Why not torture terrorists?

Remove all ads!

Because physical pain is transient...death is permanent.

But who do you ask to do the torturing?

And what happens when you torture the wrong guy?

And doesn't it provide an incredible recruitment tool for the enemy?

And why do I always make statements in the form of questions?...

 

Should we think only of terrorists. Catching a member of a paedophile ring would be a case where extracting information about the activities and itentities of his associates would prevent some cases of child abuse. If someone has to suffer, better the criminal than an innocent!

Perhaps the best way forward would be the removal of the Right to Remain Silent if a proper warrent is issued. This must be used only in extreme cases where the information is needed to prevent harm civilians. I would prefer to see chemicals used rather than physical torture. It is harder to do but possibly less damaging AND could only be done by experts. That last point is essential as DIY torture must never by tollerated.

 

You know in that you would merrily throw over board one of the prime achievements of western civilisation? The right on a fair trial.

I think the torture discussion is leading down a slippery slope, and I find it amazing to read opinions here that do the cost-benefit calculation.

It is easy to make these equations and to judge them as "worth it" when, certainly, the person doing it is not going to pay the price for it.

As the article said: Electric shocks and beatings are justified, you may say, if they can prevent another 9/11. But what if the shocks and beating don't produce the needed information? Is it OK to break a finger? To cut off a hand? In order to save 3,000 lives, can a terrorist's eyes be gouged out? How about gouging out his son's eyes? Or raping his daughter in his presence? If that's what it will take to make him talk, to defuse the ticking bomb, isn't it worth it?

Oh, and what's if you mutilated the wrong guy who happend to know nothing at all? Just one of the other things 'worth it'?

Better still, it could well be that to stop his suffering he confesses something he hasn't done, and is sentenced based on that coerced testimony.

I remember the case of a brit squeezed out in Gitmo, who eventually confessed having met Bin Laden. A big success, the capture of a big fish, or so said the US. Until the brits proved to them that he at that time was in the UK and can't have possibly been in Afghanistan. Oops.

Solid policework could have saved an innocent from being tortured.

The sole purpose of humanitarian international law is not so much to protect the actors of war, but rather the innocent bystanders.

Anyone who also remembers the rather silly movie The Siege (1998), starring Bruce Willis as a U.S. general hunting terrorists in New York? Willis, after torturing a prisoner, wipes the blood off his hands, saying something along the line: "He knew nothing, but now that we have tortured him though innocent, we'll better kill him because after that he sure is our enemy."

The torture discussion is a litmus test for a society, telling how much worth are it's principles.

 

For those people who are trying to justify "us" (as in "the west") torturing people, could you please explain how your arguments do not also justify the "enemy" from torturing people? After all, if the information they are after is related to troop movements or attack plans where the info may save the lives of their own people is this not exactly the same scenario?

Apply this logic to, for instance, the Vietnam war, where it's commonly recognised that the Vietcom tortured prisoners in order to try and extract this type of information. Are people willing to concede that this was also acceptable given the circumstances? Currently I can't personally see the difference.

I'm human, and could easily agree with torture on an emotional level. However, on the grounds that there is no such thing as 100% certainty that the individual concerned knows any useful information then I couldn't possible justify it on a mental or moralistic level.

While I agree with your sentiments and the likely usefulness of truth serum, the obvious answer to this statement is to train up a goodly number of really good interrogators.

 

Since when, after school, had "They are doing it, too!" ever been an acceptable excuse?

Do you want to remain distinguishable from the 'bad guys' only by your self-proclaimed superior and pure motives?

You are first of all judged by your actions, which are fact, unlike motives that are unclear - you can't look into people's heads.

You are what you do, and not what you want to achieve. As much as it corrupts, torture unavoidably discredits.

 

Wow, a topic I agree with Ragusa on.

Information obtained via torture is, at best, unreliable. The use of torture is a black stain on the integrity of those who use it.

I think there are always extreme cases where a person would agree to 'beating the information out' of someone (classic example is a kidnapping, where the child will die if not found -- what parent wouldn't beat the living hell out of the kidnapper to get a clue). But you hope the interrogator is more professional. Some may argue that war and terrorism are such extreme cases -- I disagree.

 

Interesting article on that, titled The Torture Myth that aptly rephrases what I feel

I doubt that the US are any safer now that they torture.

I think it just feels good, like kicking back.

 

Yes, I can't possibly agree with torture, simply because everyone has a breaking point, and after a while, you'll tell them whatever they want to hear - whether it's true or not. If I had been given electric shocks every 15 seconds for the past hour, I'd likely say whatever they wanted me to say.

