe the hostage was in little danger. If I am surrounded by the US navy, and the safety of the hostage is the only thing keeping me alive, I will treat the hostage quite well.
Morally speaking, was the right thing done? 3 people from one tribe were killed to reduce the risk of one person from another tribe being killed.
If that is morally acceptable, why wouldn’t it be acceptable to torture 3 people from one tribe to reduce the risk that one person from another tribe would be tortured?
Again, I am not interested in the legality of what was done. I am interested in the morality of what was done.
[first version of this got EATED. Apologies if a duplicate, and probably completely contradictory version shows up].
Or, if you prefer an atrocity that’s more likely to be committed on a country-wide scale:
“If you want to minimize the amount of genocide, categorically ruling out ever committing genocide is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to be better prepared for genocide than anyone else, and also willing to resolve differences peacefully with nations that are also willing to do so.”
Another own goal.
It’s nice to have one disgusting awful thing that people do to each other regarded as taboo, forbidden, something that no decent person would ever do. Torture has been in that category in the West, though I’d be the first to say that what we proclaim publicly and we did privately were often quite different. But there is something to be said for hypocrisy as the tribute vice pays to virtue. Slavery used to be allowed–now it is taboo, though it is still around in various forms. But nearly everyone agrees it is evil.
Killing people in various awful ways is not taboo–it’d be nice if, thousands of years ago, we had decided that quarrels between nations would be decided by wrestling matches or fistfights or dueling lawyers and if we had done that, while still allowing torture, I would not favor allowing war because we also allowed torture.
Taboos are sometimes good things to have, even if they aren’t entirely rational. I have a suspicion that if we become morally consistent about killing and torture, it’ll be a bad sort of consistency, where we end up doing it all.
It is wrong to kill people too.
I’d like you to do me a favor and look up the phrase “hors de combat”.
Very briefly, the rules are different when your opponent is free to arm him or herself, and to move and act at will, versus when he or she is held, defenseless, under your control.
I realize you’re not interested in the law, but the people you’re talking about are obliged to take an interest in it. Your opinion, interest, and preferences on the matter don’t change their situation one way or another.
Without having been there, I believe the hostage was in little danger.
Without having been there, you have no idea whether the hostage was in danger or not.
Very briefly, the rules are different
Whose rules?
I realize you’re not interested in the law, but the people you’re talking about are obliged to take an interest in it
Obliged by whom or what?
Without having been there, you have no idea whether the hostage was in danger or not
Oh I know the hostage was in danger. The degree of danger, that’s a question.
And another one, was the probability of one person being killed worth the certainty that three people would be killed. And why would torture be different?
Whose rules?
The authors of the US Code, for starters.
Obliged by whom or what?
Obliged by the prospect of finding their asses in jail.
It is, no doubt, lovely to simply say, “I’m not interested in the law, I’m interested in morality”. The folks who act in our name don’t have that prerogative. They are obliged to observe the law.
And another one, was the probability of one person being killed worth the certainty that three people would be killed.
Look, this is getting dumb.
The three people you’re talking about attempted to steal a freaking ship by force of arms. They are pirates.
Part of the deal in being a pirate is that somebody might shoot back at you. Because you’re trying to take their stuff, and they’d rather you didn’t.
Is it moral to shoot at someone who’s trying to take your stuff? An interesting question. But folks will do so, and if you’re a pirate for a living, you either factor that in, or you have a very short career.
The folks in question were able to forestall getting shot at by holding the ship’s captain hostage. Then, their luck ran out.
End of story.
And why would torture be different?
Depending on circumstances, the difference might not actually be that great.
The circumstances we are actually discussing, however, are actually quite different. Enough so that the question is kind of foolish.
Look, the question on the table is whether torture being effective justifies its use.
Do you think it does? Or not?
If you think it does, you tell me why. If you don’t think it does, we agree, so quit wasting all of our time with peripheral, not-to-the-point side questions.
I don’t really give a crap how much wood a woodchuck could chuck. I want agents of the US government to get out of the business of beating the crap out of people they hold as prisoners.
