Krauthammer defends torture

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@David Simmons

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?

It doesn’t save our captured people from torture. But then again, neither does not torturing our captives prevent our people from being tortured. See, e.g., Berg, Nick (we haven’t sawed off our prisoners’ heads, and yet his head was sawed off).

But if we’re just arguing philosophically, I’d point out that the costs of fighting against an enemy that tortures its prisoners would be higher than the costs of fighting against an enemy that gives its prisoners hot chocolate and fluffy pillows. Thus, a country that tortures its prisoners might be less likely to win a popularity contest, but people would be less likely to fight against them because they’d be more likely to suffer great pain and death

I have no cite for this proposition, but then again, you don’t have any cite for the proposition that torture makes people more likely to fight against us.

As for torture leading to charges of hypocrisy, my immediate thought was, “Who cares?” But the reason that we’re not being hypocritical by leaving an exception for a ticking time bomb scenario is that the situation in which we’d allow torture is not morally or ethically equivalent to the situations in which our enemies use torture. We’d use torture when it will save the lives of many people that would otherwise be lost, and no other methods will suffice to reveal the information. The folks that we’d be prosecuting would not have used torture in those situations.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

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.

Presumably, the documents, accounts, etc. were drafted by the torturers. Thus, the journalist’s accounts – which are based on biased accounts – must be biased, too.

Look, my best evidence that torture works at least sometimes is that we’re having this debate. If torture never works, then it doesn’t even pose a moral dilemma and should certainly be banned. We know that torture works because intelligence agents – who have a vested interest in gathering useful information, and would presumably pay attention to what works and what doesn’t – have used torture to extract useful information for centuries. If torture has never worked in the last 500 years, then why have intelligence agents continued to use it? Wouldn’t it have died out as soon as intelligence agents realized that torture had never brought out any useful information?

Anyway, the closest I can come to a journalist who provides an account of torture working is from and article by Bruce Hoffman in The Atlantic Online called “A Nasty Business”. It includes a few examples of torture supposedly working, and provides a pretty good example of why you’ll never find the example you’re looking for – because any man who gives his name as a torturer paints himself with a bullseye for the enemy, and will always be a social pariah. Here are a few examples he gives of torture working:

I sat in that swank hotel drinking tea with a much decorated, battle-hardened Sri Lankan army officer charged with fighting the LTTE and protecting the lives of Colombo’s citizens. I cannot use his real name, so I will call him Thomas. However, I had been told before our meeting, by the mutual friend—a former Sri Lankan intelligence officer who had also long fought the LTTE—who introduced us (and was present at our meeting), that Thomas had another name, one better known to his friends and enemies alike: Terminator. My friend explained how Thomas had acquired his sobriquet; it actually owed less to Arnold Schwarzenegger than to the merciless way in which he discharged his duties as an intelligence officer. . . . . Thomas had little confidence that I understood what he was saying. I was an academic, he said, with no actual experience of the life-and-death choices and the immense responsibility borne by those charged with protecting society from attack. Accordingly, he would give me an example of the split-second decisions he was called on to make. At the time, Colombo was on “code red” emergency status, because of intelligence that the LTTE was planning to embark on a campaign of bombing public gathering places and other civilian targets. Thomas’s unit had apprehended three terrorists who, it suspected, had recently planted somewhere in the city a bomb that was then ticking away, the minutes counting down to catastrophe. The three men were brought before Thomas. He asked them where the bomb was. The terrorists—highly dedicated and steeled to resist interrogation—remained silent. Thomas asked the question again, advising them that if they did not tell him what he wanted to know, he would kill them. They were unmoved. So Thomas took his pistol from his gun belt, pointed it at the forehead of one of them, and shot him dead. The other two, he said, talked immediately; the bomb, which had been placed in a crowded railway station and set to explode during the evening rush hour, was found and defused, and countless lives were saved. On other occasions, Thomas said, similarly recalcitrant terrorists were brought before him. It was not surprising, he said, that they initially refused to talk; they were schooled to withstand harsh questioning and coercive pressure. No matter: a few drops of gasoline flicked into a plastic bag that is then placed over a terrorist’s head and cinched tight around his neck with a web belt very quickly prompts a full explanation of the details of any planned attack.