 

A very interesting look at torture is in 'The Evil That Men Do' -- well worth the read. Of course, you could watch the movie, but the book is much better.

 

Carcaroth,

I wouldn't call torture "justified" under any circumstances, as I've said. I can find excuses for it, which is different. If something is justified, then it is the "right" thing to do; if it is excused, it was wrong, but the circumstances are such that it would not be right to condemn someone utterly for their actions. Yes, I'm being picky; that is precisely the point. It is wrong to torture someone for the hell of it. It is wrong to routinely torture prisoners. It is still wrong to torture a captured member of a terrorist cell on domestic soil. This is why I believe accountability mechanisms are so important; keep track of what people with such extensive coercive power are doing and bring them to justice for abusing that power. Unless there is a very compelling reason for their actions, they should be condemned and punished for it.

Ragusa,

Torture is never a desirable or preferred option. It never should be seen as anything other than the last, and most desperate, of options. I agree that if we are to hold ourselves up as morally superior, we must do so through actions first. If we are going to start down that path, though (as the US and other nations have), we must make sure that those who engage in those acts are required to answer for them and take responsibility for them.

Of course, it depends what you consider "torture". Certainly, threats and intimidation are less invasive than bamboo under the fingernails, and less physically damaging than extinguishing cigarettes on someone's testicles, but the impact of such tortures can be much more brutal. When I speak of torture, I include "aggressive interrogation" and any other euphemism for psychological attacks as well. I think that they are certainly preferable to physical torture, and there is frequently a fine line between deceptions and threats.

No argument from me; that was sloppy work and those responsible at the torturing end should be investigated and put to trial. I'm more worried about changing organisational mentality and the belief that "the ends justify the means", as these will continue to support the belief that such behaviour is acceptable or even desirable.

 

Torture is probably the best recruitment tool.

Just say you are a civillian going about your own business, some marine arrests you and tortures you, you will probably want revenge even if you prevously supported the occupation of your country.

The same thing happend here but no-one takes notice...

 

NonSequitur,
remember Orwell's Ministry of Love, Room 101 in 1984?

To effectively torture people you don't even need to pull out fingernails, use electro schocks - old gulag and concentration camps style abuse and hard-driving work well enough in 'breaking in' people. In the KZs they made people stand still in the sun for hours (stress position anyone?) - no violence involved here - so everything's fine? Hardly.

And of course, there are the less subtle techniques, like the good old 'NYPD beatdown', Pentagon variant, as reportedly happened frequently in Iraq and Afganistan.

I find the attempts to rationalise along the line "Now that degree abuse is ok with me". That's ludicrous. As I said, it's what you do, not what you try to justify it as.

When you use Gestapo methods it's beside the point what your motives are. You're a pig, too.

 

Ragusa,

I remember it well...

On reflection, I see I wasn't clear enough in my statement. I never said that psychological torture is okay, only that I believe that a very fine, subjective line exists between what is acceptable interrogation and what is not. In my opinion, mental, emotional and psychological assault is as reprehensible as physical torture. it is easier, though, to point to a bruise, internal damage or broken bones as evidence of abuse; it's much harder to prove psychological abuse in most cases.

To reiterate:

As I said, there is no level of abuse that is justified or justifiable; you're infringing on someone's basic rights and that can never be the "proper" thing to do. However, there are instances and situations where holding to such a position is, in my opinion, untenable. I know that the "ticking bomb" scenario has been discredited and is atypical, but in such a circumstance (and only in such a circumstance), I believe that a resort to torture is excusable. I'm sorry, but I can't view this situation as completely moral black-and-white. I can think of times when I could just barely tolerate such actions (rare though they are), and I am not so naive as to think it won't happen. As such, I believe that it is better to have everything spelled out clearly, with the consequences known and noted, than to surge ahead with the moral line and nothing more.

That's just my opinion, Ragusa, and I'm sure you'll disagree. I'm with you 99% of the way, but not to the point of absolutism.

 

"Of course torture is wrong, but..."
That the use of torture isnt instantly condemned by all of 'us' of the West is scaring me greatly (as much as seeing people say torture shouldnt be used because the information gained thus is unreliable!)
Looks like we arent true to our moral values and principles here. Or should I say the US as a nation isnt?
Our idea of equality of rights and freedom and "to each its own" vs their less... tolerant view of our world, based on a perversion of Islam.
Thats what this war is about, no? Ideologies.

How can you torture someone unless you think of him as something less than human? And how can the torturer himself claim to be human??
Sure, the terrorists may plan to destroy us. To reach their goals they would gladly kill me, and you. In their twisted world we are destined to burn in hell anyway just for being different. The sooner they can overcome the devils of the West the better. But it is this sentiment that we reject, I thought. We may not be humans to them, but they are human to us. With all the rights due to a human being. Its what sets us apart. Or not.
Values are what this conflict is about.
I see the dilemma. Are our values worth our lifes, or do we give up on them to save people... vague as that situation might be.

