Tomndebb
I’m really not trying to play some kind of semantic game here. I say that torture for a specific piece of information will work. Yes, I agree that the information should not be simply accepted as true because the guy was in pain when he gave it to you. It has to be checked.
Apologies for the Egyptian torture statement. I agree with you on that and believe I said so clearly. The decision was already made, people were just looking for an excuse.
Please note, as I have told several people in the thread. I’m not saying torture is moral or a panacea for gathering intelligence or denying that it has hellish effects on the practitioners. I’m certainly not advocating its legality. I’m not, as Mr Dibble assumes, "pro-torture.
I can see that your opinion is extremely firm on this. That’s obvious. OK fine, I respect your position. OTOH, I’m not sure that a cite from anyone short of God is going to make me doubt the evidence of my own senses.
There were certainly press, if the CNN coverage of the time was anything to go by. But it didn’t have to be right then, either - have you ever reported this to a competent authority?
And how are they a “known” terrorist leader ? Did you torture him or someone else else into “admitting” it ? Was he turned over to you by a subordinate looking for the credit of catching a terrorist, who knows that he will confess to being a terrorist ? Or perhaps he was turned over to you by his romantic rival, so that you’ll clear the way for the rival via the torture and death of your victim. Or the informer wanted his property. Or he falsely confessed out of fear of torture. Torture warps everything you do.
And if you torture him, you aren’t doing it for “the greater good”, you are doing it for the greater evil. Because evil is what torturers are. If you torture, what makes you better than the “known” terrorist ? For that matter, what makes you even as good as a terrorist ?
I’m not a forgiving person at all - I haven’t forgiven any of the listed bastards. Given a chance, I’d like them all to suffer the worst possible legal punishment for their crimes. That doesn’t include torture. I’m not forgiving, but I also am not evil.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
You are still looking to not be known as “pro-torture” while advocating it as OK for you because some friends of yours got hurt, and because you’re scared. That’s the pass I was referring to.
I always get scared when people use the expression “for the greater good”. Now is no exception.
That you don’t see why, is why I think you miss the point of the story.
It’s a metaphor - mostly about what some people are arguing over in this thread : utilitarian ethics - torturing being OK because, while it is evil, it works.
The unfortunate child in Omelas isn’t equivalent to the terrorist, it’s equivalent to the sense of humanity of the torturer - kept in the dark, pale and shrunken.
Mr Dibble
OK, fine. You’re not evil. And no, my friends didn’t “get hurt.” They were coldbloodedly murdered and at least one of them had it filmed for future reference.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, I wasn’t looking for a pass. As I said. If you want to consider me evil, knock yourself out.
Yeah, because the terrorist deserves to be tortured, while the innocent person doesn’t. Let’s stipulate that the known terrorist leader deserves to be tortured. But I, as a free man, deserve to live in a society that doesn’t allow torture.
If your choice was between torturing Osama bin Laden, knowing that it would condemn the world to authoritarian dictatorship, or letting him go free, knowing that it would preserve liberal democracy, which would you chose? On the one hand, Osama escapes to work further evil, murder more innocent people, and eventually die in bed. On the other hand, freedom and the rule of law.
And I am stunned that some people on the pro-torture side believe that my scenario is some sort of convoluted thought experiment.
Wait…I’m good now. It’s something I’ll carry to the grave, but I can hide it behind mental walls of missed birthdays and bad X-mas presents.
Who sez? I’ve stated before that I have little difficulty imagining (small “i”) a situation very similar to a simple cause and effect. To reiterate, let’s say a person ‘known’ (we can quibble about that) to have a map with roadside bomb locations is captured. Why isn’t it a cause-and-effect to have someone interrogate him to get that map? This would potentially save many lives, US and/or Iraqi. Why would this “never” happen?
Another thing I learned from a few psych classes in college was that, under similar stresses, humans tend to act in non-random, defineable patterns. These patterns are categorical, and don’t very a whole lot within the set of stimuli. I always wonder at a person’s insistence that they are “better” than the others. For a judgement call based on a pretty subjective standard, it’s a strong statement.
Ludicrous. The Svengoolie T-shirt in my closet is what keeps away the child-rape cults.
This causal chain has gaps in it through which you could drive a Mack truck. Are you stating that:
[ol]
[li]We capture Osama.[/li][li]We torture Osama.[/li][li]The entire world falls into an authoritarian dictatorship.[/li][/ol]
What happens between #2 and #3? There has to be something, as I can’t picture scads of Americans lining up to get their “Peasant Rabble” ID Cards once they find out Osama’s been tortured.
