Do you support forced interrogation/torture of suspected Terrorists?

[PatriotX]

KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex “admissions” that take still longer to disprove. KUBARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.

We’ve established that interrogation rarely involves a “ticking bomb scenario.”

And we have established that the professionals in the field think that torture is not a reliable means of obtaining useful information.

That leaves us with only extra-special, ‘perfect storm’ type of occasions where torture is even a theoretically practical or acceptable choice.

[Lemur866]

@Testy

OTOH, I disagree with your scenario of pulling random guys off the street and torturing them to find out whether they know something or not. OTOH, if you catch a guy with an IED shop in his basement or running around with an automatic weapon, why not torture the guy? You know he has information of use and he’s already an AQ member. Wring him out then haul him out back and shoot him. Alternatively you could lock him up forever but why bother?

Of course it’s not quite true that we pull random people off the street and torture them. But it’s not much better than that. We know for a fact that plenty of people ended up at Gitmo because an Afghan informant fingered them as Taliban, our soldiers took them prisoner, and they were sent to Gitmo. And since we know that everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist, then that justifies the use of torture against prisoners at Gitmo, right?

You honestly want to give soldiers the legal power to summarily execute prisoners, as long as they are sure he’s Al Qaida? You don’t see the problem with that? You don’t see the advantage of having a, you know, trial? With a prosecutor, a judge, a defense attorney, witnesses, documents, evidence? And the trial determines what we should do with the guy–execution, imprisonment, fine, or…freedom? Like, what if we were wrong, and the guy was innocent?

In one sense, you’re right. The legal system doesn’t sanctify what we do to this person. Actions taken by the legal system aren’t moral or immoral just because they’re legal. Rather, the legal system derives its power to punish from us. If it isn’t moral for a single human being to defend themselves against a criminal, then it isn’t any more moral just because a bunch of people get together and agree to do it together. So yeah, I agree, anyone who joins Al Qaida deserves a bullet in the brain. But can you understand why cutting out the middleman, and giving front line soldiers the legal power to summarily execute prisoners after torturing them–even if those soldiers are “sure” the prisoners are Al Qaida–can you see why this is a bad idea? Not because Al Qaida prisoners don’t deserve a bullet in the brain, but because no one can be trusted with that power?

Of course, such things happen. Suspects are shot, and the cops swear they thought he was reaching for a gun. Prisoners are shot “attempting to escape”. Prisoners commit “suicide” in their cells. That doesn’t mean we should encourage this sort of thing, even if in almost all cases the cops and/or prison guards kill someone who deserves it. Because whether the summary execution was justified or not, our society won’t remain a democracy if we have people wandering around with the legal power to summarily execute people who annoy them.

Soldiers already have the power to shoot at people who are shooting at them, and to take prisoners they suspect of being bad guys. They don’t need the power to summarily execute or torture prisoners. If we decide through the legal system that these prisoners need punishment, then someone else can decide that punishment, not soldiers pumped up on fear and adrenaline who just put their hands into a pile of goo that used to be their best friend’s face.

[Voyager]

@Cervaise

Applause for Lemur866.

Ditto from me. Excellent post.

I find it profoundly depressing that there is any argument at all on this subject. Lemur866 is absolutely correct to ask “are you that scared”: Many, many people must be absolutely terrified to have abandoned their intellectual faculties and attached themselves to this subrational — indeed, animalistic — point of view.

What disturbs me even more is that we’re not scared by accident. Our leaders, like most who want to expand their powers, have created a bogeyman to allow them to do anything they want. Be it Communists, Jews or terrorists, anyone wishing to limit power of the leader must be on the side of the evil ones. I wonder how many people advocating torture now would have been appalled 7 years ago at the thought of doing so. Terrorists can just kill us, but Bush, Cheney and Rove can destroy the very thing that makes America great.

[vivalostwages]

@Lemur866

Of course it’s not quite true that we pull random people off the street and torture them. But it’s not much better than that. We know for a fact that plenty of people ended up at Gitmo because an Afghan informant fingered them as Taliban, our soldiers took them prisoner, and they were sent to Gitmo. And since we know that everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist, then that justifies the use of torture against prisoners at Gitmo, right?

