Easing the proscription against torture in U.S. law

Great Debates
41

I guess you would rather live in a society that will let an innocent person die because they are unwilling to make a criminal uncomfortable.

I think it would happen almost never. It does not come up very often. But an almost perfect example just did occur. It wasn’t in the least bit hypothetical. The people that cause a women to disappear are in custody and she is still missing. We have the guys on video tape abducting her. What are the odds neither of the bozo’s knows where she is?

I think that the cases where this might be applicable would be pretty easy to spot.

This is not the same at all. We are not discussing torture to get a conviction. We are talking about torture to save one more clearly innocent people’s lives.

I presented a NON hypothetical case. In this instance, do you think there is any chance that the guys in custody did not abduct the missing women? Does it look like it might have been reasonable in this one case?

42

scotth, yes, most of us prefer to live in a society which does not do barbaric things, even if it means that some people will pay a price, because the alternative is much worse. The US constitution forbids punishing people who have not been convicted in a court of law and it forbids cruel and unusual punishments. Since you disacgree with these provisions which most of us like, I would suggest you move to some country where they do things the way you like. There are plenty of them around. They do not bother with due process or limiting the discretion of those in power to do what they think is best. You might like it there. . . until you are the one in trouble.

43

Whether they abducted her or not, it cannot be assumed that they know where the woman is. The easiest answer for them would be: “We gave the woman to a guy we know, who promised that he’d keep her somewhere!”

Oh look. We just tortured someone uselessly. Let’s now go on to stone women to death for adultery.

44

Totally uncalled for Sailor.

First, I love this country… I mean really love it. I served in the Marines for 8 years, if that tells you anything. (Maybe not much, but…)

First, this has nothing to do with punishment, does it?

This has to do with one question. Does a person’s or group of people’s right to life outweight a suspect’s right to humane treatment. In this not hypothetical instance where we have perfectlly reasonable “proof” that they guys know exactly where the missing person could be out dying of exposure.

Now, I started this debate not convinced this is the right position, and I am still not convinced that it is the right position.

I am convinced that it worth looking at closely and discussing the pros and cons.

If it required an amendment to the constitution to make it legal (and that is far from established), it could be worth persuing if it was determined and agreed that it was the right thing to do.

The point of this is to examine the idea. This case represents a very good non hypothetical instance in which to evaluate the idea. People may forward arguements that the risks outweight the possible benefits. That would be just fine. But railing against me for bringing up the debate is FAR more “unamerican” than your position that I should leave the country because I think this idea should be examined.

I am trying to persuade by reason. I don’t want to jam the idea down anyone’s throat. I am open to be convinced that it is a bad idea. But, if someone does not play the position as advocate for an idea (even a bad one), it will not be properly considered.

I hope you reconsider your personal suggestion to me.

45

<hijack>

I can’t see how it can be done with a conscious person 100% of the time. I’m about as unsceptical of retrieving data as a person can be; I think there are always means to retrieve data. When you are dealing with conscious people however; you are dealing with individuals who may have burned their nerve endings off of all non-vital areas; which generally makes torture counter-productive as they’ll not care enough about life anyways; knowing it’s already pointless if they feel pain. Then you have those who really don’t care about life; and effectively re-map both their desire to tell or not tell into the complete surrender to non-existence; abstracting pain as a curiousity to watch, a movement like dancing ocean waves and raging sun flares. If someone is famaliar with symbol translation and substitution; I find it difficult to imagine that these tecniques will work on a conscious being 100% of the time.

If torture cannot be used to retrieve memory that a person will never consciously remember (like what the licence plate said through the reflection on the window that they saw 57 years ago and didn’t even really think about at the time); then I have pretty strong understanding that people can resist it. Part of what may be the issue is that people are not being trained in torture resistence with as much emphasis or enthusiasm as breaking through resistence with torture. If society as a whole started working on this very specific problem; I think you’ll see a very significant reduction in the number of successful admissions from torture that you see currently. As such, I believe there will be individuals who exist even in this current structure who can resist so long as they are conscious.