And your second causal chain:
[ol]
[li]We capture Osama.[/li][li]We decide to let him go free (why did we bother to capture him in the first place?).[/li][li]We enter a Platonic Utopia, complete with chirping bluebirds who carry the bridal trains of maidens.[/li][/ol]
You said yourself that in the second scenario, Osama lives to maim and kill more people. Do you think it’s a win-win for them?
Don’t you think most armies have tortured captured enemies? When you combine this with the guess (on my part) that most countries have been in a war at one point or another, who are we looking up to?
He’s “known” because in my scenario we set up rules defining “known”, e.g., we have a videotape of him announcing his allegiance to Al-Qaeda, or email from him planning an attack, or something else more definitive than the word of somebody with questionable motives. If that’s not enough we set up more rules. And if we end up with so many rules that we can’t torture anybody then that’s the way it will be.
And once again I disagree with the notion that torture is evil in all possible circumstances. I see nothing evil about torturing someone dedicated to increasing human misery.
I didn’t say THAT situation would never happen (did I? I don’t think I did). I was trying to point out that the “either allow torture, or millions will certainly die” is a bogus scenario. I’d go so far as to say that “either allow torture, or one person will certainly die” is a bogus scenario, because if you need to torture somebody for information, you don’t have that certainty to begin with. I concede that there’s a chance torturing people could conceivably save lives in certain situations. Too bad. It’s not worth it. Find another solution.
Uh huh. So, riddle me this, then: all these justifications of torture seem to be based on the premise that it’s necessary to save lives. We must use torture, or else people will die. But what justification for torture wouldn’t be solved just as easily by giving in to demands? A terrorist has information about a bomb? Why not just tell him, “Okay, you can have anything you want if you don’t kill anyone.” Problem solved, right? Surely the loss of freedom isn’t as important as saving lives?
But if freedom is worth risking life, then maybe other things are too. Maybe the humanity and compassion we lose by sanctioning the torture of others is not worth the security we earn in exchange. If we risk loss of life by honoring even the human rights of our enemies, it is worth the cost. Because the alternative is a society that condones torture. Nothing our enemies can do to us could be worse than that.
In summary: while I make no claims for myself, I do insist absolutely that some people are “better” than others. Specifically, people who do not torture other people are “better” than those who do. How can anyone who lived during the 20th century possibly believe otherwise?
Claiming a causal relationship and then failing to deliver was going to change my position? I’m all for passionate defence, but it has to have some steak in addition to the sizzle.
Sorry…long thread, thought you were referring to an earlier statement.
Again, not seeing the connection between torturing a person and a cataclysmic loss of freedom. Your second statement begs for a response grounded in relativity once again.
Let’s say that the terrorist’s demands consist of a new hat and a pair of cordovan loafers (and they gotta be Alan Edmonds). In that case, I agree totally. The terrorist gives up the goods, I give him his hat and shoes, and we maintain democracy for the next few millennia.
Let’s say that it’s more like a Hezbollah-type demand, and the terrorist asks to have several of his peers released from detention. At that point, relativity comes into play. If you suspect that “Peer A” is an AQ sympathizer, but only does the accounting, you’re in for a discussion. If “Peer B” is a known car-bomber, then would you acquiesce to that demand? If so, you’re a fool.
Having idealistic morals must make living very simple. If you don’t have to think something out, it saves brain cells.
Mr Dibble
Not “scare quotes” at all. I added the quotes because I was quoting someone. In this case, you. Yes, they did “get hurt” if you want to put it that way. When someone has their throat cut I tend to think of it as more serious than “got hurt.”
Oh, sorry. I understand you now. Fine. If you want to consider me as being “pro torture” then by all means, go ahead and do so. I, OTOH, still don’t consider myself that way.
Regards
Testy
*Please note, the quotes used are not even slightly scary, just plain quotes.
I’m not sure you understand what scare quotes are - they’re a tone-of-voice thing, where you are quoting something because you disagree with the quoted bit, as you did.
Also, my name is right there in the quote box. You really don’t have to type it out again, you know.
What makes me think that is the fact that there hasn’t been any visible attempt to rationalize the thought. It’s plopped out there like a truism, and not visibly reasoned out, aside from the soapboxing.