You honestly want to give soldiers the legal power to summarily execute prisoners, as long as they are sure he’s Al Qaida? You don’t see the problem with that? You don’t see the advantage of having a, you know, trial? With a prosecutor, a judge, a defense attorney, witnesses, documents, evidence? And the trial determines what we should do with the guy–execution, imprisonment, fine, or…freedom? Like, what if we were wrong, and the guy was innocent?

snip.

                        Ay, there's the rub.    Many inmates are in Gitmo due to faulty "intel"...except it's taken TPTB several years to figure this out and release one now and then, and for the most part they're damn near dead already and/or completely  despairing or  psychotic.  
    How do we undo this damage?   How do we say, "Oops, my bad, kept you in prison for years on end with no due process, no charges, no trial, no evidence, but you'll just have to get over it and realize we were erring on the side of caution and in the interests of national security"   ?

[Lemur866]

And then I can anticipate the response, that terrorists don’t deserve a fair trial. Which is true. People who commit heinous crimes don’t deserve a fair trial, only innocent people deserve a fair trial.

But how do you tell the difference between those heinous criminals who don’t deserve a fair trial, and innocent people (plus, I suppose, non-heinous criminals) who do?

I suppose we could have some sort of impartial hearing to determine in advance whether a prisoner deserves a fair trial, and only give a fair trial to those who are judged to deserve one. You could have one person who’s job it is to argue that the prisoner doesn’t deserve a fair trial, and who would present evidence of the prisoner’s crimes to show what a scumbag they are. And one person who would try to produce evidence that the prisoner wasn’t a scumbag, and who would try to poke holes in the evidence that the prisoner was a scumbag. And another person to make sure that the hearing is run in a fair and impartial manner. And so on. And then, only after such a hearing is held and the prisoner is determined to deserve a fair trial, would you go on and have a fair trial for that prisoner. And if the prisoner is determined not to deserve a fair trial, you’d lock them up, or fine them, or whatever.

[tomndebb]

@Testy

Tomndebb
I’m not sure I agree that the information derived would inevitably be lies or guesses of what the torturer wanted to hear. As you say, people will say anything to get you to stop whatever you’re doing. This includes true and useful information.

So what? The tortured person tells the truth. The torturer does not understand it or believe it, so the torturer continues the torture until he gets that answer he wants. That is how torture works.

Why you are so desirous of rationalizing torture when, aside from the moral and ethical implications, it is not a successful tool to extract intelligence, I am not sure.

[CannyDan]

@Lemur866

snip
I suppose we could have some sort of impartial hearing to determine in advance whether a prisoner deserves a fair trial, and only give a fair trial to those who are judged to deserve one. You could have one person who’s job it is to argue that the prisoner doesn’t deserve a fair trial, and who would present evidence of the prisoner’s crimes to show what a scumbag they are. And one person who would try to produce evidence that the prisoner wasn’t a scumbag, and who would try to poke holes in the evidence that the prisoner was a scumbag. And another person to make sure that the hearing is run in a fair and impartial manner. And so on. And then, only after such a hearing is held and the prisoner is determined to deserve a fair trial, would you go on and have a fair trial for that prisoner. And if the prisoner is determined not to deserve a fair trial, you’d lock them up, or fine them, or whatever.

In other words, a fair trial should be the prerequisite for the fair trial.

Whoosh!!!

Of course, I agree with Lemur. Either we are ‘civilized’ or we are not. When we emulate evil in the name of fighting it, we are simply compounding evil.

[Cemetery_Savior]

First of all, by “ticking time bomb”, I don’t think any of us were actually referring to a black, spherical, Boris-n-Natasha type with a clock stapled to the side. The “time bomb” can be any piece of information that implies a loss greater than your moral objection to torture. At that point, each individual would have to choose whether or not to torture for information based on the risk/gain involved.

