In an interview with the New York Times in January, President Bush insisted, “[T]orture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” (From The New Yorker, 2/14/05: "Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s “Extraordinary Rendition Program” – http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6.) Yet it appears the U.S. government has been doing just that ever since it started seriously hunting for Islamic terrorists in the mid-90s. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition:
And all that was before 9/11/01. The practice appears to have become much more widely used since then. (I.e., there have been more reported cases – that’s all we the people can know for sure, because the whole thing is so damned secretive.) Originally a CIA tactic, it is now used by the Justice Department and the Defense Department.
What justification can there be for this? Legally or ethically? Even if you argue that it’s worth inflicting torture on a terrorist to extract information that may save innocent lives – what good is such intelligence? Consider the story of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian engineer (from the New Yorker article linked above):
A subject under torture will say anything he thinks his interrogators want to hear. That doesn’t mean it’s true – only that the subject believes it will satisfy the torturers enough that they’ll stop hurting him. So what’s the point?
Furthermore, it seems to me that this practice – farming out our dirty work to governments with fewer scruples againg torture – makes the U.S. undeniably complicit, eroding both our perceived moral legitimacy, and that of the international standards embodied in the Geneva Conventions. If we go down that road, aren’t we increasing the risk that Americans will be tortured if they’re taken prisoner in war, or if they fall into the hands of the authorities of countries with which we’re on bad terms?
Since it’s not even considered an effective way to get info, I can see no justification for it, even when not considering any ethical arguments. What’s the point of it?
In this GQ thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298205 – we discussed the question, “Is the Wikipedia trustworthy?” And the consensus is that it is, for the most part, despite the “open-content” format. I also like it for brevity, comprehensiveness, and currency of information. (E.g., the article on King Sihanouk of Cambodia was updated to reflect his abdication the same day he abdicated.) But I made sure to base the OP on more than one source. Unless you don’t consider The New Yorker reliable either – and I hope you know their reputation for intensive fact-checking.
Things are not “considered” anything in and of themselves. I consider wikipedia very effective, including ethical arguments. I have not noted anything in Wikipedia that was poorly written or inaccurate except during the election. In fact, it’s a microcosmic example of what human knowledge IS, a repository of information that is contributed, edited, and discussed by humans. If you have a problem with wikipedia, you may as well have a problem with all artifacts of knowledge. You can not level a complaint against wikipedia that is not relevent to any kind of printed matter.
In any case, I think I’ve provided enough non-Wikipedia sources that we can focus discussion on the actual issue: Should our government be turning suspected “terrorists” (such as Maher Arar) over to foreign governments which almost certainly will torture them?
Heh. BrainGlutton, cricetus, I wasn’t talking about Wikipedia, I was talking about torture!
I meant that since torture isn’t considered an effective way to get info from suspects, then regardless of any ethical concerns, there’s no point in using it.
Are there any reliable sources that make the opposite point about torture? That it can lead to accurate information?
BrainGlutton’s point about a person being willing to say anything, true or not while under torture is valid, for sure. But it seems to be valid only if the torture victim actually has nothing worthwhile to say. But what if the torture victim DOES have information that nobody can extract from them using normal interrogation? Can a person really hold information under torture indefinitely? I doubt it.
IIRC, I read that in Iraq, the terrorists have told their members that all they expect their members to do is hold out for 24 hours after capture under torture. In that time, they will have changed all their passwords, safe drops, etc., that they used before, so any info the terrorist spills will be useless. There’s a general recognition that you can break almost anyone via torture, but that it takes time in the case of committed folks (like terrorists, as a general rule). So, yes it works, but no, it’s not often useful.
Given the stigma around ‘aggressive interrogation’, it’s not like we are likely to ever hear of its successes. It’s not like Gen. Abizaid will get up in front of the press conference and say, ‘The intelligence regarding the IED factory we raided the other day was gained via the belly-punch’.
But common sense tells us that different people will react differently to different stimuli. Sure, some people are steely-hearted rapscallions, and will resist even The Naked Pyramid, but by the same token, they are probably some wussies that spill their guts at the first sign of anything unsavory happening.
Well, I don’t think even BG’s sources are saying “torture will never, ever work.” Just that on balance it’s not the most reliable method.
Of course there are other considerations too; timeliness being the obvious one. If you need an answer immediately, torture might be the best chance you have.
If the U.S. decides that it is against torture, then it is hypocritical to outsource the torturing to other countries. (“Well, I don’t rape and kill women, I just give them to Joe, and he rapes and kills them”)
Now, of course, the U.S. could decide that it is not against torture, in which case doing it themselves or outsourcing to other countries is irrelevant.
Personally, I don’t think arguments against torture should be based on whether torture is effective or not (because if a new torture technique is proven effective, then the whole argument against torture goes away).
Also, I don’t think arguments in favor of allowing torture should be based on whether torture is effective or not. As an extreme example, if it were proven that, in dealing with enemy countries, it is effective to kidnap thousands of their newborns and torture them on live TV, would that be something you would condone, or something you would like your country to do? So, effectiveness alone is not what determines whether we should allow torture or not.
I think that the debate should be, even if torture is effective, do you want your country to be a country that tortures people? Besides the general ethical principles, there is also the practical issue that one day you could accidentally be arrested as a suspected “bad guy” and get tortured.
I agree. Torture shouldn’t be debated based on the accuracy of information received through it, but on the ethics of it.
The first thought that jumps into my head is “what exactly IS torture?” There’s got to be a line somewhere between interrogation and torture. Simple pain isn’t where that line is defined, since there are many ways other than physical pain to torture someone. Imprisonment can be argued to be a type of torture, based on the psychological effects it has on the one imprisoned. How far should law enforcement and the military be allowed to go?
I read an article by a columnist recently (and who the columnist was, I can’t remember) who argued for the rendition for reasons other than torture. Whoever it was made the point that, torture aside, the interrigations can be more effecitve when they’re done by police of the suspect’s nationality, in the suspect’s home nation. The police there know the language and culture better, so they can phrase questions so that they’re more effective, and know what the right questions are for them to ask. They can bring in the suspect’s family and have the families ask the suspect to cooperate, and so on.
