Because, of course, only Americans are human. If we need to torture a few foreigners, it doesn’t matter; they’re all just vermin anyway.
No, because I would be extending the prisoner the same courtesy that he has extended to his victims. If I could prevent another 9/11 by torturing someone for the information I needed, I could do it with one hand while eating a sandwich in the other.
Perhaps.
Unless the examples are phenomenally rare, I think that at least one must have been documented, just as I think that at least one must not have been documented. I’m asking for the documented one.
There’s no victory for me to declare: I’m not trying to teach you anything, but rather, I’m trying to inform myself on the issue. I’m really unlikely to reach the point where I’ll say that torture should ever be legal, but I might reach the point where I’ll say that torture should be illegal, and sometimes it should happen anyway.
I can’t declare victory, but you really ought to consider declaring defeat if you’re not able to come up with one documented case of a torturer obtaining the ends that folks are saying it can obtain and that would make it under some circumstances ethical. Why are you so happy to defend torture when you can’t come up with a single example of it working?
Daniel
What if you couldn’t prevent another 9/11 by torturing someone–would you do it then?
Could you prevent another 9/11 by torturing someone?
What evidence do you have to support that belief?
Daniel
If I were in a public discussion forum with Krauthammer and he posed this hypothetical I would simply say that he has loaded the dice to elicit the answer he wants. Why should anybody play against a stacked deck and try to answer such a question?
I’m assuming that you are asking what my limits are…as in how valuable must the information be before picking up the torture tools. My answer is…it depends on the circumstances. If I have the potential to prevent the damage to property or the economy or to save lives then I would do it. I would only do it if the situation were urgent and the information was available by no other means. I would not enjoy it. But I would do it with a clear conscience.
That was the basis of my hypothetical, as you well know.
What belief are you talking about? The belief that valuable information can be obtained through torture? I have no evidence. No depositions or testimony. No photographs. No classified documents. Only my opinion based on the analysis of the question.
Actually, my question was, would you do it if the 9/11 event would happen regardless of whether you tortured your victim? I’m assuming the answer is no.
Of course I know that. What I’m getting at is how your hypothetical translates into reality. Is it a hypothetical along the lines of, “If I could prevent a hijacking by shooting the hijacker, I would do it” (i.e., one that might potentially occur), or one along the lines of, “If I could prevent a hijacking by summoning a might firebreathing dragon to eat the hijacker, I would do it” (i.e., one that would not occur)?
Okay. So you have no evidence. Let’s then give you the actual hypothetical that might occur:
You’ve got a guy that you’re pretty sure is involved in a terrorist plot, but there’s an eensy tiny chance that he’s an innocent poor schmuck. You’re pretty sure that the terrorists are planning something 9/11ish in scale, but you could be operating on faulty information. You’ve got an opinion about torture. Do you torture this guy in order to find out information about the plot, in hopes that by torturing him, you are able to prevent the plot?
I think we ought to draw a distinction between an opinion and a belief. An opinion is, “Chocolate ice cream is delicious.” It has no objective truth value. A belief is, “Torture can be effective at extracting information from a criminal that can be used to prevent further crimes.” That does have an objective truth value.
If you tell me that chocolate ice cream is delicious, I can’t argue with you, and it’s absurd for me to demand evidence for the proposition. But if you tell me that torture is effective, it’s perfectly legitimate for me to demand evidence.
If you’re willing to torture someone without having any evidence that torture is effective, well, that’s something I’ll condemn in the strongest possible terms.
Daniel
Could I stick a toe in this? It is my understanding that military leaders are generally opposed to torture. First, it is ineffective. Second it exposes our captured troops to torture.
But the other side tortures, beheads, etc. anyway regardless of how circumspect we are you say? Therefore, why don’t we also torture if there is even a miniscule chance of getting information you say?
Well, someday we might want to hold those enemies torture responsible before the world. How can we do that if we responded to torture with torture, with summary beheading with summary beheading?
Correct.
No. I would want to be reasonably certain that he (a) possessed the information I needed and (b) it was unavailable through other means.
You are rather more likely to help cause one. Besides promoting reprisals, you make it much less likely you’ll get any cooperation from the rest of the world. If some random citizen/official finds out about a terrorist plot against us, it becomes rather likely they’ll say “It’s against the Americans ? Screw 'em, the sadistic bastards. Let him go.”
Plus, what if he’s innocent ? How do you think he’ll feel towards America ? No doubt you’ll put a bullet in the back of his head, just in case.
The article in the OP addresses this.
For details, I assume one can read his book. For now I’ll assume that the BBC did not mischaracterize his book.
I understand you’re not being snarky, but what exactly are you expecting? What sort of “disinterested parties” do you expect to find having been around? If torturing someone resulted in useful information, the torturers are not going to broadcast the news for numerous reasons, not least of which is a desire to not disclose sources and methods of intelligence. People can keep giving you cites, small and vague or large and detailed, and you can just keep holding out for more documentation, or a more clear causal connection, or mixed reports, or question the sources, etc.
Okay, and thanks for the straightforward response. I’m really not trying to trap you here, but rather am trying to figure out where and how other folks draw the line about torture.
As I understand it, if you’ve got someone who has information about the next 9/11 event, you base your decision to torture them on
a) whether the subject of torture has information on how to prevent the event; AND
b) whether the torture will suffice for obtaining this information; AND
c) whether there’s any less harmful way of obtaining the information.