I’m pretty sure the OP was referring to torture in a general sense, and not some localized Gitmo sense. Is it wrong to torture everyone in Gitmo? I would say yes. Having said that, I’m not sure what US soldiers were supposed to do when these people were identified as AQ sympathizers…make a snap judgement and release/kill? If you’re in an extreme situation, you want to remove risk. If your information is faulty, you act on it anyway, as you don’t have the time to make accurate determinations. Moving them to Gitmo, outside of potential opponent interference…makes sense.

I always viewed the SDMB as a place where you could have a reasoned debate about an abstract concept without devolving into one-note moral extremists. It doesn’t look so good for the Warriors of Cecil when a simple thought experiment can’t happen without reasoned debate on philosophical differences.

-Cem

[Cemetery_Savior]

@tomndebb

I believe you misspelled imagining.

Semantic cheap-shottery!

-Cem

[Lemur866]

@Cemetery Savior

I always viewed the SDMB as a place where you could have a reasoned debate about an abstract concept without devolving into one-note moral extremists. It doesn’t look so good for the Warriors of Cecil when a simple thought experiment can’t happen without reasoned debate on philosophical differences.

But it isn’t just a thought experiment. We have an administration that encourages the use of torture against detainees. It’s happening right now, with the encouragement of Bush and Cheney. It’s not a hypothetical, it’s real, and we’re doing it.

So the question then becomes, how should we respond to the Bush encouragement of torture? Should we applaud, figuring that terrorists deserve it? Should we figure that the President knows what he’s doing, and even if we’re uncomfortable about torture, give him the benefit of the doubt and refuse to speak against torture? Or should we oppose the routine use of torture against detainees?

Not that everyone who is detained gets tortured, but surely if a detainee ends up in the wrong cell at the wrong prison on the wrong day, he’s could easily be tortured by an American torturer, and that torturer is torturing that detainee with the knowledge and approval of his superiors.

Should we applaud that torturer and call him a hero? Should we hold our tongues until we’ve walked a mile in the torturer’s shoes?

Or should we advocate that any American serviceman who tortures a detainee should be court martialed under the Geneva Conventions?

You can claim that torture might be justifiable under certain circumstances, but you consistently refrain from explaining how that should influence our public policy. I suppose, reading between the lines, you advocate punishing people who are caught torturing prisoners, but that we shouldn’t try very hard to prevent freelance torture, because that freelance torture saves lives, we just don’t want to admit it.

Or what?

My public policy is to vigorously advocate for the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions for all prisoners. All prisoners taken by our soldiers should be treated as POWs until and unless a court determines them to be guilty of particular crimes. Note that POWs can be detained indefinately under the Geneva Conventions, until the conflict is over. As long as we’re still fighting in Iraq, we can keep insurgents prisoner, and we can keep suspected insurgents prisoner. But prisoners must, must, must be treated either as criminals and given a fair trial and either convicted or released, or treated as POWs. And simply treating someone as a POW doesn’t forclose the possibility of trying him as a criminal later. And while it isn’t realistic to expect that the Geneva Conventions will never be violated, soldiers who violate the Geneva Conventions must always be looking over their shoulder in fear of a court martial.

It’s perfectly permissible to construct a thought experiment to explore the limits of moral principles. You’re willing to torture terrorists to save lives. Are you willing to torture innocent people to save lives? Would you anally rape a terrorist’s five year old child if you thought it would convince the terrorist to give you information that would save lives? Would you cut off the child’s ears, jab burning cigarettes into the child’s eyes, cut off the child’s fingers, castrate them? What if torturing that one child would save lives? If it’s moral to torture a terrorist to save lives, why isn’t it moral to torture an innocent person to save lives? If graphic discussions of torture of innocent children make you uncomfortable, just remember that this is only a thought experiment–under what circumstances is it moral to rape a five year old child?

[Steve_MB]

@Cemetery Savior

It’s similar to the Hitler/Time Travel trope in fiction. It goes like this: “If you could travel back in time, would you kill Hitler so millions of Holocaust victims could live?” To people who say ‘never’, it’s an easy decision. I wonder if most people would agree? I know it’s laughably fictional, but it’s not hard to think of a situation where extreme pressures would force you into a similar choice.