[David_Simmons]

@Age Quod Agis

It doesn’t save our captured people from torture. But then again, neither does not torturing our captives prevent our people from being tortured. See, e.g., Berg, Nick (we haven’t sawed off our prisoners’ heads, and yet his head was sawed off).

I agreed to this in my post.

But if we’re just arguing philosophically, I’d point out that the costs of fighting against an enemy that tortures its prisoners would be higher than the costs of fighting against an enemy that gives its prisoners hot chocolate and fluffy pillows. Thus, a country that tortures its prisoners might be less likely to win a popularity contest, but people would be less likely to fight against them because they’d be more likely to suffer great pain and death.

I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. Torturers don’t necessarily restrict their torture to the period when an active war is in progress. It is entirely possible that people will work harder in a war against torturers so that they can win and escape torture after the war ends.

I have no cite for this proposition, but then again, you don’t have any cite for the proposition that torture makes people more likely to fight against us.

I can’t find the post where I wrote that torture makes people more likely to fight against us. Would to link to it?

As for torture leading to charges of hypocrisy, my immediate thought was, “Who cares?” But the reason that we’re not being hypocritical by leaving an exception for a ticking time bomb scenario is that the situation in which we’d allow torture is not morally or ethically equivalent to the situations in which our enemies use torture. We’d use torture when it will save the lives of many people that would otherwise be lost, and no other methods will suffice to reveal the information. The folks that we’d be prosecuting would not have used torture in those situations.

Maybe. But you are assuming that torture is effective in saving lives and that is one of the disputed points in the whole torture question. Somewhere in your presentation there should be some evidence of the effectiveness of torture in saving lives. I don’t see any.

As to the comment “Who cares?” That is the attitude of the antisocial and the hermit. We in the US have to live in the world in which we are a small minority. Maybe you don’t worry about the nation being regarded as a bunch of hypocrites but I do. Attitudes about the US affect our our entire diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world. Just one small example. So far our economy is strong enough that other countrys’ investors find it advantageous to buy our bonds which finance this Iraq adventure. How long will that last and if the investment safety margin for them goes near the safety margin of investments in other countrys’ bonds their having a low opinion of us as an honorable people won’t help us much.

[furt]

Good heavens, it’s Age Quod Agis.

Where the devil have you been keeping yourself?

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

@Evil One

I would hold him incommunicado for as long as possible. If I were in his position, I would set up a set of “I’m OK” calls at certain intervals so if I wasn’t heard from, assume the worst and bug out. If they did that, time is of the essence. If not, squeeze all the info you can at your leisure. He would still be a valuable source of background and organizational information even if current plots were already disrupted. Finally, by announcing his capture, you have the added benefit of making his pals wonder what he’s telling and forcing them to scale back and hide.

Ah, so even if you can’t get vital, time sensitive info to prevent a bomb going off somewhere REAL SOON NOW, it’s OK to torture the guy for background information?

Where is the line drawn, and who draws it? Would you torture his family? Would you dismember his children bit by bit in front of him? Why not? Once you allow torture it’s just a matter of degree after all.

If you’d electrocute a guy, maybe it’s not too bad to stick bamboo under his fingernails, maybe from there it doesn’t look too bad to pull his nails off? From there it’s just a matter of small steps until you’re vivisecting his kids.

Would it be alright to torture an innocent in order to force a terrorist to give up information? Why not if it will save a thousand lives?

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

@Evil One

I would limit the mental and physical stress to the individual himself. And I would extract the information needed to help save american lives without batting an eye.

I see you have already replied to this question I asked you just now. So, the terrorist is safe in the knowledge that his family is off-limits? Wow, you just made it easier for him to hold out, almost the same as if he knew he himself was safe from torture. He is probably prepared to martyr himself for his cause anyway, what’s a few days of pain next to eternity in paradise?

