# Revisiting the Moral Highground: Torturing Terrorism Suspects in Afghanistan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2002, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973 "2002-12-26T15:27:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CLedet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b487fb/32.png) [@CLedet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CLedet)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/61 "2002-12-27T17:20:19Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I most certainly did not. Bin Laden’s a monster. But the US is in no position to pass itself off as the white hat in this scenario. This is what you wrote: > [@](#): > > The blood on the hands of bin Laden are faded stains compared to the blood on the hands of the US government and the US military from their involvement in the Middle East. And this gem: > [@](#): > > But what was 9/11? A completely unprovoked aggressive action, thereby relegating forever unto the US the role of defender? Or an admittedly horrific response to what can justifiably be called US aggression in the Middle East? The roles of defender and aggressor are nowhere near as clear as the current administration would like them to be. Again, the general tone of your posts gives the reader an idea of where you stand. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/62 "2002-12-27T17:54:51Z")
**CLedet** : Which is where? You’re telling me what I’ve said (which I don’t deny or repudiate), but you’re not telling me what you think that means. Are you incensed because I seem to support bin Laden over the United States or because I don’t think the United States has any sort of moral superiority? Where do I stand, in your analysis? **spoke-** : The ‘ticking bomb’ scenario is exactly the kind of abstract scenario that has no place in a discussion of a very real situation. God forbid anyone should actually decide to carry out such a plan, but if something like that _should_ happen, it won’t be as a result of such a clear-cut case (irrational hatred of the US) that the US would have any claim to absolute moral justification. Such an attack, like those of September 11, would be carried out because the attackers (rightly, IMO) view the US as an oppressor and see this as the only effective way to strike back. They won’t plant a bomb in NYC simply because 150 million women aren’t forced to wear the _burqa_ or because our leaders don’t force us to bow towards Mecca five times a day. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/63 "2002-12-27T18:55:11Z")
Ok, **Olentzero** , but I didn’t ask you whether the hypothetical terrorist attack might be justified. (You seem to think it might be.) I’m asking what you would do if you were in a position of authority in the scenario I described. Can you answer that question? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/64 "2002-12-27T19:05:43Z")
It’s an abstract scenario. It’s Frank Stockton’s “Lady and the Tiger.” If I say “Yes, torture him,” then you can say “Aha, so torture _is_ justifiable to you under certain circumstances, so your anti-torture sentiment doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.” If I say “No, don’t torture him,” then you can say “Nice going, you just sentenced the entire city of New York to a horrific, agonizing death.” I lose either way. I don’t play those games. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/65 "2002-12-27T19:09:34Z")
Don’t you people get the pattern yet? Morals, laws and treaties are to bash others around the head with. As soon as it is ‘not in America’s interest’ it all goes out the window. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/66 "2002-12-27T19:25:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > I don’t play those games. [Geddy Lee] If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. [/Geddy Lee] Me, I say it’s a morally acceptable choice to break out the cattle prods to prevent the ticking bomb from exploding, provided that you know the bomb exists and that there are no alternative means to prevent its explosion. Of course, such a situation is a far cry from what our government is doing to detainees at Baghram Air Base. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/67 "2002-12-27T19:27:31Z")
**minty green** - that’s as may be (re: Geddy Lee), but I still fail to see how contructing a straw man is any constructive way to conduct a debate. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/68 "2002-12-27T19:34:53Z")
It’s not a strawman–just an intellectual exercise, and one that bears little or no relationship to the actions described in the Post article. You can freely answer the hypothetical without fear of compromising your stance on the current activities of the U.S. government, since the situations are in no way comparable. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/69 "2002-12-27T19:42:05Z")
That’s exactly what a straw man is, **minty** - an illogical situation (e.g. one that bears little or no relationship to the real scenario under discussion) constructed solely to “prove” the untenability of an assertion or sentiment. They don’t move the debate around the issue forward - in fact, it’s nothing more than a distraction. IMO, a complete waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/70 "2002-12-27T19:51:09Z")
Actually, a strawman occurs when, instead of dealing with an opponent’s actual beliefs, the speaker attacks a different, but superficially similar argument. For example, I could attack you as being a supporter of Osama bin Laden instead of dealing with your actual belief that America has plenty of blood on its hands in re: the Islamic world. The ticking bomb scenario, at worst, is merely a rhetorical device for determining whether you really believe that torture is never acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/71 "2002-12-27T19:53:09Z")
The Socratic method, a complete waste of time? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/72 "2002-12-27T19:58:32Z")
If used properly, no it’s not. But my understanding of the Socratic method is the reverse of what’s going on here - the use of real-world, actually occurring, examples to expose the logical weaknesses in a person’s position. ---
**Author:** ![Alatariel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Alatariel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alatariel)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/73 "2002-12-27T19:58:57Z")
At what point between ticking bomb and prisoners at the base does torture become unacceptable? Is there a life ratio, say, if it’ll save 1 million lives, it should be used; but when you hit 100 the moral and social implications outweigh the lives that will be saved? Me? I take the easy stance, that it isn’t acceptable, period. I don’t trust that if it is acceptable, that the fact that it can be acceptable won’t be used to make the practice more and more common. Once you dehumanize the target, it’s not like you’re doing this to real person. On consideration, I also find the implication that medical personnell are cooperating to be disturbing; pain medication being withheld during questioning to a man shot in the groin, or sly comments that pain management is subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/74 "2002-12-27T20:06:42Z")
