# 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:** 5
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/81 "2002-12-27T21:55:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alatariel \* > > * * * > > So, the US cannot be trusted to keep the agreements it signs? > \*\* > > For the purposes of this debate, I am saying that **if** is … If the US… . \*\* Was the agreement ratified by Congress? Ifso, then sure- as far as they have meaning. Right now, under that meaningless “definition” the US can be said to be 100% in compliance- or completely & repeatedly in violation. To quote: _IF_!!! _IF_ Aardvarks had wings- would they be birds?:rolleyes: ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/82 "2002-12-27T22:06:48Z")
Damn, I was hoping somebody who could at least manage to take a consistent, rational position would show up to take the side of the U.S. government in this one. Instead, we get DrDeth, who: [ul][li]Adheres to varying definitions of “torture,” depending upon whichever is convenient for making a pointless nitpick at whoever he’s addressing.[/li][li]Dismisses the United States’ agreed-to commitments under international law as “a meaningless political gesture.”[/li][li]Refuses on at least three separate occasions to define the word on which his entire argument relies: _severe_.[/li][li]Assumes that elements of the Post story are true, until it is pointed out that some of those elements rebut his arguments, at which point he comes back with the witty rejoinder that “none of the details are confirmed.” As if he expects John Ashcroft to release videotape of the beatings and other assorted mechanisms of torture.[/li][li]Whines that “If there’s torture, where are the indictments?” but proves impervious to a demonstration of the lunacy behind the complaint by way of the unindicted murder of Jon Benet Ramsey.[/ul][/li]Pathetic stuff, really. Does anybody else want to step up to the plate in defense of the government’s apparent actions? 'Cause if I agreed with those actions, I know I wouldn’t want to be associated with arguments as transparently dumb as these. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/83 "2002-12-27T22:10:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*Was the agreement ratified by Congress? Ifso, then sure- as far as they have meaning. Right now, under that meaningless “definition” the US can be said to be 100% in compliance- or completely & repeatedly in violation. > > To quote: _IF_!!! > > _IF_ Aardvarks had wings- would they be birds?:rolleyes: \*\* Treaty number 100-20, signed by the president in 1988, ratified by the Senate in 1994. This is the ratification of the previously mentioned UN Convention. I recommend Thomas (the search engine on the US Senate site) if you wish to check me. Now then, the if I was discussing has nothing to do with aadvarks. It does have to do with the possibility that the US is in violation of a treaty it signed. A more pertinent question would be where you draw the line between ‘uncomfortable’ and torture. Beatings, sleep deprivation, and confinement in pain inducing cells constitutes torture for me. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/84 "2002-12-27T22:12:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > Was the agreement ratified by Congress? Yes. > [@](#): > > The Convention Against Torture was open for signature on February 4, 1985, signed by the United States on April 18, 1998, and ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 27, 1990. U.S. obligations under the treaty have been in effect since November 20, 1994, when the President deposited the ratification with the UN secretary general. Congress passed the legislation executing the Convention Against Torture on October 19, 1998. The President signed the Convention Against Torture on October 21, making it U.S. law. It is binding on all government officials and in all legal proceedings related to removal. [http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/asylum\_rr99\_3.htm](http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/asylum_rr99_3.htm) ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/85 "2002-12-27T22:46:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\*[The “ticking bomb” hypothetical] 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. \*\* Look, **Olentzero** , you jumped into the debate with this statement: > [@](#): > > There is absolutely no moral or ethical justification for torture. It is your absolutist position that “does nothing to further the course of this debate,” inasmuch as it allows for no debate whatsoever. I am trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to meditate on whether such a position is morally sustainable under all conceivable circumstances. You, however, seem incapable of seeing the world in any hue that is not black or white. Absolutism is dangerous. People who see the world in absolute moral terms have a nasty habit of joining fanatical religious movements (like the Libertarian Party). We can all agree (well, most of us posters can agree) that the situation described in the OP is deplorable. But let’s come to that conclusion _logically_. ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/86 "2002-12-27T22:50:10Z")
