Krauthammer defends torture

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@David Simmons

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.

No, I wasn’t suggesting that we do it as an experiment to find out what happens. I think any honest attempt to read my post would understand that. Once again, this was a response to others that have said (or implied) that the result of torture is that our enemies will be more inclined to take up arms against us. I’m just saying that’s not a foregone conclusion.

@David Simmons

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?

No. If the circumstances are different enough to justify our use of torture, then we’re not being hypocritical.

For example, we punish killing here in America. And yet we allow our soldiers to kill without being punished. And we don’t punish people for killing others in self defense. Is that hypocritical? No, because the different circumstances surrounding our actions justify a different result.

I cross the street outside my house every day. And yet if a child is about to cross that street when traffic is coming, I tell him he should not cross the street. Is that hypocritical? No, because the different circumstances surrounding my actions justify a different result.

It’s overly simplistic to suggest that the only factor to consider is whether someone is tortured or not. That’s because the relevant value judgment is not whether torture occurred, but whether the torture was justified. You have to look at and weigh all the surrounding circumstances before deciding whether an action is hypocritical or not. Different actions in different circumstances do not necessarily make someone a hypocrite because they may merely be evidence of a different moral judgment based on the different circumstances.

There have been those that have suggested that torture can never be justified. And you can hold that position. But it’s not hypocritical to I arrive at a different conclusion for what’s appropriate in different circumstances.

@David Simmons

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.

So it’s “loading the hypothetical” to suggest that torture may have appreciable benefits? Well, if you withdraw all tangible benefits, then I suppose I’m against torture. But then who’s loading the hypothetical?

@David Simmons

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

Sorry, but what’s the point of this? I have never suggested that the US bonds will always be the safest investment in the world. Nor is that relevant to the point I was making, or the point of this thread.

@David Simmons

“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.

See above. And consider the image of France, which has apparently used torture in Algiers.

@David Simmons

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.

I was under the impression that many (if not most) intelligence services have been using it all along. That was the point I made earlier; if torture i totally ineffective then intelligence agencies wouldn’t even want to use it to gather intelligence. Are you suggesting that the US wants to use torture simply because we’re sadistic bastards?

Torture doesn’t typically make it into the public record because that stuff is very touchy. But **furt[/]b and I have managed to unearth a few examples of torture within the last 50 years or so. How does that comport with your understanding that torture is not used by intelligence agencies?

[clairobscur]

@Age Quod Agis

And consider the image of France, which has apparently used torture in Algiers.

Indeed, consider it. It happened 45 years ago , and in case you wouldn’t know, it’s still a hot issue. Accusations still fly, victims still appear on TV, Algeria war veterans are still viewed with suspicion, trials are still held, movie makers still film documentaries, it still stirs political relationships between France and Algeria, it still mentionned in the political debate regarding some old politicians, it’s still thrown at France’s face, etc…

So, if you want to still be hearing in 2050 about how the USA tortured people…

[David_Simmons]

@Age Quod Agis

Torture doesn’t typically make it into the public record because that stuff is very touchy. But **furt[/]b and I have managed to unearth a few examples of torture within the last 50 years or so. How does that comport with your understanding that torture is not used by intelligence agencies?

My point is that if torture is really effective there wouldn’t still be questions as to whether or not it is. If it has been routine as long as you claim its effectiveness would be known by now and effective and non-effective methods would be taught in courses in intelligence schools.

And there is no reason for torture to be “touchy” if its effectiveness is known and, as you claim, a majority support it when they agree that it is necessary. Torturers wouldn’t have to hide their identity, like the one in the Dashiel Hammetish account in the OP’s cite, they would be acclaimed for saving thousands of lives at the cost of just a half hours time and what would be regarded as justifiable “inconvenience” to someone who didn’t deserve any better.

The fact is that the effectiveness of torture is still questionable after centuries of use. In the case of Krauthammer’s hypothetical there is so little chance that the conditions he laid down will occur that it isn’t worth considering. You would have to have reliable information that a bomb had been set to go off in one hour. You would have to know the the captive you had knew where the bomb is. Total nonsense. Absent those you have no way of knowing that any lives were saved.

But it’s clear that you have the faith that thousands of lives might possibly be saved in some virtually impossible scenario and that’s that. So there’s little point in continuing along this line.

[Der_Trihs]

@Age Quod Agis

Once again, this was a response to others that have said (or implied) that the result of torture is that our enemies will be more inclined to take up arms against us. I’m just saying that’s not a foregone conclusion.

Of course it is. If someone hurts you, you want to strike back.

@Age Quod Agis

It’s overly simplistic to suggest that the only factor to consider is whether someone is tortured or not.

That is what matters. If you torture, you are a monster who deserves death.

@Age Quod Agis

That’s because the relevant value judgment is not whether torture occurred, but whether the torture was justified.

It’s never justified. If you torture, you demonstrate the evil of you and your cause.

@Age Quod Agis

I was under the impression that many (if not most) intelligence services have been using it all along.

Then they are evil, simple as that. Those responsible should be executed.

@Age Quod Agis

That was the point I made earlier; if torture i totally ineffective then intelligence agencies wouldn’t even want to use it to gather intelligence. Are you suggesting that the US wants to use torture simply because we’re sadistic bastards?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting.

[wevets]

@Age Quod Agis

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.

If these circumstances are so limited and rare, why don’t we deal with them if they ever happen rather than dealing with the certainty of a public relations disaster by formally enshrining the ability to torture people in U.S. law?

I believe you when you say the race of the suspect is immaterial to you, but I don’t think it will be to members of the ethnic group/religion who will be recieving the torture. I’ll give you three guesses as to which single ethnic group/religion will recieve at least 90% of the torture under this policy.

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.

Yet it seems to happen anyway…

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.

Of all the various armed factions in Iraq, the only one advocating both a unified and a democratic Iraq are the Americans. Iraqis will not believe America is honestly advocating democratic principles in Iraq, and is in fact after something else (e.g. oil). Once Iraqis don’t believe we will offer them anything better than a variety of militia groups, they won’t see any reason to endure our presence. We’re not trying to convince terrorists here, we’re trying to convince the ‘average’ Iraqi who may be sitting on the fence.

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.

This is extremely naive - you seem to believe that the desire for democracy is more important than nationalism. Shall we count up the number of people in the Middle East that died for democracy vs. those that died for nationalism and see which was more effective at motivating people to violence?

If Iraqis see American troops as the moral equivalent of Iraqi guerrillas, they will side with the Iraqi guerrillas almost every time.

This would be a disaster for not only Iraq, but also for the entire Middle East.

[flight]

@Age Quod Agis

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.

I have never liked this argument. Cops still on occasion use psychics, does that mean that psychics are for real? People in power sometimes believe dumb things and employ useless techniques. The use of these techniques does not make them useful.