POLL: Torture?...A little?...Or More?...Or OUCH!!??

Remove all ads!

What people seem to miss in the scenario people always bring up when torture is discussed. How do you know you are torturing the right chap? Maybe you are just torturing some random guy who has nothing to do with anything? That would be swell wouldnt it?

Torture is wrong, no cop outs. It is impossible to justify and any attempts at doing so erodes any moral credibility you might have.

Edit: Screw you Ragusa.

 

What "love affair" are you talking about? You make it seem like people are taking classes at their local community college or there is a waiting list of people who are willing to torture people.

If I remember, this was about a theoretical question.

 

Of course torture is repellent. So is murder. But if the life of a loved one were in the balance, I'd do either to save them.

I also do not buy the argument that it never works. Given anough time, a person will tell you everything he knows no matter how strong his fanaticism. Now the danger is that he'll simply tell you what you want to know, I've heard that one before, but when it comes to simple information (where is the bomb?) he can only give you BS answers for so long.

Back to my original statement, though - -I'd cheerfully take whatever punishment society meted out for the torture if it saved one of my daughters.

 

TGS,
like it or not, while 'love affair' is clearly a pointed expression, it has a solid kernel of truth. The question of wether the US should allow torture is allowed in the public dispute. That is what I call a 'permissive environment'. And that torture talk does play well with the GOPers it seems from the applause in the GOP candidate debates. That doesn't mean America is all for torture. But what about bipartisan 20-45%? That are many people.

The administration itself is openly hectoring torture. A supreme court judge does. A prominent law professor like Dershowitz talks about torture warrants. Law professor John Yoo, who in his function at the Justice Department wrote some of the renowned torture memos, now publicly mandates torturing innocents (crushing a boy's testicles to make his daddy talk to be precise). That's not some fringe, that's part of the conservative establishment. I don't talk about right blogosphere, tv or talk radio. This here is far more mainstream. That's quite something.

When other countries torture, they do it in secret. Not so the US. An intersting question is why.

In my reading the conservatives staying on theme is a conservative damage control move to contain the inevitable future fallout from what they actually did allow after 911. It's very synchronous. It very much sounds like talking points to me. The steady dripple, one memo there, some photos here, makes people get used to it. Torture becomes yesterdays news. It is marketed under the rubric of 'making America safe' and 'preventing terror. It's all hogwash.

A shaped dispute is a better damage control tool than secrecy. We're talking about preventing prosecution for crimes and war crimes, indictments and perhaps impeachment, and lots of bad PR. There is a bit comfort in that. To now make an effort to contain damage means even this 'unitary executive branch' and its apologists and specially its lawyers have doubts about the legal basis of what the Administration does and did do.

LKD,
thanks for underlining my point on the presumption of guilt and the (false) dual choice.

[ June 21, 2007, 22:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The love affair where high ranking officials in the US government lavish praise upon torture, where they erode the definition of torture. Where an entire subcontinent is dehumanised and deemed worthy of any punishment.

Dont think you can ever get rid of all kinds of torture done by intelligence agencies sadly but when high ranking government officials start speaking about nescessity of torture things get scary.

 

If 'works' means 'can make subject talk', then sure, torture works.

But ask the French how that worked out in Algeria. Or the Americans how it worked out in Vietnam. There is a cost attached to torture that far outweighs any potential benefits, and the cost is that torture actually strengthens your opponents. It's not anything so abstract as the moral highground.

Additionally, if the information gleaned through torture can be verified, then you didn't really need to torture, did you? And if it can't be verified, well, what use is it?

And, um, the military and FBI are both firmly in the 'it's a really bad idea' camp. There are more effective methods of extracting information than breaking out the thumbscrews, especially when--as is the case at present--your enemies know what counterinterrogation training is.

 

If the information is something like "your child, presently under torture herself, is in warehouse 12 on the North Shore Docks" then that's info you need to know right now that can be verified. There's no other way to learn it and no time to search a 100 mile radius in time to get the data. In those exceedingly limited and dramatic circumstances I'd say the information is worth it. So I'm not sure what you mean by the verified information being useless. It would be nice to believe that if we play by the rules our enemies will too but that's not going to happen these days.

 

But you need to be 100% sure to have the right guy, don't you?

 

Again: I can agree with the hypothetical (sure, I'd torture in that case) and still maintain that in the real world torture's a stupid idea, because the hypothetical is nonsensical. If you don't understand why, read the .pdf I linked to earlier in this thread.