In terms of doing whacky stuff like reading people thoughts with a machine or whatnot; maybe something out there can pull it out that I’m not understanding. I find your claim of 100% difficult to believe. It seems that a machine which can stimulate and maintain nerve impule for pain; or a drug to that effect that ‘punches’ you would be efficient. Then you have to determine what degree of randomization is required both for frequency of stimulation and intensity of stimulation for each given neuron so that the mind becomes bypassed. The more combinations the mind has memorized; the more difficult tortured confession will become. Of course, some cursory shredding of skin and well any apendage will add to the effect; fire, chemicals… lots of different ways to stimulate those nerves… hmm…

I’ll grant you that keeping the data itself secret will improve the odds that this method will work; I’m having trouble swallowing 100% on this one. I think a person can pretty much prove that life isn’t worth it if certain actions become engaged upon them; at which point the last switch to pain apathy itself can be flipped; and the desire to tell or not tell disabled. At this point it becomes a matter of the torturer’s experience and technique vs. the creativity of the humans processing speed to hold the apathy by shifting symbols around. Like the ultimate person vs. computer battle. hmm…

Digging into the brain itself is another matter IMO.
There seem to be a lot of options, yet I’m under the impression that torture will become an inefficient method when new resources are mapped with precision and abstracted along these lines. I don’t see how torture alone can account for 100% of the possible individuals given the criteria you set aside. Torture may be misdirection; but there is an expected nature to the misdirection: if someone turns on a very creative algorhythmic loop which lasts a few weeks until the next command level call is innitiated; I don’t see how torture would be superior to painless methods which are dealing with covert access to data outside of the perceptual acuity of the person in question. shrug

-Justhink

46

It also becomes a big waste: “Wow that was the most amazing person ever, oh yeah, I just killed them to prove it, boy I wish I could meet them, but they’re dead…”

It’s like; what is a torturer looking to prove by not knowing how to apply some type of technology as well as the human mind can be creatively diverted into itself. I can’t think of a bigger waste of two lives.

-Justhink

47

scotth

Shame on you.

I find it hard to imagine what passionate convictions would lead you to cast opposition to torture as “coddling criminals”, but shame on you.

If even on this issue you cannot find sufficient empathy to understand the ethical position of those who disagree, then rest assured you are a fine example of one reason why I personally will always oppose granting one man the right to torture another.

Impossible to calculate.

Give me a well-defined probability field for all possible circumstances since the time the victim was last seen, and I’ll do the calculations for you.

Tell me–have they been convicted of her abduction? If not, then exactly what level of intuitive certainty do you require before putting innocent men (you do remember that little presumption of innocence bit, right?) to torture?

Yes, and lynch mobs never had any trouble figuring out who needed their neck lengthened, either. Exactly which facet of humanity do you propose be granted this authority to spot when torture is “applicable”? Do those facing the rack have a chance to mount a defense? What grounds would be considered sufficient to determine both guilt and immanent necessity prior to a fair trial?

Yes, though I strongly suspect that they are guilty.

No.

scylla
I’m afraid I am going to have to ask you for some cites–mostly because I have been unable (perhaps not unsurprisingly) to find any openly published hard information on the effectiveness of torture. You, however, have made some very strong claims:
[ul][li]I’m not going to go into techniques here, but they work every time. There really is no way to resist.[/li][li]This is really not an issue for debate, it’s a fact. Duress works very well in extracting specific information. A question like “where did you hide the bomb?” Can’t be resisted. [/li][li]Ask the Israelis who have used torture quite effectively as a means to extracting specific information.[/li][li]This is really not in dispute. Ask any member of the Special Forces who has gone to interrogation school (and that is mild torture.)[/li][/ul]
Now, among uses of torture in recent history, the “best documented” are probably: the French in Africa, both sides in Viet Nam, anto-communists in Central America, and the Israeli’s. If we look at teh long-term success of each of those efforts, I find it difficult to rate the tactit very highly. Of course, you are speaking of a specifically focused interrogation, which is a different matter.
The “padlock” test isn’t really a very good model, though, since it is both instantly testable and extremely unlikely to be a matter of strong personal conviction to the victim of torture. Now, I certainly do not argue that torture never elicits correct information, but I am skeptical of the claim that it is 100% guaranteed to extract accurate and identifiably reliable information under significant time pressure. For what it’s worth, I did find this article (complete with quotes from offciers connected to the US Special Warfare school.) It gives a fairly even-handed account of the successes, failures, and pitfalls of torture, but lacks anything as straightforward as your claim of 100% effectiveness.

