Torture doesn't work. Film at 11.

Remove all ads!

When Torture is the subject, do we think that the individual beliefs of the said person to be tortured should be accounted for? What i mean is, if imprisoning the individual will not change his beliefs, will torture? I believe a traumatizing experience can change a man. Make him look at the world in a different light, possibly changing his beliefs and stopping future acts of terrorism. It's not a guarantee though. But when it comes to times of war, i believe the gloves are off. If they're trying to kill us, why should we be respectfull of their health. The toughest choice to make is determining what constitutes "war". I believe if a member of a terror group tries to kill any American, we are at war with that group.

 

NOG, you missed my point (I'm not sure you know the Bataan reference either).

Altering the rules/laws on torture to allow torture of prisoners would mean -- to every young man and woman in the military, or thinking of joining -- that any captive military can and will be tortured to get information. The "potential good" you keep arguing does not even come close to the "potential bad" of having every friendly military captive tortured by the bad guys. Morale would be destroyed. Casualties would be higher (there would be fewer surrender if faced with guaranteed torture). We would no longer be able to maintain an all-volunteer military. I hope your Selective Service info is up to date.

Now go to the "bad guy" side -- they would also be less likely to surrender and more likely to go out in a "blaze of glory." Once again, increased casualties on the "good guy" side as well.

There's a reason why decorated military heroes are against torture. They understand the implications all too well.

 

I would argue that a true believer in a cause might be convinced to say anything under torture, but if released to freedom his fundamental beliefs would not change. If he were convinced to not engage in any acts of terrorism it would likely be because of fear, not that he believes in the mindset of his former captors. Fear can be a powerful motivator, and I don't care how good your training or conviction is, you can be broken into a hollow shell of a man with sufficient torture.

That would not be good for the nation doing said torture on an enemy, especially if it were a matter of policy. Read some of the earlier posts that can make that point more eloquently than I can. It's not a good or effective government policy, though as has also been said it can possibly be useful in extremely limited circumstances (though it would still damage the perpetrator ethically and morally.)

As a punishment for criminals, well, I'd like to see the crime rates for places like Singapore, where they permit caning. I'd bet they are lower than for Canada, though it could (and will) be argued that the (theoretical) lower rates are due to other factors and not the presence of caning in the repetoire of judicial punishments.

 

Not here in the US. Our prisons are now criminal factories. But that is a different topic.

Why would they? We no longer have the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. I thought we were discussing torture in regards to intelligence gathering and national security. Just what kind of "beliefs" are we now discussing that we would want to change by the use of torture?

 

This is a good point, and while we are already seeing those consequences in our current war (and would be regardless of our own actions on torture), few really expect it to continue to the next, so long as the next war (and there will almost always be a next war) is with a more internationally respected/accountable entity. I really don't think the Taliban care what France thinks of their actions, but Russia really may care.

 

NOG - The War in Afghanistan will be very long, if history is any indicator.

 

Says the guy who shows the questionable sense to talk about crushing feet with axeheads as 'unprofessional'. We're talking about a war crime. And that person then has the nerve to speak of not taking other people serious. Not speaking for T2, but strictly for myself here.

As if that isn't enough you continue:

Now, what that shows is that you don't understand the legal nature of Article 3. It is ius cogens. That means that the prohibition of torture is a universal legally accepted norm. You can change US law all you want - the torturers will (and have) commit(ed) war crimes anyway. That is what The Bush Six is about. The prohibition of torture is universal. As in universal - no exceptions. Just like the slave trader before him, the torturer is hostis humai generi - an enemy of all mankind. Try, at least, to remember that to give you some moorings on which to anchor your thoughts on this matter. Instead of babbling about 'under other laws, better laws, as I imagine them' you could as well say '... in my private universe ...' or '... on Mars ...' or '... up my ass'. However titillating to you, it is a pointless exercise with no relation to reality. You have no clue what you're talking about.

You brought another euphemistic whopper when you called Abu Ghraib a bad apple. I just paraphrase it that way. Well, Abu Ghraib is the apple tree. It is how a torture practice based on policies and directives that are being executed looks like. Torture leads to excess. Inevitably. Torture proliferates. Inevitably.