Again= I have agreed upon exactly one definition of torture. One. Physical pain. Ferthesakeofarguement only, I was debating the other. I have made this very clear. My arguement doesn’t rely on the definition of the word “severe”- yours does. I could care less what the word means in a meaningless context. My arguement was that since the word “severe” is NOT defined, the UN definition is meaningless PC feel-good polito-babble. Define the word “meaningless” for me, please. Again- if you can define “torture” (or any word) however you want- then it becomes meaningless. Of course- if I DO define “severe” as “unsparing & harsh”- then you’ll want me to define “harsh”… which is defined as “extremely severe”. Which goes back to “severe”. Don’t you own a dictionary? Can I just provide a link to an online dictionary so you’ll stop bothering me? (Define “bother”). The elements I assumed do not rebut my points. I assumed “stress” not beatings. And yes- _IF_ the US was engaging in torture that would be wrong. But it isn’t. So- the big point is _IF_. I can also say, and we can debate “if Aardvarks have wings, then they’d be birds”. But they don’t. See, first I’d have to show winged aardvarks. So- you have to prove “torture” by US agents. And you can’t & haven’t. Now, since that treaty has been ratified by the Senate- it becomes US law- so bring suit, then. Go ahead. If you win, I’ll admit I was wrong. There is exactly 0 chance of you winning, and about that of you putting your money where your mouth is and bringing suit. Or don’t your convictions really mean anything? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/87 "2002-12-27T23:40:11Z")
A great semantic quibbler has given us a fine performance, but we are nowhere closer to addressing the real issue: the morality of what the U.S is doing with terrorism suspects. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/88 "2002-12-28T01:49:18Z")
There’s another thing to keep in mind here. I don’t know how many of you caught this, but some of the Gitmo detainees are to be released because, point of fact, they are entirely innocent. Just some ignorant goat farmers, wrong place, wrongest possible time. If it were our policy to torture these in order to obtain information, we might very well be torturing innocent men. Thier stories and alibis would be identical to those who are, in fact, guilty: they would claim ignorance, and they would be telling the truth. Having nothing to give thier tormentor, no information to surrender, they would be presumed to be stubborn. With predictable results. Torture is strategicly weak. As well as, of course, being utterly reprehensible. Did I say _utterly_? Would that I had a stronger word. ---
**Author:** ![Ten\_to\_Twelve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Ten\_to\_Twelve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ten_to_Twelve)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/89 "2002-12-28T02:11:52Z")
I have been reading SDMB for about four years now, and until now I have never felt the need to respond to anything said. However, in this case I feel I must say something. If torture is only causing physical pain, and therefore sleep deprivation falls outside of this definition, consider that denying a prisoner food or water under any definition, political regime etc. could be considered nothing but torture. Without food and water, one dies. Without sleep, one dies. It is denying someone a basic human necessity. I can think of no situations where any just body which is holding prisoners can justifiably deny them the basic human considerations of life. In addition, (this may be a little out there but bear with me), the torturing of prisoners by the US is like the Jocks at Columbine HS going into the chess club or whatever and roughing up the “nerds” in order to prevent another horrible violent event. It is not a good business practice in any way, shape or form. 1150 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/90 "2002-12-28T03:20:56Z")
Four years? _Four years!_ and then post #1? You are one strange buckaroo. Oh, yeah, welcome and all that. ---
**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 28, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/91 "2002-12-28T03:22:44Z")
Welcome to the SDMB, and thanks for making this your first thread! **luce’** , where did you see that we’re actually set to release some of the Gitmo detainees? Last I saw, they were even refusing to release the 80-year-old Alzheimer’s patient. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/92 "2002-12-28T03:56:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\* > I am trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to meditate on whether such a position is morally sustainable under all conceivable circumstances. You, however, seem incapable of seeing the world in any hue that is not black or white. > > Absolutism is dangerous. People who see the world in absolute moral terms have a nasty habit of joining fanatical religious movements \*\* My experience is that OZ does think in black and white, and really dosen’t care to defend it. I repeatedly and politely asked him to clarify his stated beliefs a few months ago because I wanted to understand them. What I got back was truisms and a refusal to do so. I persisted. He insited that I could “search for it on the boards”. I did and couldn’t find anything, to which he responded “I’m not going to get into it again”. I gave up. Pity, really, because I had some specific questions and was hoping for answers, not knee jerk defensiveness. I think the answer to your question is going to dpend on the point he’s trying to make at the time. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/93 "2002-12-28T03:59:02Z")