If you think they should continue to be allowed to do so because beating the crap out of prisoners might get them useful information, feel free to defend that position.
Otherwise, let’s call it a night, because you’re on the verge of achieving pointlessness.
Thanks –
“Look, this is getting dumb.”
Getting?
You’re wasting your typing on a troll, Russell. You won’t get anywhere.
“…because you’re on the verge of achieving pointlessness.”
That’s where now what starts.
Although I’m sure that, like all trolls, he greatly appreciates the responses he generates.
Light dawns on Marblehead.
‘Night all.
The authors of the US Code, for starters.
I don’t care about them. Screw the law.
Obliged by the prospect of finding their asses in jail.
Now we’re getting somewhere, might makes right in your eyes. Doesn’t in mine, maybe that’s where we disagree.
Part of the deal in being a pirate is that somebody might shoot back at you
Part of the deal of dumping nuclear waste in someone else’s coastal waters is that somebody might take actions you don’t like. Actions have consequences, I think we can agree on that.
Is it moral to shoot at someone who’s trying to take your stuff?
For me, that’s not even an interesting question. It’s pretty obvious.
Then, their luck ran out.
No, then someone made a moral decision that killing three of their tribe was better than risking the death of one of another tribe. Luck was not involved.
Look, the question on the table is whether torture being effective justifies its use.
Do you think it does? Or not?
I don’t know. I’m asking because I don’t know. All the arguments to the contrary are unconvincing, but I think I must be missing something. I’m picking at a scab.
If you think they should continue to be allowed to do so because beating the crap out of prisoners might get them useful information, feel free to defend that position.
That hasn’t been my position. My position is that if beating the crap out of a prisoner reduces the number of prisoners who get the crap beat out of them, then it is worth investigating the morality of beating the crap out of prisoners. Nothing more or less.
“My position is that if beating the crap out of a prisoner reduces the number of prisoners who get the crap beat out of them, then it is worth investigating the morality of beating the crap out of prisoners.”
Then you are open to a utilitarian defense of torture. By definition. Period.
Follow it wherever it leads, dude. When you get there, look on the other side of the fence, and that’s where I’ll be.
And by the way, the answer to this:
“if beating the crap out of a prisoner reduces the number of prisoners who get the crap beat out of them”
is “it doesn’t”.
Doesn’t make any difference to my point of view, my opinion is the same whether it does or doesn’t. Just giving you the heads up — it doesn’t.
Wanna know what does? Making it against the law. Not that you give a shit about that. Not trying to mind-read here, just repeating your own words back to you.
Wanna know why it does? Because people who are inclined to torture other people don’t really care if, by doing so, they’ll keep other people from being tortured. What really gets their attention is whether they’re going to do time.
If you think that’s not so, ask yourself why the CIA requested the OLC opinion before moving ahead with torturing Zubaydah and Hussein.
If their concern was preventing 1,000 other people from being tortured, why the hell do they care what the OLC thinks?
Never mind that, if they thought torturing these guys was gonna keep a nuke from going off in downtown Chicago, why the hell did they care what the OLC thought?
Answer that, and you’ll know why the legal issue is relevant.
Thanks for actually making a direct and clear answer to my question, I appreciate it.
Have a good night.
Then you are open to a utilitarian defense of torture. By definition. Period.
I’m open to a utilitarian defense of anti-torture methods. The method that leads to the least amount of torture, I think that it should at least be considered. You don’t.
Wanna know what does? Making it against the law. Not that you give a shit about that
In the history of the developed world, more people have been tortured legally than illegally. I am not interested in the law. If that is your source of moral authority, that’s fine, but it doesn’t interest me.
And by the way, the answer to this:
“if beating the crap out of a prisoner reduces the number of prisoners who get the crap beat out of them”
is “it doesn’t”.
Why are you even here then? The whole point of the original post is to consider the possibility that it does. Don’t want to consider the possibility? Fine. What are you still doing here?