That’s a classic example of a solution where you don’t even need to delve into the morality, because it obviously wouldn’t have done any good. The Weimar Republic was going to collapse into some kind of totalitarian snake pit, and the only question is exactly who gets killed as a result.

[Cemetery_Savior]

@Lemur866

But it isn’t just a thought experiment. We have an administration that encourages the use of torture against detainees. It’s happening right now, with the encouragement of Bush and Cheney. It’s not a hypothetical, it’s real, and we’re doing it.

So the question then becomes, how should we respond to the Bush encouragement of torture? Should we applaud, figuring that terrorists deserve it? Should we figure that the President knows what he’s doing, and even if we’re uncomfortable about torture, give him the benefit of the doubt and refuse to speak against torture? Or should we oppose the routine use of torture against detainees?

Not that everyone who is detained gets tortured, but surely if a detainee ends up in the wrong cell at the wrong prison on the wrong day, he’s could easily be tortured by an American torturer, and that torturer is torturing that detainee with the knowledge and approval of his superiors.

Should we applaud that torturer and call him a hero? Should we hold our tongues until we’ve walked a mile in the torturer’s shoes?

Or should we advocate that any American serviceman who tortures a detainee should be court martialed under the Geneva Conventions?

You can claim that torture might be justifiable under certain circumstances, but you consistently refrain from explaining how that should influence our public policy. I suppose, reading between the lines, you advocate punishing people who are caught torturing prisoners, but that we shouldn’t try very hard to prevent freelance torture, because that freelance torture saves lives, we just don’t want to admit it.

Or what?

My public policy is to vigorously advocate for the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions for all prisoners. All prisoners taken by our soldiers should be treated as POWs until and unless a court determines them to be guilty of particular crimes. Note that POWs can be detained indefinately under the Geneva Conventions, until the conflict is over. As long as we’re still fighting in Iraq, we can keep insurgents prisoner, and we can keep suspected insurgents prisoner. But prisoners must, must, must be treated either as criminals and given a fair trial and either convicted or released, or treated as POWs. And simply treating someone as a POW doesn’t forclose the possibility of trying him as a criminal later. And while it isn’t realistic to expect that the Geneva Conventions will never be violated, soldiers who violate the Geneva Conventions must always be looking over their shoulder in fear of a court martial.

It’s perfectly permissible to construct a thought experiment to explore the limits of moral principles. You’re willing to torture terrorists to save lives. Are you willing to torture innocent people to save lives? Would you anally rape a terrorist’s five year old child if you thought it would convince the terrorist to give you information that would save lives? Would you cut off the child’s ears, jab burning cigarettes into the child’s eyes, cut off the child’s fingers, castrate them? What if torturing that one child would save lives? If it’s moral to torture a terrorist to save lives, why isn’t it moral to torture an innocent person to save lives? If graphic discussions of torture of innocent children make you uncomfortable, just remember that this is only a thought experiment–under what circumstances is it moral to rape a five year old child?

Hysterics aside (and wondering at your ability to conjure those images!), it would depend on the potential gain. Would I do the above if the terrorist was witholding the location of a particularly excellent deli? I doubt it. Would I do so if it meant saving my wife? Sure would, with bells on.

I love how you make it sound as if there were American Torturers (is that a new A&E TV show? Is it an Armed Forces rank?) roving the Halls of Guantanamo, picking cells at random, hoping to apply devious methods of excruciatingly inventive torture. Allah forfend if one of your theoretical detainee is in the “wrong cell in the wrong prison on the wrong day”. :rolleyes:

I also have some problems with the assumptions made in your first paragraph. “Encourage” is a strong word. I might have accepted “allow”, or another word with connotations of looking th other way, but I haven’t read the White House missive tasked with stirring up the unenlisted masses with dreams of delicious torture.

To answer the question buried in your soapboxy screed, I would probably hold officers suspected of torture to the court-martial process. I would, however, make an allowance for situational necessity. I still believe that torture is a useful way to extract data from people who the forces on the ground (and I doubt Cheney is selecting the torturees) believe have information that, unearthed, will save lives. It’s a war zone, by nature under military law, and as such, is subject to different rules.