Most likely _New York Times_. I pick it up bus-stopping most every day, kind of habituated. Pretty sure, come to think of it, sometime this last week or so. Wasn’t a big number, but there were some that the interrogators had realized were of no “significant intelligence potential.” (Love the way they talk. Its like an amazingly lifeless poetry) **DDG** , you out there? You’re the Googlemeister, and I’m too lazy. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/94 "2002-12-28T04:53:31Z")
Rather than a debate on the semantic qualifications of ‘torture,’ I perceived the query to be related to, “Is this justifiable?” Let me construct a scenario: US Spec Ops in Afghanistan capture a high ranking Al Qaeda operative. After a month of interrogation, he still remains silent. Intelligence discoveries reveal that this man may have knowledge of an impending massive terrorist attack planned for later in the year. This suspect may know the people, the plan, the safehouses, etc. However, he won’t talk. Would using some of the afformentioned techniques be justifiable? Would putting him in a room of bright lights for more than 24 hours straight be OK, so long as it was used to obstract information that could save hundreds of lives? As a personal input of mine, the so-called “softening up” techniques are sickening. I don’t support, nor condemn, the techniques that involve standing and lighting. While nothing pleasant, I think its justification may vary on a case to case basis. However, it remains a subject I’m divided with myself on. I apologize, **minty** , if this is too far a tangent from what you originally intended. ---
**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 28, 2002, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/95 "2002-12-28T06:11:58Z")
Isn’t that just the ticking bomb scenario? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/96 "2002-12-28T06:18:44Z")
**Weirddave** , might I ask what you thought such a post might achieve here? It didn’t really seem necessary. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by spoke-_ > **We can all agree (well, most of us posters can agree) that the situation described in the OP is deplorable. But let’s come to that conclusion logically.** I agree wholeheartedly! But how do we arrive at that position by finding “situations” where an individual’s opposition to torture could be called into question? I’m not trying to quash debate, but I certainly don’t see the point of considering a question that has very little bearing on the subject at hand, to say nothing of reality. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/97 "2002-12-28T06:42:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Isn’t that just the ticking bomb scenario? \*\* Honestly, I’m not too familiar with the ticking bomb scenario, but now that I reread previous threads I think it is. Heh. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/98 "2002-12-28T09:10:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*[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. \*\* This puzzles me. How would you ‘know’ the bomb existed, as opposed to reasonably suspecting that it exists? And how would you know the person being tortured actually has the information you seek? Is that covered in the scenario? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/99 "2002-12-28T12:10:55Z")
So morality is fine and well so long as it benefits us, but when it means paying a price morality goes out the window? So where does the acceptability stop? Suppose we know torturing a certain man will not accomplish as much as torturing his family in his presence. Is it still OK to do it if it will save enough lives? How about just punishing and terrorising his town or his country? If you say effectiveness comes before morality, then you have just described the best justification for terrorism. America has decided to descend to that level? Countries that resort to this barbaric conduct end up paying a very high price. Ask the people of Argentina or Chile. The entire country is marked by the attrocities they committed. The victims as much as the perpetrators. I hope I never have to live in a culture which would condone the use of torture, ever. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/100 "2002-12-28T15:14:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\*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. \*\* Can you clarify something for me? Does “rightly, IMO” in your statement apply both to the view of the U.S. as an oppressor and to the attack on the WTC as an effective means of striking back? That’s the way it reads to me. Thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973.md?page=6)