No I do not support torture under any circumstance. I would support use of a truth serum if it was safe medically, painless, and would result in automatic immunity from prosectution.
Foremost for me is that it goes against my moral principles. Not that Christianity should be the basis for law, but I think it’s incredible that in a predominately Christian nation there isn’t more outrage over behavior that Jesus would certainly condemn. I think the intentional infliction of pain is morally reprehensible. Then there’s the problem that many of the recipients are totally innocent. Then there’s the matter that the information obtained is going to be what the torturer wants to hear and may not resemble the truth. Finally, I believe it endangers American troops. If the US is known to torture, that removes any incentives for America’s adversaries to refrain from torturing any US soldiers they might capture.
I think we have to get off this ‘torture doesn’t work’ bandwagon. Perhaps with a single isolated person it may not work, though it could. But with multiple suspects, ones who should have some information on the subject, they can be isolated and questioned separately under torture. The responses compared to each other and intelligence, this should lead to useful information.
One major downside is the ones who really don’t know anything are the ones who will receive the most torture. But I think it’s short sighted to say that useful information can’t be gathered via torture.
Voyager
Just what I picked up off Wikki, but the Geneva convention seems to define it as any kind of pain or psychological discomfort. That’s a bit fuzzy but I suppose it has to be that way to avoid loopholes.
As far as the “Americans would love . . .” part of your post, I would think it both demeaning and not terribly useful to just hurt someone for the hell of it like that. OTOH, I wouldn’t be too upset if they caught the guy, interrogated him, and then hauled him out and shot him.
I agree that the White House has been trying to redefine torture by calling it “forceful interrogation” or some other euphemism. They need to either torture people or don’t but the half-ass crap they’ve been doing gets them the name of torturers without gaining them a lot of information and pisses people off. Someone on the boards the other day said something like; “If you’re going to do evil, do it well.” A lot of sense in that.
Regards
I doubt it’s that simplistic in regards to the causality of ended violence.
It seems that an earlier statement of mine is being taken out of context. When I stated “people who say ‘never’ have not been in a position to choose” (paraphrased), I meant it to be a broad statement, and not a specifically torture-related phrase. Unless being responsible for slow-to-pay medical claims is torture, I have never tortured anyone.
The way I read the OP, it was a question that dealt with ethical relativism. The way I see the ‘answer’, it’s predictably relative. Apparently, most of the board disagrees with the relativism aspect, and views torture as a fully-negative process.
If you have variables throughout the equation (if I can try some societal mathematics), you have to assume that the answer will be variable as well. If you go on insisting the answer is “4”, then you can be happy with your answer, but I think some people will question your paperwork.
MrDibble…my family still has a drink on 1/30 each year, and I respect your position. I refure to beleive, however, that each person associated through family with torture would declaim it in totality. I wonder if it might not be the other way around.
If there were a “truth serum” available that had a reliable track record, I’d probably be on the other side of the discussion. Having said that, I don’t think it exists.
BobLibDem, I think you’re being a little naiive when you equate the religious right in America with a pure reading of Biblical Jesus. I’m not religious, but I have read the book, and without cites, I will say it seemed pretty violent at times, and I think the term “psychological torture” might be applied to several of God’s actions (the whole Abraham thing, if I remember correctly (is that the Job story?)). There’s also a good deal of talk about a “vengeful God”, and I believe the Christian Right has taken this to mean we can ignore that whole “other cheek” thing and lash out when provoked. I don’t see the irony at all.
In regards to putting American soldiers at risk…I don’t really see how the risk can be ramped up too much beyond where it is now. YMMV, of course.
BobLibDem
Why on earth (or Earth) would you expect Christianity to stop torture in Iraq? Jesus might condemn it but IIRC, Christianity has been greatly in favor of torture throughout the ages. Confession being good for the soul, the godly have helped quite a few people to confess to one thing or another whenever they’ve had the power to do so.
As far as the information being useless, I sort of doubt that. Start with things that are checkable and check them. A lie causes pain. Lies would stop pretty quickly.
I’d go along with it being morally reprehensible but I’m not sure it’s going to make much difference to any troops that are captured in Iraq. They’ll be tormented and tortured for a while and then have their throat slit. As far as “adversaries” in general, i.e. a declared war, I’d agree with you.
David Simmons…back in the beginning of the thread, we were expressly dealing with the question of torture as a philosophical issue. As such, we constructed thought experiments. I think that the ‘atomic bomb’ construct has tons of validity, especially when you reduce the scope to a kidnapped child, a threatened spouse, etc. I would also argue that using torture in Iraq (for example)…more specifically, in a war zone, is expressly for gathering intelligence in order to prevent or ameliorate future attacks. Why is that such bullshit?
I fail to see why our not knowing what was gained is cause for a " :rolleyes: " or a " :dubious: ". If you were gaining intelligence via a certain method, and it was working (assumption), why would you trumpet either your gain or your method?
Sleep deprivation. And I don’t know how long it takes. But there’s a reason Fatal Familial Insomnia is called fatal. People need sleep just as much as they need water or air or food.
I’d call that a false conflation. For starters, you’re comparing a clinical diagnosis to a process that (as far as has been admitted) no-one on the board knows anything about.
Do you really think using sleep deprivation to a point where death occurs is what an interrogator has in mind? I’m sure we’ve all read/seen apocraphyl stories where the person experiencing sleep deprivation goes stark raving nutters. I’m pretty sure that’s true. I’m also pretty sure that a person would die without sleep. To compare it to a clinical diagnosis smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
I agree that people need sleep as much as other things. So, neither of us knows how long that might take. Well, I’ve stayed awake for 50-something hours at a stretch and didn’t die so it must be longer than that. Mind you, I wasn’t worth much on the job I was doing by that time.
No, I’m taking the practical tack. A course of action with proven results. We can of course still argue about the moral implications, I’m just gettting sick of the ‘torture doesn’t even work’ argument.
I think Christianity has evolved and become more enlightened over the ages. I don’t think the modern church bears much resemblence to the middle age churches that condoned torture.
BobLibDem
Well, you being a man of faith, you probably have a different outlook on that. My own take is that the reason they stopped was that they had the power to do so taken from them. I have zero faith that they wouldn’t be doing it today if they just had the power to do so.
Given the power and an intractable problem, it is way too easy to use religion to justify not only torture but rape, mutilation, judicial murder, and all the rest of the “kill them all, God will know his own” kind of activities.
I’m sure we’re all aware of the irony involved in a Christian-identified USA (no cite, but it’s well-known that our leadership has self-identified us) inflicting war upon other countries. If anything, I would (perhaps unfairly) equate the pro-right, pro-war vote with the religious right, admittedly Christian in thsi country.
If your statement were true, BobLibDem, I would expect the Vatican to have vilified the US for interceding in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. At least to complain about perceived injustice in Guantanamo Bay detention centers. As far as I know, they’ve not done so (cite me otherwise, please).
I’m sure that they don’t care if the victim does, and in quite a few cases, that they do want the victim to die. IMHO, this is about cruelty and bloodlust, not “interrogation”. Interrogation is only the excuse.