Wanna know why it does? Because people who are inclined to torture other people don’t really care if, by doing so, they’ll keep other people from being tortured. What really gets their attention is whether they’re going to do time.
1,000 babies would die, in an earlier hypothetical in this thread, purely out of moral cowardice, out of fear of doing time. If I would let a thousand babies die before I did time, I would be a monster, right?
I’m open to a utilitarian defense of anti-torture methods.
Yeah. “Less torture through torture”.
Where that ends is “arbeit macht frei”. Which, actually, *is* Chapman’s point. Click through and check it out.
Just as a heads up, the path to less torture in the world is to not torture people.
The whole point of the original post is to consider the possibility that it does.
Actually, I think the whole point of the original post is to argue against a utilitarian justification for torture.
The person carrying the flag for considering the opposite appears to be you. Might as well own it, dude.
Which is why I’ve spent all this time replying to you. Because I think you’re as wrong as wrong can be.
It’s been fun, but you know what? Time’s up.
If I would let a thousand babies die before I did time, I would be a monster, right?
Who the f**k is talking about you? Unless I’m seriously mistaken, there ain’t no 1,000 babies whose lives depend on anything you do, or don’t do.
Hey, it’s fun to kick the hypotheticals around on a blog, isn’t it? What if, consider this, imagine the case where.
Meanwhile, somebody is getting the living shite kicked out of them.
Want less torture in the world? Make it against the law, and enforce the law. Find the mf’ers who torture other people and send them to jail. Then, you will have less torture in the world.
G’night dude.
Which is why I’ve spent all this time replying to you. Because I think you’re as wrong as wrong can be.
I want to be wrong but I don’t see where I am. I love being wrong.
Just as a heads up, the path to less torture in the world is to not torture people.
And is the path to less killing in the world to not kill people?
It’s nonsense. What you are saying makes no sense. I wish it did, but it doesn’t.
now_what,
Your accepted given is not anyone else’s accepted given. We can grant as a given that torture is sometimes effective at getting people to tell you something, without granting that torture is an effective means of achieving good in the world (which seems to be your starting given). Torture can get someone to tell you something, but by engaging in it, you become a force for evil in the world. Once you let loose torture as a practice, it spreads. If you have soldiers torture prisoners for information, they start torturing prisoners for stress release and amusement. This is because torture destroys the moral sense of the torturer. If you have soldiers torture prisoners for information, they will start torturing prisoners to terrorize their enemies. This is because torture is far more effective as a weapon of terror than it is as a weapon of information gathering.
This is what torture is, and this is why accepting that torture may be effective in the trivial sense that it can sometimes get information from someone you torture is a reasonable hypothetical, while your hypothetical, that torture is an effective weapon for strategic goals of improving the world and causing there to be less torture is not a relevant or legitimate hypothetical. Torture isn’t that effective at getting information (though it is great at getting false confessions), but it isn’t completely useless, so we can accept that dubious claim as true and then explain why torture remains a great evil. Torture isn’t an effective weapon in making the world a better place (just as offensive war is not), so accepting that counter-factual as given just leads you down fruitless paths.
now_what,
Your parralelisms between torturing people and killing people are meaningless. They are nonsense.
The only conditions under which it is generally considered acceptable to kill people is in defense (self-defense and just (defensive) war). Killing people in the hope that it will eventually make the world a better place is forbidden. This is because it morally wrong, but it is also because it does not work.
There is no defensive torture. No condition under which you must torture to prevent torture from happening. Even if you construct a hypothetical situation where that is the case, it is irrelevant to policy, because it can not be extended to situations at which policy exists.
Charles: This is because it morally wrong, but it is also because it does not work.
This came up in discussion too at Slacktivist, a while back – a regular commenter was struck (for some reason!) with everyone who was condemning torture condemning it for moral reasons and then adding as an afterthought “besides, torture does not work” and decided that we ought to have a discussion on whether torture would be moral if it did work.
The concept that something can be both unacceptably cruel and completely pointless does seem to have a difficulty in reaching some people’s minds.