I’ll stipulate for now that there’s no less harmful way of obtaining the information. I’ll also stipulate that the subject has the information.
What I’m unclear on is why you believe the torture will suffice for obtaining this information. I’ve been reading excerpts from Army manuals saying that torture is ineffective; torture victims have said that it just compelled them to give information, not accurate information; and the only folks who have claimed that torture is effective in specific circumstances that I’ve encountered are torturers themselves, who have a huge vested interest in making that claim regardless of its truth.
I guess I’m still trying to figure out why you believe that the answer to b is yes.
furt, before you hypothetically condemn me for hypothetically rejecting hypothetical cites that people could hypothetically give me, can you give me a chance to read your cites? I’ll take a look at them and come back to you. I laid out my goalposts pretty clearly in an earlier post. I can’t promise I won’t move them, but if i do, I will acknowledge the moving and try to argue why they were poorly constructed. I don’t believe I will move them, however; I am open to being persuaded that torture has proven effective under some circumstances.
Certainly we know of many, many cases of torture actually being practiced. There’s no trouble obtaining documentation of actual torture. I’m unclear why it would be so much harder to obtain documentation of torture that worked.
Daniel
I don’t see why we’re debating whether torture is acceptable in the Jack Bauer-style scenario, here. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is (for the purpose of this debate). Both Krauthammer and McCain are saying that in that scenario, it would be “right” to torture, because it could save lives. The difference lies in that Krauthammer wants a system wherein someone in the chain of command can make the decision to torture, and thus it is done - lives are saved. There are no repercussions for the torturer (who has acted rightly in this scenario). The problem with this is that if you give out permission to torture in this way, people are going to take advantage of it in less clear-cut scenarios - or even just for fun. McCain wants a system wherein someone in the chain of command can make the decision to torture, and thus it is done - lives are saved. The torturer is arrested and tried. There are less problems with other torturers acting irresponsibly because of the fear they will be caught and tried.
On one hand, many people designated suspects will be tortured, innocent or no. On the other, an person who acted out of noble causes will be tried. Pain to many or probable exoneration? Easy choice.
The debate is not about “Krauthammer says 9/11 style events are acceptable to torture a suspect in, and McCain disagrees”. They both want that. McCain just wants the torturer (and others) to face up to their actions legally - an approach I am happy with (well, at least more happy with than CK’s).
Okay, furt. I’ve looked at your cites. The one regarding Israel’s torture is, as you say, vague; I’d like to see specifics. But the following bit:
looks like it might qualify. Are there any observers–e.g., historians or reporters uninvolved in the torture–who can corroborate it? Or are we supposed to take the word of the torturers that they’re not behaving monstrously?
I’m not at all clear how your wikipedia cite meets my criteria. I see someone being tortured and eventually giving up information, but check out my fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth criteria in post 59. I do not see where Abdul Hakim Murad’s confession had anything to do with preventing a specific tragedy.
You might argue that it prevented a hypothetical tragedy (I get the impression that you’re fond of hypotheticals). However, I think that’s a very dangerous justification for torture: if we’re willing to torture people on the basis of the potential prevention of a plan that we don’t currently know anything about, that really opens the floodgates in a way that I find terrifying.
Daniel
That Krauthammer, he’s really just the anti-Nietzsche. Only reaching moments of sanity from his wheelchair when he can perceive a person being beaten.
Providing the person’s Islamic that is. Jews and Americans are right out.
Ring It’s the Canadian PM on the phone, he wants 18 American Service people and the Israeli Embassy Undersecretary tortured to prevent an Oklahoma type event in Toronto. Watch Charlie K spin his wheels.
One actual method worked like a charm for determing who is or is not a witch. The suspect is bound and thrown into a pond. If she surfaces unbound she is clearly a witch and can be burned at the stake. If she doesn’t surfact, oh well, she is now happy with God. 
Yes, it was addressed in a slap-dash and casual way. Krauthammer pretends to espouse a high-minded approach. Let the military not torture but have the torture be done by others.
How exactly does this save our captured people from torture and how does it enable us later to bring torturers among our enemies to account without hypocrisy?
I rather assume they are behaving monstrously; it is torture after all. That’s the whole point.
But surely you see the absurdity of the bar you’re setting up: there must be journalists or historians there to witness it? Are you kidding?
By that criteria, I could just as easily ask for a cite to the contrary (a time when extreme physical coercion failed to produce actionable intelligence) with the same measures (only completely disinterested observers can be trusted) and you’d find it just as impossible to find something that fit exactly. Oh, you might find something damned close, I’ll warrant, but I can always find something wrong with the specifics of the situation, or demand more specifics, or contend that the journalist wasn’t really disinterested.
But that’s a silly game to try to play, so I’ll pass.
I find them useful for dismantling sweeping, absolutist statements (e.g. Torture Never Ever Works) which I am not fond of.
In truth, I’m not doctrinaire on this, and could easily be persuaded of McCain’s position on this. What I despise is a naivete blended with moral arrogance which some precincts of the far left have (and I don’t necessarily think this shoe fits your feet, Daniel) which acts as if this is something new or unusual, or that things would just be fine and dandy if these sorts of things were solved by trials and treaties, and who are quite quick to micromanage the rough men who guard them while they sleep.
I’m sorry: observers doesn’t mean they saw it with their own two eyes. Observers include historians, journalists, etc. who have reconstructed a picture from documents, accounts, and so forth, folks without a vested interest in justifying the actions of the torturers.
Daniel