And upon preview: scotth

I agree, though I think case studies of those societies which have sanctioned, under whatever circumstances, the use of torture is worthwhile.

I applaud your goal. I will assume, then, that you are going to retract the statement quoted at the top of this post, now that I have brought it to your attention.

48

As a practical matter, your procedure would eliminate the usefulness of torture. By the time the procedural hurdles are met and the torture can begin, the woman is probably dead of exposure.

To follow up on what Sailor said (though perhaps toning it down a bit :D), civil liberties and constitutional rights cost lives. They always have, and they always will.

The freedom of speech gives rise to books like The Turner Diaries, which inspired McVeigh to kill;
The free exercise of religion gives rise to religiously-inspired homophobia, which leads to gay bashing and murder;
The right to bear arms gives rise to lots of deaths;
The freedom from search and seizure means that many crimes are not pre-empted;
The rights afforded the accused means that sometimes murderers go free and can commit more murders;
etc.

Face it, a well-run police state is a safe place.
So the question is, are we willing to let some people die so that we can live in a free society? The answer for the past couple of hundred years has been “Yes”.
Times do change, and people can change their minds. I, personally, really hope we don’t change our minds about this.

Sua

49

I do not love any country unconditionally. I love humankind and certain moral values which forbid torture under any circumstances. The day the USA starts using torture and Irak embraces the freedoms and human rights I consider moral, that is the day I move to Irak and support Irak against the USA. I am not going to support any country or government or culture which uses torture. It has taken cultures centuries to advance to where we are and I am not about to participate in the degradation of our culture. Talk to anyone who has lived under a regime which has used torture and see what it does to the entire culture. Argentinians as a whole, not only the victims, are still scarred by what happened in their country in the 70s. No country can use torture without degrading itself to a huge degree.

Besides, wheteher you admit it or not, you are doing away with due process. You consider the men guilty of abduction without any process of law. It is just inadmissible in a civilised society.

I gave you an example which happened in 1913 in Spain. Two men were seen taking another man with which they had bad blood out of the small village where they lived and that man disappeared. The police had no doubt the men had killed the other man and after torture both confessed and were sentenced to 18 years in jail but years later the dead man showed up when he needed some document in order to get married. It turned out he was tired of being harassed and decided to take off.

In the 1970’s a book was written teling all the details and about 1980 a movie was made telling the story. A google search for “Crimen de Cuenca” turns up multiple pages, mostly in Spanish though.

Torture, under any circumstances is degrading to the torturer and to anyone who condones it. I would never condone it.

50

I would agree that perhaps the phrasing was unfortunate and could be interpreted as a personal attack toward the poster. For that I do apologize. I still think the point is valid.

What I wanted considered was the ramifications of the that position.

If, after looking at even that, and a person decides for themselves that even in the instance where they are more comfortable choosing not to soil their hands in even this extreme instance… Well, that is fine.

I fully agree that it is admirable to have as basis for law and ethics in general to hold the position that torture is unacceptable as a rule of thumb.

What I don’t want to see is this doctrinal generallity be applied to every conceivable situation without examining the possibility that another very highly valued principal, may in some instances override it.

As to the odds of it being them. I don’t believe that either of the “suspects” deny that the videotape was them. I would say that puts the odds at pretty close to, if not 100% that they have very useful information on her whereabouts in their heads.