I still wonder at the ease with which you slip into your moral polarity. Things are either “good” or “evil”, and never the twain shall meet. Must make things easy.

-Cem

[Cemetery_Savior]

@Steve MB

That’s a classic example of a solution where you don’t even need to delve into the morality, because it obviously wouldn’t have done any good. The Weimar Republic was going to collapse into some kind of totalitarian snake pit, and the only question is exactly who gets killed as a result.

Yeah, SteveMB? To be hoest, Hitler WAS the better option. I went back just the other day to “erase” Herr Schadenfraude…who would have done things…well…better to let you sleep at night.

-Cem

[Lemur866]

But your policy, “Don’t torture unless you really really need to, then it’s OK” is untenable. Because it is unenforceable. Because it leaves the “I really really needed to use torture” up to the individual. Every torturer believes that the torture is neccesary, otherwise he wouldn’t do it.

And I find it interesting that when I get into the specifics of torture, you dismiss it as hysteria. What exactly do you think torture is? Why does getting into the specifics of torture bother you so much, if you think it’s so neccesary?

And if American servicemen aren’t torturing prisoners, who are?

And your contention that the military operates under different rules is correct. However, under none of those rules is torture accepted.

I’ve tried and tried to explain that I don’t oppose torture because I think terrorists deserve to be coddled. I oppose torture because no human being can be trusted with the power to torture other people. We can’t allow a “I really really needed to torture this guy” exception to the rule against torture, even if such circumstances really do exist.

And you dismiss these detainees as hypothetical. Who exactly do you think is at Gitmo, ghosts? There are hundreds of detainees at Gitmo.

So you’re in favor of torturing innocent people if you think there’s a good chance to save lives. Good for you. How many lives? You’d rape a five year old to save your wife’s life, and I can understand that. Would you rape a five year old to save a stranger’s life? Would you rape a five year old to save two stranger’s lives? What about for a 50% chance to save 5 stranger’s lives? What’s your cut-off for raping five year olds? How much certainty do you need vs how many lives?

[Voyager]

@Cemetery Savior

First of all, by “ticking time bomb”, I don’t think any of us were actually referring to a black, spherical, Boris-n-Natasha type with a clock stapled to the side. The “time bomb” can be any piece of information that implies a loss greater than your moral objection to torture. At that point, each individual would have to choose whether or not to torture for information based on the risk/gain involved.

The closest thing to a ticking bomb scenario I can think of was the Millennium plot against LAX. Unless I’ve been missing something, no one was tortured to develop the information to stop that. I’m sure the guy who was caught was questioned.

Will torture provide more reliable information that can save lives than legal interrogation techniques? That’s never been demonstrated in this thread, and is doubtful given the opposition by the experts. The “have to get an answer in an hour” scenario seems to be pure fantasy.

I’m pretty sure the OP was referring to torture in a general sense, and not some localized Gitmo sense. Is it wrong to torture everyone in Gitmo? I would say yes. Having said that, I’m not sure what US soldiers were supposed to do when these people were identified as AQ sympathizers…make a snap judgement and release/kill? If you’re in an extreme situation, you want to remove risk. If your information is faulty, you act on it anyway, as you don’t have the time to make accurate determinations. Moving them to Gitmo, outside of potential opponent interference…makes sense.

Putting them in Gitmo makes perfect sense - far better than black prisons in some other country. But once there, do we ignore them except for trying to get info from them, or do we try to find out if they are in fact dangerous, so they can be moved to trial. The purpose of giving defendants legal representation is not to coddle criminals, but for fairly discovering if the charges against them are true. Gitmo is a sentence first, trial later kind of place the way it’s being run.

I always viewed the SDMB as a place where you could have a reasoned debate about an abstract concept without devolving into one-note moral extremists. It doesn’t look so good for the Warriors of Cecil when a simple thought experiment can’t happen without reasoned debate on philosophical differences.