And when you so cavalierly dismiss T2's point about Art.3, you don't even know what Art. 3 of the Third Geneva Convention is about, and why it was conceived. Or you don't bother. I'll tell you anyway: Soldiers, once they are taught how to kill, have to be kept under strict discipline, under strict rules, under absolute prohibitions, to prevent their inner demons from breaking loose. Lynndie and Graner playing with the prisoners at Abu Ghraib let their demons lose. Marines smashing feet with axe heads have let those demons lose. WW-II saw similar instances aplenty. Those atrocities inspired Art.3. The excesses in Iraq show how justified and farseeing Art.3 is. Torture is all about those demons. Now you will inevitably say that this is just what your wise and ingenious rules and fair minded and enlightened torturers will prevent from happening. There you're deluding yourself once again. Human nature hasn't significantly changed the last 50 years. But wait - looking it up in my crystal ball - it has, and that is why my argument is missing the discussion!

This is just exemplary of the many silly things you routinely wrote in this thread. I could go on, but I won't. I wrote enough already. There is insufficient space here and not enough time and a clear lack of will on my part to address all your follies in detail. You don't recognise a counter argument when one beats you over the head with it. All you provide is 'truthiness' in response, truth from the gut, or crap.

 

I preferred the term "internal logic," since it's a little kinder.

 

Ragusa, I am talking on a logical level and technical, you are objecting on an emotional and moral level. I don't discount emotion and morality at all, but moral objections do not relate to logical propositions. You cannot object to the logic of a statement with a moral objection.

Erm, Rags, if we're working in a hypothetical universe where legal laws are different, doesn't that suggest any legal laws can be different, not just US law?

That's funny, because there are plenty of cases in history where it didn't. You are again basing your entire arguement on one case. That's bad grounding. How about finding some other cases, please? Did we torture anyone durring the Cold War? Did that lead to excess and proliferation?

No, Ragusa, human nature has not changed in the least. Human nature has not changed in the past 5000 years, much less the last 50. Human laws may change, and human society, and they may change for the better, which the prohibition on torture may be, but human nature does not change. Now I admitted T2 had a good point not two posts above your own.

As for inner demons, yes, they do exist, and yes, they do need to be controlled. Ideally, front-line soldiers, those with their own demons, would not be the ones doing the torture in the first place. The only thing they would do is take prisoners and escort them. Yes, those who conduct the torture would undoubtably develope their own inner demons, and that is yet another cost to consider, but then there are (you guessed it) laws to control those demons, just like there are laws for soldiers.

Not to mention a little more worthy of a logical debate. Thank you, Chandos.



Finally, I just want to say that, at this point, I think I have crystalized my opinion against torture as a whole. This is largely due to T2 and somewhat due to Chandos, with help from several others. Thank you all.

Torture simply seems to have too many overall risks. So many that, even if it is successful and reliable, it will rarely, if ever, be worth it. Those few enemies that are likely to not change their opinions and practices because of our use of torture are the very ones for which torture seems least likely to be effective. I do not feel there is anything inherrantly and morally wrong with torture in the theater of war, but it seems to simply be too impractical and dangerous a tool.

 

............

Yes, and yes. See: Pinochet, the Shah, Vietnam, etc.

 

Torture Proliferates. It always has in the past. Why should it be different now?

Some excellent case studies on the proliferation and escalation of torture, wherever it was systematically used:

Israel:
On September 6, 1999 Israel's High Court of Justice backpedaled from an earlier ruling that allowed the use of 'torture lite' on Palestinian prisoners. They did so, because the interrogators ran amok, and eventually tortured two thirds of their captives*.

Algeria:
The French in Algeria used torture systematically and indiscriminately. They simply tortured everyone suspected of knowledge. French military chaplains quieted the troubled military's consciences. One of them, Louis Delarue, wrote a text distributed to all units:

Arguably, in war all circumstances are (at least subjectively) exceptional. It is this logic that leads to proliferation.

Chile:
In the Argentinian 'dirty war', the reason why torture was used was that the opponents had the practice to move out if one member of the group wasn't heard of for 48 hours. The interrogators only had 48 hours** to get clues from their subject or the source was largely worthless. So they tortured. In the beginning many interrogators had qualms about torturing their subjects, until priests reassured them that they were fighting gods fight against the godless commies. By the end of the dirty war *** the qualms were gone and hardened young officers were placing bets on who could get the prettiest girl to rape and torture.

Proliferation is the rule, not the exception. Torture erodes morale. It does so inevitably. Sometime soon I will post some more on the ticking time bomb scenario in the torture debate, and how and why it is basically a fraud.