If the only way to make the argument is to construct a fantastical hypothetical, the argument's deeply flawed.

If you can verify it, you're not pressed for time. If you can verify it, you didn't need to torture. If you can verify it, you get all the drawbacks with none of the benefits.

Sure, in your hypothetical I'd back the torture, but I'd rather not belabor the point that the hypothetical's nonsense.

I'm not making a moral argument. I'm making a practical one. Torture does more harm than good. I'm not saying don't torture because it's wrong (though I'd be willing to make that argument if it were all I had). I'm saying don't torture because it's counterproductive. I'm saying don't torture because I want to win this War on Terror [sic].

 

If one is willing to accept torture a follow-up problem emerges: Proliferation of what is supposed to be an emergency measure to deal with ticking times bombs. Retired Generals Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar said on that:

Indeed, it simply would be a shame to pull out Peters fingernails, because you mistakenly believe him to have information on or be part of a terrorist plot involving Paul. Is that also justified, or 'colateral damage', as in: 'You can't make an omlet without breaking some fingers, err, eggs!'?

The most important part of the article is this: Where torture is an option, it will be used. Keep that in mind. It will not be used in those 'theoretical' clean cut ticking time bomb scenarios but usually in cases where there is no false dual choice and clear guilt but where ambiguity, confusion, anger, lack of information and chaos are the rule. It will become normal.

What is justified with an idealised synthetic argument utilising fictious Jack Bauer's fictious ticking timebombs has a real life impact.

In war the perceived urge to do 'whatever is neccessary' to defuse those 'ticking timebombs', or say, roadside bombs, will become overwhelming. The generals rightly point out that in such a situation urgency becomes relative. In the end torture will be used routinely and indiscriminately, for the potential advantage and benefit ot perhaps foiling a terrorist plot, and it will eventually become standard operating procedure. That's what we saw beginning to happen in Abu Ghraib.

The use of 'la torture' by the French in Algeria followed the same logic and the same trajectory.

 

If you can verify the information, you cannot be pressed for time--especially if your victim has had counterinterrogation training. In all likelihood, at any rate.

If you're not pressed for time, there goes the ticking time bomb scenario, with all its attendant nonsensical assumptions (for instance, that torture is the only way to find out what we need to know, because we're soooo pressed for time).

In other words, what Monty said.

If you assume your opponent is competent, multiple torturees make things more difficult, not less. What happens when (and, granted, stupidity is possible. But one thing about having had ongoing asymmetric wars for the past six years is that the insurgents and terrorists have gotten more competent. The Darwin effect, if you will) the enemy has compartmentalized information, provided different agents with different and contradictory information, lied to its own people, given its people counterinterrogation training, etc.

Good luck sorting that out in time to avert the ticking time bomb. But, hey, maybe you'll get lucky, the torturees will all have the same information, and all you'll have to do is cut it out of them, one incision at a time.

 

Life is not full of certainties, of diametrically clear options - black and white. Life is FULL of grey (and to make things even more complex, also full of radically different colors besides black, grey & white, too).

Since no gradations of answer were given, and I cannot reasonably state I would NEVER engage in torture in any form under any circumstances myself, I had to logically vote yes.

Oh, and FYI; Godwin's Law merely observes that as a conversation/debate grows, the likelihood of Hitler/Nazis being mentioned grows; nothing more. Since the *OP* started off with that, GL is gotten out of the way nicely and conveniently, and subsequently somewhat moot.

 

If you want to win the war, you use strategies that are effective. Torture isn't, because even if it is an effective method of gathering information, it does more harm than good.

 

Well, let's be clear. Torture can work if you want to terrify a population into submission; ask Pinochet.

If what you're trying to do, on the other hand, is 'win hearts and minds', it's a really, really bad idea. I shouldn't have to explain why--Abu Ghraib, Vietnam, and Algeria are all the explanation that should be necessary.

And, actually, it has fallen into disuse; note the memo Petraeus sent out to the troops stating that

Lt. Gen Kimmons said that

You'll also recall that the Dean of West Point, some military interrogators, and some law enforcement types went to chat with the 24 people and told them to quit with the torture already.

And then there's that CIA manual on interrogation which states that

The people advocating torture are, by and large, politicians, not professionals.

Assuming that if torture's a bad idea, it would fall into disuse assumes the Bush Administration is competent. That's a problematic assumption, to say the least.