I’ll agree that the “ticking bomb” scenario represents the first step down a slippery slope. Which is why torture should remain illegal under all circumstances. Moral absolutism is a dangerous thing too, though. Leads to zealotry, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/75 "2002-12-27T20:08:09Z")
On checking a couple sources, I withdraw the accusation of “straw man”. It’s more of a false dichotomy, but still an unproductive intellectual exercise. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/76 "2002-12-27T20:14:41Z")
I don’t think _all_ causation of pain is inherently bad, which would be the moral absolutist position. Surgery causes pain, but its intent is to ameliorate or alleviate a condition - moreover, advances in medical science over the past century and a half has greatly reduced the amount of pain a patient is forced to endure while undergoing surgery. I have no objections whatsoever to surgery and medical practice. Torture, on the other hand, is the deliberate causation of pain to achieve a goal that is of direct benefit to the torturer - with no intent of pain relief being applied, unless eitiher the goal is met or it becomes part of the strategic plan to achieve that goal. This is what I object to, both strenuously and absolutely. It is not, however, moral absolutism. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/77 "2002-12-27T20:17:47Z")
It is neither a straw man nor a false dichotomy. It is, as **minty** said, a thought exercise desgned to make you think about whether you are truly an absolutist. It is not really important to me that you answer, only that you consider the question. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/78 "2002-12-27T21:21:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*No. In point of fact, you said this:You only started weaseling out of that after Alatriel posted the Convention definition, which the U.S. has agreed to. > > So, allow me to repeat: Do you now concede that “torture” includes the infliction of mental suffering, not only physical pain? Answer the question directly, please. > Yes, I see. Now, since as you point out that the Convention does not define “severe,” how 'bout you take a shot at it? Once again, please answer the question directly instead of dithering. > Bullshit. _None_ of the details reported by the Post have been officially confirmed, even the sleep deprivation that you assume to be true. In the complete absence of an official denial of the physical acts described, or contradictory information from other sources, you are simply picking and choosing the details you wish to believe for the convenience of your argument. > > By the way, your “Where are the indictments?” argument is fallacious in the extreme. Not only is there no mechanism for such indictments in the Convention, it assumes the existence of notice to a tribunal, an adequate time for investigation, the cooperation of the parties responsible for the torture, the identification of the torturers, etc., etc. > > Query: Nobody has ever been indicted for the death of Jon Benet Ramsey. Does that mean she was not murdered? \*\* 1. I have never conceded that the UN “definition” of torture is valid. It isn’t. It is meaningless in the extreme, so much so that nearly any punishment, or no punishment could be made to fit. Like all such BS UN rhetoric, it was made by a commitee who made it both weasle-worded & PC at the same time. The US did not “agree” to it- they signed it as a meaningless political gesture. I haven’t seen any of the dictionaries the Goverment uses changed to include that meaningless “definition”, nor will we ever. 2. Look to my first post. There I used a valid definition of “torture”, one that I agree with. Physical pain. Not annoyances- no matter how “severe”. I don’t need to define “severe” in the context of your meaningless UN defintion- that’s the whole point. They used a word that is so open, that even using the UN definition of “torture” one can argue that the things the US is being accused of are not “torture”- EVEN UNDER THAT DEFINITION. 3. Right- none of the details are confirmed- so why do you assume the US is guilty? If we can’t punish these “suspected terrorists” becuase “innocent until proven guilty”- why do you so happily condemn the US as guilty of torture? I was willing to concede the agents of the US used questioning methods that made the suspected terrorists uncomfortable. 4. Exactly- and there won’t be any. That resolution is toothless & meaningless. And, if Heads of State were to be convicted under it for “torture”- then most of the members who signed that thing would be rotting in jail cells long before they got to us. And another reason there won’t be any- the US did not commit any acts of “torture”. 5. Hmm, Jon Benet? OK, the poster who can come up with the most logical fallacies this last line comes under wins a prize. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/79 "2002-12-27T21:26:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*It is neither a straw man nor a false dichotomy. > > It is, as **minty** said, a thought exercise desgned to make you think about whether you are truly an absolutist. It is not really important to me that you answer, only that you consider the question. \*\* It does nothing, however, to further the course of this debate, and in fact distracts from the main theme of whether or not the US is somehow morally justified in the use of torture against Afghani prisoners for whatever goal it is they hope to achieve. ---
**Author:** ![Alatariel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Alatariel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alatariel)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/80 "2002-12-27T21:43:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*1. I have never conceded that the UN “definition” of torture is valid. It isn’t. It is meaningless in the extreme, so much so that nearly any punishment, or no punishment could be made to fit. Like all such BS UN rhetoric, it was made by a commitee who made it both weasle-worded & PC at the same time. The US did not “agree” to it- they signed it as a meaningless political gesture. I haven’t seen any of the dictionaries the Goverment uses changed to include that meaningless “definition”, nor will we ever. \*\* So, the US cannot be trusted to keep the agreements it signs? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\* > > 1. Right- none of the details are confirmed- so why do you assume the US is guilty? If we can’t punish these “suspected terrorists” becuase “innocent until proven guilty”- why do you so happily condemn the US as guilty of torture? I was willing to concede the agents of the US used questioning methods that made the suspected terrorists uncomfortable. \*\* For the purposes of this debate, I am saying that **if** the US is employing torture, it is in the wrong. ‘Uncomfortable’ is a very comfortable word. ‘They’re just _uncomfortable_, it’s not really _hurting_ them.’ At what point does uncomfortable turn into torture? That’s a subjective point. Possibly one for debate. However, the US has condemned beatings et al when employed by other nations as interrogation techniques. If the US is using them now, it is a hypocracy I will not support. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973.md?page=5)