[Blalron]

I am unconvinced that the “ticking time bomb” scenerio is sufficient to legalize torture. For one thing, I haven’t heard of a single case of this actually happening. It is such an extraordinary event that if it does actually come up the interregator would almost certainly get a pardon for it… that’s why our system allows pardons, for unique situations like this.

I strongly suspect that 99% of the time that our government would like to use torture are NOT actual ticking time bomb situations and they are trying to use that hypothetical as a way of justifying their not so urgent desires to perform torture. In that case, screw them. If you feel so strongly that you need to torture someone to save human lives, you should be willing to accept the consequences or pray that you’ll get a pardon. I’d gladly serve a couple years in prison if I knew that my actions could save the entire city of New York.

[Quartz]

@Blalron

I am unconvinced that the “ticking time bomb” scenerio is sufficient to legalize torture. For one thing, I haven’t heard of a single case of this actually happening.

Perhaps you should read the article linked by Age Quod Agis?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Age Quod Agis

Look, my best evidence that torture works at least sometimes is that we’re having this debate. If torture never works, then it doesn’t even pose a moral dilemma and should certainly be banned. We know that torture works because intelligence agents – who have a vested interest in gathering useful information, and would presumably pay attention to what works and what doesn’t – have used torture to extract useful information for centuries. If torture has never worked in the last 500 years, then why have intelligence agents continued to use it? Wouldn’t it have died out as soon as intelligence agents realized that torture had never brought out any useful information?

No, because torture can serve other purposes, most especially terrifying, humiliating, and repressing populations; it also can make the torturer feel powerful.

Anyway, the closest I can come to a journalist who provides an account of torture working is from and article by Bruce Hoffman in The Atlantic Online called “A Nasty Business”. It includes a few examples of torture supposedly working, and provides a pretty good example of why you’ll never find the example you’re looking for – because any man who gives his name as a torturer paints himself with a bullseye for the enemy, and will always be a social pariah. Here are a few examples he gives of torture working:

This seems like a pretty damned good cite for what I was asking for. Thanks.

Now, 'm off for the holidays, so I won’t be in the thread much for the next few days. Everyone have a great Christmas!
Daniel

[Evil_One]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Now, 'm off for the holidays, so I won’t be in the thread much for the next few days. Everyone have a great Christmas!
Daniel

Have a good holiday, Daniel.

I enjoyed our discussion over the past few days.

[David_Simmons]

@Age Quod Agis

Anyway, the closest I can come to a journalist who provides an account of torture working is from and article by Bruce Hoffman in The Atlantic Online called “A Nasty Business”. It includes a few examples of torture supposedly working, and provides a pretty good example of why you’ll never find the example you’re looking for – because any man who gives his name as a torturer paints himself with a bullseye for the enemy, and will always be a social pariah. Here are a few examples he gives of torture working:

Could be. But basing national policy on an article that uses a movie and an anecdote as evidence is chancey. If we base our defense on torture and torture is not very effective then what?

[Cervaise]

@Age Quod Agis

Look, my best evidence that torture works at least sometimes is that we’re having this debate.

Snake oil never works to cure the ailments for which it’s sold. Good thing everybody realized this and nobody ever buys it any more.

[Der_Trihs]

@Age Quod Agis

Look, my best evidence that torture works at least sometimes is that we’re having this debate.

No, we are having this debate because America is largely brutal and amoral. Otherwise, we wouldn’t care if it worked or not; we’d refuse to do it because torture is evil.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@David Simmons

Torturers don’t necessarily restrict their torture to the period when an active war is in progress. It is entirely possible that people will work harder in a war against torturers so that they can win and escape torture after the war ends.

I don’t disagree with this. My only point was that we don’t know what the results of torture will be. It’s possible that more people will fight against us, and it’s possible that fewer will fight against us.

@David Simmons

I can’t find the post where I wrote that torture makes people more likely to fight against us. Would to link to it?