This is an extremely unnusual situation. I recognize that. I am unaware of any closely parallel cases. But, I suspect we will see more of them with the profusion of surveilance cameras in existance.
Sua,

Just how long would it take to get this type of warrant?

I would think that presenting the video tape of the abduction to a judge, explaining that the people in the tape are in custody, and the person being abducted is still missing wouldn’t take that long. I know that in certain instances, the wheels of the legal system can move pretty quickly when there is obvious need.

A person could take days to die of exposure. Couldn’t something like this be handle quickly enough to make a difference?

51

These are VALID arguements against the position I am forwarding. I hear them and am swayed by them. In the end, I may even take this position.

But suggesting I go to another country because I think this is a valid topic for discussion or debate is unsupportable.

52

This actually is a great debate but it’s one I can’t remove myself emotionally from.
In high school, as a member of our Amnesty International group, we had the opportunity to meet speakers of different ilk and on one occassion, a victim of state torture from South America (I wanna say Chile, but I can’t be positive). He explained what happened to him, how he and his wife were both strung up naked in a room facing each other, so they could watch the other being tortured. At one point, his torturers stuck a piece of glass tubing into his urethra and smashed it with a hammer so the glass broken inside of his penis. It was at that point that I knew that under no circumstances should torture ever be allowed (and also at that point where I wept like a baby for a couple days). To me, there are no instances where humanity should be compromised for the good. Exitus acta probat is solely justification when other means seem too lengthy or inefficient.
Documenting human rights violations:
The example of torture
http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/4CCED185139460F980256923007250B6?Open&Highlight=2,torture

I tend to use Kohlberg’s levels of moral development as an atheist’s guide to WWJD. I find that torture is on the bottom rung of mores.
1 Obedience and Punishment
2 Individualism,Instrumentalism, and Exchange
3 “Good boy/girl”
4 Law and Order
5 Social Contract
6 Principled Conscience
I believe that we have to look at other means of how to construct a reasonable bridge between their low level actions and the high level goals a society should be build around.

53

This is very different from a search warrant for one reason - the suspect/prospective torturee would have to have a say. A search warrant can be obtained very quickly because the suspect (except in very rare circumstances) cannot object to the search before the search takes place.

A suspect in custody, however, has a lawyer, who will quite obviously object to the torture of his/her client, and will demand a right to be heard - and a right to prepare to be heard. Further, the defense lawyer can appeal. Finally, it is in the defendant’s best interests to delay (through appeals and the like) until the need for torture has abated - i.e. the exposed victim is dead - because the goal of the torture - to find the victim - also results in the uncovering of more evidence against the suspect.

Sua

54

Good arguement, duly noted.

55

I find it sickening and disenheartening that someon is arguing this seriously (it doesn’t appear that the proponents are just taking up the Devil’s advocate’s position). Aside from just ripping up the sixth amendment and throwing it away, you also have to completely abandon the fifth amendment’s prohibition on being forced to testify against yourself and almost all due process considerations (since you’re not even talking about torture as punishment for a crime but as an information-gathering device). Tearing up three of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is not a minor move, and the vague ‘this might kind of work’ ideas being floated around are grossly inappropriate for that kind of change. Do you really want to live somewhere where you can be tortured without even a trial to establish your guilt? I mean, sure, it’s only going to be used on bad people! And you’d never be mistaken for a bad person because of anything you do, right? You’d never use drugs, be gay, hold political opinions at odds with those in your area (heh), own a gun, have the wrong skin color, or associate with anyone who does any of those, right?

Plus, there’s also the fact that torture does not guarantee that you’ll get any actual facts, regardless of what Scylla says someone in the Marines told him. After all, an innocent person facing torture very likely will confess to whatever you want to avoid it/stop it, as the Spanish Inquisition demonstrated*. A guilty person will make stuff up if they don’t have the answer the interrogators want. Someone strong-willed may resist torture, either completely or for long enough to give false information.