Spoiler

* Mark Bowden - The Dark Art of Interrogation. The article makes a good case, based on that example, for how a prohibition acts as a 'restraint on the demons'. It also offers NOG a way out of his misery. Btw, in a sense so does Alan Dershowitz, even though he is wrong. To read NOG babble about the legalization of torture without him mentioning Dershowitz gives testimony of the shallowness of his argument.
** Mark Osiel - Mass Atrocity, Ordinary Evil, and Hannah Ahrendt - Criminal Consciousness in Argentina's Dirty War (2002)
*** John Simposn & Jana Bennet - The Disappeared and the Mothers of the Plaaza: The Story of the 11.000 Argentinians who vanished (1985)

 

I was responding to this:

And if I was unclear, I shall re-iterate: Torture would never change a man's core beliefs, though he might say anything to get the torture to stop. Once the threat of torture were removed he would recant his statements made under duress and return to his previous belief system. However, the torture, if severe enough, could strike sufficient fear into his heart that his future actions would be curtailed, even if his beliefs were not changed.

For example, an Islamic extremist who hates Israel and has set off many bombs and rockets could be captured and tortured thoroughly. After a few weeks of scientific torture, he will be singing Jewish hymns, lauding the Jewish state, and signing papers condemning Palestine, Hamas, and Mohamed himself. Once released from custody, he tells all his friends that he didn't really mean what he said and that the torture had been so unbearable that he couldn't help it. His friends then ask him to place a bomb, but the fear of torture has ingrained itself so deeply into his soul that he politely turns them down, opting instead to stay inside and avoid loud noises and bright lights.

Please note that I do not support this scenario, as it is highly immoral, but that is how I think torture would play out. That's what I was talking about, Chandos. I hope I cleared up that confusion.

 

Yes, thanks. I missed the previous part you were responding to.

 

LKD,
your scenario is probably incomplete without the closing line: ... and his friends would then look at that broken man and vow to take revenge on those animals who did that to him ...

---------- Added 19 hours, 17 minutes and 3 seconds later... ----------

The reason why torture proliferates is that in order to torture according to a given set of guidelines and procedures, you first need to train a cadre of torturers. You need people to do it. The result is that torture becomes routinised, an established procedure. Established procedures are being applied. It isn't any more about individual cases. The individual torturer has no insight into whether his application of torture is justified or not. He diligently executes orders according to the established procedures. He's merely a cog in a machine that is grinding forth.

But I wanted to write about the treacherous ever ticking time bomb - the cornerstone of the utilitarian argument for torture. One of the reasons why I find this construct so revolting is that it has the purpose of dragging down the conversation partner down in the mud. It's a simple bait and switch. The typical dialogue goes like that:

So you oppose torture? Yes, torture is revolting and abhorrent. Now imagine that torturing one guy, who meets all the preconditions /assumptions - being a bad guy (i.e. an a**hole unworthy of empathy) of whom is known that he has the information, that the information is true, that torture is the only way to get at the information etc. pp. - who has knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack that would cost innocent life - could save this innocent life, would you do it? If you say no - why do you favour the live of a bad guy over innocent life? What a bad person you are ... yadda yadda yadda.

Most people lose their nerve there and say that under certain, narrow circumstances they would accept torture as an option. Gone are their principles.

From there on we are down in the mud, down to numbers and haggling about the price. In the utilitarian calculation, the answer to whether it is right to torture this one person if it saves 200 million lives will always be a resounding yes. What about 10 million people? 5000 people? Twelve people? Decide! Do the math! What if the person to be saved is an adult? A child? A ragged, old grandmother who only has to live two more days? What if the person to be saved only has one leg, is blind on one eye and is deaf on one ear? What if the person to be saved is a criminal, or insane, homeless? Not an American? In the utilitarian calculation the answer depends on the numerical value assigned to the individual that is to be saved or to be tortured.

Once you are there, it is easy to deal with friction: If with one bad guy and a hundred innocent people have been tortured, and the process yielded information that saved the live of a thousand people - was it worth it? Easy, let's run the numbers! The same thing about 'abusive techniques' and torture - if mere 'coercive interrogation' doesn't cut it, what about water boarding, electric torture, the rack, beating, breaking some bones, rape - if that breaks the subject? Is the limit about the technique in question - or is adequacy being determined with respect to the stakes, as in, a ticking nuke putting a million people at risk would justify, say, the rack and red hot pincers?

That is why I think the question whether torture 'works' is in my eyes not merely beside the point - it is a dangerous distraction that glosses over that in the utilitarian argument answer whether it is worth it will always be that, if it is within the limits of a basically arbitrary cost-benefit calculation, then it is justified. Arbitrariness and executive action don't go well with each other.