Sorry. You’re absolutely right. You never said this. I was responding to others that have made the point (such as Der Trihs), and unfortunately did it in response to one of your points. My apologies.

@David Simmons

As to the comment “Who cares?” That is the attitude of the antisocial and the hermit. We in the US have to live in the world in which we are a small minority. Maybe you don’t worry about the nation being regarded as a bunch of hypocrites but I do. Attitudes about the US affect our our entire diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world. Just one small example. So far our economy is strong enough that other countrys’ investors find it advantageous to buy our bonds which finance this Iraq adventure. How long will that last and if the investment safety margin for them goes near the safety margin of investments in other countrys’ bonds their having a low opinion of us as an honorable people won’t help us much.

I’ve been sloppy. My response of “Who cares?” was for three reasons. First, merely being called a hypocrite doesn’t mean that we’ve actually been hypocritical. And as I tried to explain, the situations in which we’d prosecute people for torture, and in which we’d allow our own soldiers to torture, are sufficiently different to avoid actually being hypocrites.

Second, if my choices are to a) save hundreds or thousands of lives but be a hypocrite, or b) let hundreds or thousands of people die but remain free from hypocrisy, I think being a hypocrite is the lesser of two evils. Call me a hypocrite all you want if it saves lives.

Third, people have been calling us hypocrites about so many things for so long, it’s practically taken all the sting out of the word.

All three of those reasons fell under “Who cares?” But for some reason, I was too sloppy to elaborate. I apologize for that.

As for the bonds, I think most people buy American bonds because it’s the safest investment in the world. But I agree that a poor world image will have a detrimental effect on our economy through tourism and the purchase of our products.

But having said that, I don’t think our world image will be harmed significantly by having a ban on torture that makes an exception where it is the only method to save hundreds or thousands of lives. I’m sure some people will have a problem with it, but most people believe that torture may be used in rare circumstances. And even if they didn’t, concerns over our popularity should not trump good policy.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@David Simmons

Could be. But basing national policy on an article that uses a movie and an anecdote as evidence is chancey. If we base our defense on torture and torture is not very effective then what?

Then we stop doing it. Period.

But again, I find the argument that torture has never worked in the last 500 years rather suspect. And I’d rather leave that determination up to the people that actually have some experience with different interrogation methods.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

No, because torture can serve other purposes, most especially terrifying, humiliating, and repressing populations; it also can make the torturer feel powerful.

True, human history has been plagued with sick fucks that get their jollies torturing other people. But we’re talking about interrogation techniques. And presumably, intelligence agencies have not all been run by sick, twisted fucks who just love to torture people for no reason. Presumably, they have done it over the last 500 years because it works.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Now, 'm off for the holidays, so I won’t be in the thread much for the next few days. Everyone have a great Christmas!

Thanks for the discussion. And happy holidays!

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@furt

Good heavens, it’s Age Quod Agis.

Where the devil have you been keeping yourself?

Texas, mostly.

Good to see you’re still hanging around, furt. Hope you’ve been well.

[wevets]

@Age Quod Agis

I’m sure some people will have a problem with it, but most people believe that torture may be used in rare circumstances. And even if they didn’t, concerns over our popularity should not trump good policy.

Good policy and popularity sometimes go hand in hand.

Recall that one of the things we must have to succeed is a more democratic Middle East - Note that terrorists tend to come from the more repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and Afghanistan, yet don’t come nearly so often from areas working on democritization: e.g. Bahrain.

If I were an Iraqi trying to decide whether to oppose the Americans or to believe in the democracy they’re trying to establish, torturing Arabs would be a great way to show how little the US cares about civil liberties and how little I should trust Americans.

Does anyone here actually believe that the Abu Graib scandal helped America’s standing vis-a-vis Iraqis or anyone else in the Middle East?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@wevets

Good policy and popularity sometimes go hand in hand.

Agreed. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case here, though.