One other thing that came to mind: It has been said that our moral principles are a weakness in our fight against an enemy that is less scrupulous than we. I would rather think they are our strongest allies, and a protection of sorts, in this ideological war. One that is lost. I wonder if we would have seen western hostages in orange jumpsuits, at times held in cages like cattle, having their heads cut off werent it for Guantanamo or Abu Graib. Would the arab people still be as inwardly gleeful whenever someone of the West is hurt or killed were our morals intact? If not for our hypocrisy we might have won them over. You know, won their hearts and minds. But that would required a virtue we cannot claim - sincerity.

And while I try to express myself here a certain nation is busy betraying by its actions what it starts wars over. Or was it oil after all... hmm.

 

Same way you can kill someone without thinking of him as less than human. Or so I'd imagine.

 

@ AMaster: Good point; sadism and utilitarianism aren't necessarily hand-in-hand here.

Precisely my point, Dendri. I would have a harder time sleeping if I felt that my inaction (ie: not using every method available to extract information that could have been used immediately to save imperilled lives) was worse than my action (ie: torturing a terror suspect). Neither is palatable and given the choice, I wouldn't be in that situation; however, I feel that one is ultimately a lesser evil.

I do not expect people to agree with me, and that's fine. I realise that the ground I am on is shifting and slippery, but in my opinion, to take the line of morality and then engage in such acts is far worse than simply saying you will. After all, this encourages a secretive process of interrogation and suspiciousness of investigations - and it's very hard to apprehend the people responsible at a higher level if no-one is talking. The end result is that it will still happen if anyone adopts the attitude of "the ends justify the means" (which anyone with any experience of law enforcement can give you a good commentary on) and we come off as hypocrites because of it.

Again, this is why I feel that transparency and clear accountability protocols are absolutely essential. There may come a time when interrogators feel compelled to use torture (or engage in it wilfully). We can't just pretend that it doesn't exist, or that we always find out about it. Above and beyond that, it is not that simple; there are consequences associated with the use or rejection of torture which have to be accepted by the decision-makers. I don't believe that we should ever "accept" torture; I feel that it does have strategic applications that can be excused in extreme circumstances.

 

It boils down to do you kill 1 to save 10?

How about if you had three people, 1 was a sociopathic murderer who will kill at least once a day, 2 were truely good people. Its your only chance to stop him, would you be able to kill all three to get him?

Would you kill an innocent child to save 500 lives?

What if those 500 were in prison?

What if those 500 were accused of crimes?

What if those 500 were arabs?

Just a question of how much you value a life, and innate racism.

 

I hope I don't sound like I am generalizing but the impression I get is that 1 US life, even if it is of the most vile rapist is worth more than 10 foreign lived, even if they were saints.

This is just based on my time spent in the US (a few years via the Walsh Visa program) and from message boards. Of course not everyone has this opinion, but there are still lots that do...

As for racism, thats another issue, but it certainly comes into this.

 

Generally speaking, that's how most countries operate.

See: Every war fought on this planet.

 

This may be slightly off topic but I was just thinking the other day...what happened at Abu Grahib, not just the abuse but the revelation of that abuse, may well be a DAMNED GOOD thing!

Think about it: Let's say that I am a devote muslim with dreams of martyrdom. I know(as every true muslim knows) that if the Americans catch me, the worst I will get is free room and board in one off those country clubs Americans call a prison.

Then the ABu Grahib story breaks.

All of a sudden, plotting to blow up American embassies doesn't sound so bright. What if my American captors force me to disrobe and engage in homo-erotic acts before Allah? What if they have a dominatrix whip me with a battery-operated phallus? What if another prisoner(and American prisoners are notorious for this) decides he will make me his "bitch" and the American guard in my cell block decides he will not go out of his way to notice that I, a muslim terrorist, am being dragged behind the laundry machine by a group of other prisoners?

LOL...could be the grounds for anotehr ridiculous conspiracy theory but an engaging thought nonetheless.


As for my two cents: I say "By whatever means necessary!". I not only advocate torture on those we are 99% certain have information, I advocate setting them ablaze on live TV and shoving them into mosques. I further advocate allowing US soldiers to urinate on those mosques and spread pig-feces on terrorists held captive and sending video footage of this to Al Jazheira(or whatever that network is called. The one that is like Fox News but for terrorists).

The way to fight terrosim is through superior terror.

And this froma pretty hardcore liberal.