The utilitarian torturers only want to torture known bad guys, apply torture under narrow circumstances. That means that they are being aware that torture is abhorrent. So the enlightened torture apologist wants to be morally principled and civilised by ... opposing torture by only applying it on 'known bad guys' - without having to pay the price for being principled by being unable to use torture, while selling it to themselves as 'reasonable'. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

I rather have Jacksonian (?) Tribalists like TGS for whom it is 'us vs. them'. In many way they are more principled.

 

Ragusa, the problem with your analysis of the 'timebomb' debate is that you trivialize practical reality. If, in your ideals, the very act of torture is evil, then it shouldn't matter whether it saves lives or not. It should be akin to 'would you rape an innocent child to save someone's life?' If torture is inherrantly evil in your eyes, the answer should be a resounding 'NO!' regardless of the 'rewards' offered, and if someone calls you a terrible person for saying so, then they are idiots.

If you say 'Yes' then that means that torture itself isn't evil, but it may be used for evil, in which case we get down to practical reality: What are the risks, the temptations of power, the consequences, the odds of actually getting anything useful, the odds of it actually saving lives, etc.

You argue that it bypasses, or at least trivializes, the ideal, when in reality it simply moves to the next step. The problem you should be complaining about is those that call you bad and evil if you stand with your ideals.

 

In many ways the spectre conjured up in the ticking time bomb scenario mirrors the hysteria about Saddam's non-existent WMD. What if ... well, then ... jumping to conclusions from hypotheses. Was the threat real? Apparently not. The hysteria decidedly was.

The point is ultimately: So I don't torture a person and an innocent suffers at the hand of the person I am supposed to torture or some third person. Those people who call me bad for opposing torture - are they right? Who did harm that innocent person? Me?

Or are they just trying to have something both ways, without facing the reality that there are instances where losses are inevitable. That is hard to accept. The call for torture expresses an urge to do something. The torture option is one step on the ultimately futile quest after perfect security. That is not a realistic goal. It is merely something electorates unrealistically expect from their rulers, who then call for options, like torture, to soothe public fears. Look at the spectacle of the GOP primaries - not supporting torture was a liability for GOP presidential candidates because doing so would leave them vulnerable to attacks by their rivals (as in '... double Guantanamo!' to cite the most disingenuous variation of the theme). The torture debate in the US is to a great extent not a question of morality or even utility, but of politics.

​

My view personally is that torture must be prohibited. Legalised torture, for all the aforementioned reasons, is no option. If someone tortures he commits a crime - even if he does so for a 'noble cause'. He has to be perfectly clear that he crosses the line. It he does so anyway, he has to bear the consequences. He has to face punishment, he has to be forced out of office if he is a policeman or soldier. He has to be punished according to his individual guilt, which will probably be mild if he can prove in his defence that he wanted to save lives. That leaves enough room to address the unlikely case of the ticking time bomb.

 

Sorry, but I'm all out of sympathy for the guys who planned 9/11.

While I don't approve of torture, generally, I have no problem seeing those who confess, and are proud of their crimes, get what they have coming to them. I see this more as payback than as a way to gather info. I mean 183 times? Sorry, but it couldin't happen to a nicer guy, IMO.

For some reason, I don't think they were looking for information....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/

 

Presuming they're guilty, I guess they maybe deserved it. One of the problems is that now we have a number of interrogators who between them have drowned (near near drowned?)--oh, but not fatally, so it's okay--people 266 times.

Oh, and also that it's evil. More, it's tyrannical. Inflicting harm on someone who is helpless to resist? That's evil, and it's the sort of evil that is diametrically opposed to the ideals at the core of western civ.

 

No doubt, and I'm a very non-violent person (I don't even spank my kids). But I often think of those who died that day and never came home to their families. What chance did they have? There are a few instances that demand equal justice. And at least this guy still has his life, which is more than 2000 of his victims have....

And you are right, of course, about the guilt part. But retribution is not always "evil" if applied to the guilty, for those who commit the most heinous of crimes.

 

IMNSHO, there really aren't. Evil can be necessary to forestall further evil, sure; when the cop shoots the bank robber or whatever. Doing evil to make yourself feel better...that's utterly unacceptable. It is, in fact, very close to the behavior of ye olde serial killer.

We're going to torture this guy because he deserves it? A thousand times no.