@wevets

Recall that one of the things we must have to succeed is a more democratic Middle East - Note that terrorists tend to come from the more repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and Afghanistan, yet don’t come nearly so often from areas working on democritization: e.g. Bahrain.

If I were an Iraqi trying to decide whether to oppose the Americans or to believe in the democracy they’re trying to establish, torturing Arabs would be a great way to show how little the US cares about civil liberties and how little I should trust Americans.

A couple of points.

First, I’m not arguing in favor of “torturing Arabs.” I’m talking about torture in very limited circumstances when the information is necessary to save many lives. The race of the suspect is immaterial.

Second, if torturing Arabs actually had such a powerful sway over Iraqi public opinion, I’d suspect vastly more Iraqis to be on the side of democracy. Because right now, we don’t torture anyone as a matter of policy, and the vast majority of the repressive Arab governments (including Hussein’s former government) do. And that’s to say nothing of al Queda in Iraq, who routinely torture and murder Arabs. And yet opinion does not seem to be unanimous in favor of America and democracy.

I’m not saying that a policy of torturing all prisoners would not hurt our standing in Iraq. However, a policy of torturing prisoners would not cause all Iraqis to side with our enemies, who also torture prisoners. And the policy suggested here – torture in very limited circumstances – is still much less than that which our enemies do. Thus, our standing in Iraq will be effected even less.

Third, even if we instituted a policy in favor of torture, and all Iraqis forgot about the torture of their repressive, authoritarian regimes and al Queda in Iraq, that still wouldn’t be a sufficient reason for Iraqis to oppose democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq does not mean instituting American policies. Democracy in Iraq means that Iraqis get to make the government in whatever image they want. If they don’t want their government to torture Arabs, then they can instruct their government not to torture Arabs. I think Iraqis are smart enough to figure that out.

@wevets

Does anyone here actually believe that the Abu Graib scandal helped America’s standing vis-a-vis Iraqis or anyone else in the Middle East?

No. But then again, Abu Ghraib did not involve torture as an interrogation technique.

I don’t think anyone here supports torture for the sake of torture, or for purposes of humiliation or repression. We’re talking about torture to extract vital information.

[David_Simmons]

@Age Quod Agis

I don’t disagree with this. My only point was that we don’t know what the results of torture will be. It’s possible that more people will fight against us, and it’s possible that fewer will fight against us.

We don’t know what thre results will be? So we just do it anyway as an experiment to find out? I thoughs the torture we are discussing supposedly saves lives.

My response of “Who cares?” was for three reasons. First, merely being called a hypocrite doesn’t mean that we’ve actually been hypocritical. And as I tried to explain, the situations in which we’d prosecute people for torture, and in which we’d allow our own soldiers to torture, are sufficiently different to avoid actually being hypocrites.

But if we were to put on trial and condemn terrorists for torture while doing it ourselves without punishment we are hypocritical aren’t we?

Second, if my choices are to a) save hundreds or thousands of lives but be a hypocrite, or b) let hundreds or thousands of people die but remain free from hypocrisy, I think being a hypocrite is the lesser of two evils. Call me a hypocrite all you want if it saves lives.

This is the “torture might save lives” argument again. As I have repeatedly said, I thik Kauthammer’s hypothetical is so loaded on one direction that it isn’t worth answering.

As for the bonds, I think most people buy American bonds because it’s the safest investment in the world. But I agree that a poor world image will have a detrimental effect on our economy through tourism and the purchase of our products.

So far at least. But it’s an awfully long road that doesn’t turn.

But having said that, I don’t think our world image will be harmed significantly by having a ban on torture that makes an exception where it is the only method to save hundreds or thousands of lives.

“the only method to save hundres or thousands of lives.” See above. And consider the image of the USSR where the KGB was widely suspected of using torture.

I have a strong hunch that if torture were effective all intelligence services would have been using it all along. Secret studies on the most effective methods would have been done and redone and Top Secret Field Manuals published on it. And like all such things, sooner or later the secrecy would have been breached and we would know all about it.