I mean, just look at your ‘girl tied up’ situation - what happens if someone happened upon her and took her off for their own nefarious purposes, then you get your torture warrant. Whoops, now you can torture the guys, maybe get some false leads, then go to where they said and not find her, so you keep torturing them some more as they make up more and more locations and they end up dead. Or make your situation a little less cut and dried - say a black guy who robbed a house once escapes from prison, then a white woman goes missing in the area. Do you think there are no judges who’d refuse to sign a torture warrant on that information (and no, you don’t get to ask ‘what really happened’, since you don’t get to do that in the real world)? Perhaps a gay guy can’t account for his whereabouts during the time when a child was raped and molested? Or what if some cops are stuck in a case but think they know who the guy is - maybe they testilie a little bit and get the warrant, then torture him until he confesses and tells them where the victim is (after feeding them ‘false information’ for a while), and the real criminal goes free (and don’t forget the Louima case if you think cops are infallable)?

*The SI had a very definate goal - the church could only seize property if the person confessed to what they were accused of, otherwise it would be inherited normally.

56

I suspect that there would be significant physical evidence at the scene that the missing person was there.

If they said that they left her taped up to a specific tree, and the tree was found… It should be fairly easy to see that at least someone was recently tied up in that location.

That does give criminals an out if they plan ahead though.

They could tie someone up, leave them awhile, then move them.

Upon capture, they could say that they left her at a specified spot and it would be difficult (if not impossible) to refute the possibility that she was rescued, or escaped.

57

Spiritus:

You’re cite seems to be talking about the effects of torture on a society that uses it, and also the effects of torture used as a weapon of fear.

I too, have looked for some cites without avail. What I have to go on is nothing more than discussions with my father, a former recon marine, and combat veteran who as part of his training was taught about what to expect under torture; what could be resisted and what couldn’t.

My combination padlock example is a hypothetical, showing an ideal situation for a torturer. For our purposes we can assume that the torturee is resolved to die without giving out the combination.

Nevertheless, in such a situation the torturer is going to have the combination in pretty short order, without even needing to inflict any permanent or lasting damage.

The further you get away from such a hypothetical the harder it is to extract reliable information, and resistance is going to have a much greater chance of success.

Having multiple subjects to work on also increases the efficacy of torture as the information can be compared.

This is why as a POW you were supposed to cooperate as little as possible, because even if you lied that was useful to your interrogators, and any information you give out, true or not, increases the pressure not just on you, but on everyone else.

The best defense is having your interrogators not know what specific questions to ask.

Sorry, I can’t find a better cite for you than my father. There are obvious reasons we are unlikely to find a cite that will clear this up for us.

However, the conclusions seem reasonable and logical to me. Consider that modern interrogation techniques are pretty formidable even without explicit torture. They always contain a combination of physical and psychological discomfort.

Outright torture is simply a more extreme application of the same thing.

58

On page 1 Scylla said “Exactly wrong. What you get depends on the skill of the torturer, as well as what information the torturer has before he begins”

How are we going to train these expert torturers? Practice on lab bunnies?

59

Where’d I say I was in favor of legalized torture?

60

scylla
I knew the cite I found wasn’t what I was looking for. That’s why I asked you for one. :wink:

Really, I do not disagree with you that torture can be an effective means of extracting specific information, but I do question seriously your claim that it can be 100% effective, especially in a short period of time.

I also think that the difference betwen “could work” and “guaranteed to work” is pretty important when you are discussing the circumstances under which an abhorrent option might become one’s most aceptable alternative.

You explicitely did not claim to be for legalized torture. You have, however, made arguments based upon the effectiveness of expert torturers, which clearly raises such questions as:[ul]
[li]how did they gain their expertise?[/li][li]how do they gain access to our hypothetical (or actual) suspects?[/li][li]how do they convince the authorities that the information they are passing along is so reliable as to justify immediate commitment of resources?[/li][/ul]