-Cem

Lemur866 said it better, of course, but these ticking bomb fantasies are being used as the justification for the torture of innocent (and surely some guilty) people in non-ticking bomb situations.

[Der_Trihs]

@Cemetery Savior

I love how you make it sound as if there were American Torturers (is that a new A&E TV show? Is it an Armed Forces rank?) roving the Halls of Guantanamo, picking cells at random, hoping to apply devious methods of excruciatingly inventive torture.

What makes you think there aren’t ? People were tortured for fun at Abu Gharaib after it was “Gitmoized”; why not at the original Gitmo ?

@Cemetery Savior

I still wonder at the ease with which you slip into your moral polarity. Things are either “good” or “evil”, and never the twain shall meet. Must make things easy.

The existence of twilight does not disprove the existence of night and day. The existance of moral grey areas does not mean that evil does not exist, and torture is evil.

The torturers should all be imprisoned for life or executed, regardless of why they did it or if they had orders or not. So should the people who gave the orders. No excuses, no forgiveness.

[Cemetery_Savior]

@Lemur866

But your policy, “Don’t torture unless you really really need to, then it’s OK” is untenable. Because it is unenforceable. Because it leaves the “I really really needed to use torture” up to the individual. Every torturer believes that the torture is neccesary, otherwise he wouldn’t do it.

I don’t happen to think it’s unenforceable. Who enforces the laws on killing ene,y combatants? Who decides when collateral damage (i.e. killing civilians in a certain proportion of enemy combatants) is acceptable. I would argue that martial law would be one of the very few situations in which guidelines on torture is enforceable.

@Lemur866

And I find it interesting that when I get into the specifics of torture, you dismiss it as hysteria. What exactly do you think torture is? Why does getting into the specifics of torture bother you so much, if you think it’s so neccesary??

Meh…you laid a written trap, and you insist on dragging me into it. I’m sure you wrote your child-raping scene with a view toward sensationalism, and I merely said that it was hysterical. You’ll also note that I went along with it in terms of the discussion. I would define torture as applying a negative stimulus to gain information or a certain action.

@Lemur866

And you dismiss these detainees as hypothetical. Who exactly do you think is at Gitmo, ghosts? There are hundreds of detainees at Gitmo.

Re-read my reply, champ. I meant “hypothetical” in regards to your characterization. I sincerely doubt that anyone believe Gitmo to be empty of POWs. And maybe some ghosts. A goblin or two, natch.

@Lemur866

So you’re in favor of torturing innocent people if you think there’s a good chance to save lives. Good for you. How many lives? You’d rape a five year old to save your wife’s life, and I can understand that. Would you rape a five year old to save a stranger’s life? Would you rape a five year old to save two stranger’s lives? What about for a 50% chance to save 5 stranger’s lives? What’s your cut-off for raping five year olds? How much certainty do you need vs how many lives?

That’s my entire point. The ‘need’ to torture must be defined as a relative concept. If my desire for the information outweighs my dislike for inflicting a negative stimulus, then I will likely torture. If you throw in child-raping (as I’m note you consistently do), it adds another variable. If that’s my only option, then the need for information would need to be correspondingly high (wife-death as opposed to deli-location).

Are you also saying that there is no situation in which you might torture someone?

-Cem

[Cemetery_Savior]

@Der Trihs

The existence of twilight does not disprove the existence of night and day. The existance of moral grey areas does not mean that evil does not exist, and torture is evil.

I don’t even know where to begin with that one. Track down whichever Fantasy novel you borrowed it from and burn it. (note: I am also a relativist in regards to book-burning. I fully believe that a book which, at night-time, walks out of the house to eat the innocent should be doused in gasoline and burnt to a crisp.)

-Cem

[Indistinguishable]

Meh. I actually enjoyed the line.

[Terrifel]

America was a great idea, wasn’t it? I feel deeply privileged to have lived there before it ended.

Are there any modern nations whose citizenry and government unambiguously opposes torture? I’d feel a little better about humanity if there were at least one country that thinks the relative worth of government-sanctioned torture is too nutty an idea to even be worth debating seriously.