If you're truly interested, go read the pdf I linked to last page.

 

BTA,
good question. Two links in reply, after AMaster already said much of what I would have to contribute: What is interrogation? and Cheney and the Tormenters.

With the presumption of guilt torture puts the burden of proof on the suspect. US citizens beware! It may become your responsibility to prove that you are not guilty of treason, sedition, being a malcontent, or whatever. Can you prove that you are not? You're innocent you say? Aah they always say that. For the sake of being safe I don't believe you. Better safe than sorry, ready the rack folks!

One key problem is that through torture you reduce the interrogee to an object, a potential information source. That reflects in the treatment interogees get. Degrading treatment comes natural after that. It gets worse when racism comes into play and the object of interest has a different cultural background and colour of skin. Excess is guaranteed in advance.

Proponents for torture certainly wouldn't want to do the dirty work themselves. They don't want to see the brutality, don't want to hear the cries, hold down the agonising object when the 'treatment' is administered. They don't want to smell the sweat and blood. They want the 'tough guys' in the military to do it for them. Anyone remembers the grisly scene with Bruce Willis as General Devereaux leaving a torture chamber in the movie "The Siege", wiping the blood off his hands, saying iirc: "He knew nothing.", followed by a scream and a gunshot. Torture afficionados should be shown that scene in a loop until they get it. I really recommend that movie, in many ways it was ahead of its time.
I don't know, maybe proponents get some sado-masochistic titilation out of presumed bad guys getting it, with a dose of: "Hah, serves'em ragheads right! That's what you get when you mess with America!" That's vengefulness. Add in the sentiment that torture is also punishment for the evildoers. It certainly gives torture appeal. Maybe it has something to do with protestant ethics, that divide the world into good and evil, that say that evildoers deserve punishment. I do not think it is an accident that US criminal law stresses punishment. That view seems as persistent as bacteria, and is probably one of the key obstacles for the US policymakers to coherently deal with a confusing world.

And in defense of the torture enthusiasts, I don't think they are sickos who get a kick out of cruelty. Maybe a little bit, secretly. But overwhelmingly I think they actively want to believe it only hits the bad guys. Because then torture feels ethical, and can be rationalised as a virtuous act for the greater good, for the life of family, whatever. Torture would be unbearable without it.
I do not think that on the question: "Would you torture innocents, too, if you hoped you could avert a terrorist attack that way?" they would answer: "Hell, yes!" The underlying reasons to support torture are primarily fear and vengefulness. Think of torturing and burning witches - who deserved it - after all their evil witchcraft was responsible for mooncalfs, bad harvests and so forth. The hysteria is very much analogous.
You hardly have comparable public support in totalitarian countries. There everybody can expect that it hits him if he crosses the proverbial line. In the current US everybody seems to think that it is aimed ony wild-eyed, bearded Islamiacs only - not so if John Yoo's ideas reflects the Bush administration's view.

What I really wonder about is what people get out of confessions. Confessions, just like witness testimony, are notoriously unreliable. There certainly is a degree of satistfaction about finally getting some information out of a suspect. A torturer needs a confession to justify his torture. Confession is a vindication of the interrogator's efforts, and probably an incentive to get tougher in the absence of results. And then, in the confession, finally, the truth comes to light! Research shows that confession evidence is inherently prejudicial, that juries are influenced by confessions despite evidence of coercion and despite a lack of corroboration, and that the assumption that “I'd know a false confession if I saw one” is an unsubstantiated myth. People want to believe I guess.

And I believe that there is a fundamental mistunderstanding here: Coercing confessions from a random suspect population is approaching an intelligence problem from a crimefighting angle. An intelligence officer will want to gather information, if he has to be friends with an enemy to get what he wants to know, so be it. I do not think the average US citizen can stomach the idea of an interrogator drinking coffee and chatting with an Al Quaeda terrorist in jail, a bad guy - even though it might be a highly effective way to get information, maybe win him over. Anyone remembers the outcry in the US over the proposal for amnesty for insurgents who fought Americans? Them pigs shall suffer! A cop wants to convict a culprit. If he has to 'get tough' with a bad guy, too bad. It seems that America wants to play the bad cop on the terrorists, with the tools of the military, while the military is appaled by that because they know that it hurts their efforts to gather intelligence and helps recruiting their enemies.

[ June 22, 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]