# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/141 "2003-03-14T04:56:43Z")
**mg** , what part of: “Nowhere do I support torture as a viable tool for normal interrogation.” do you not understand? ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/142 "2003-03-14T05:06:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Yeah, whatever. Start your own thread on neural implants and ozonos. I’m asking you about torture, and you still refuse to give a straight answer. Oooooh, now there’s rational participation in a debate. Have you read anything at all about fMRI investigation? Anything at all? Try [these](http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlawperspectives/HealthPolicy/021231Functional.html) excerpts on for size: “When people gave truthful answers, the fMRI showed increased activity in parts of the brain related to vision and finger movement. When they lied, the same areas lit up, but so did additional areas including the anterior cingulated cortex, a section of the brain that has been linked to monitoring of errors and attention. Dr. Langleben concluded that the study showed “a neurophysiological difference between deception and truth at the brain activation level that can be detected with an fMRI.” Essentially, it took more mental energy to lie than to tell the truth.” “Nevertheless, in the near future, we may not only discover whether a person is being deceptive, but we could determine whether the deception was an on-the-spot fib or a premeditated lie. We will also be able to determine peoples deeply held contentions and beliefs. With advances in neurotechnology occurring at such a rapid pace, our legal system will soon be overwhelmed with new types of evidence that our current system has not been able to effectively handle. In fact, this new evidence may even alter our system of justice.” It took all of **0.22** seconds of Google searching to find this article. Surely you can find that much time to cogently participate in your own thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/143 "2003-03-14T06:53:22Z")
According to the [Independent](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604), American officials are admitting that two suspects died while under interrrogation: > [@](#): > > American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa’ida operatives. > > A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was “homicide”, contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism. > > The men’s death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from “blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease” while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a “blunt force injury”. In other words, they were beaten to death. If this is true, it’s greatly disturbing. We’re supposed to be the good guys, and good guys don’t torture people. Even if it means valuable information will go unlearned. If the United States is going to be the world’s sole hyperpower, and exercise that power around the world, then the burden is on it to be absolutely above reproach. There must be no Mai Lai’s. There must be no torture, and no extra-judicial killings. Do not give your enemies psychological and emotional ammunition to be used against you. The battle for the hearts and minds of the world is the most important one when you’re exercising unilateral power. Every single action the U.S. takes should be evaluated on moral grounds and found to be acceptable. As a Canadian, I know our own less-than-stellar record in this regard. Canadians are known as peaceful people, but this masks the fact that our military is one of the deadliest on the planet, man for man. Our entire airborne regiment was disbanded after it was discovered that they tortured a Somali to death in an interrogation. This was an over-reaction, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as the Airborne had a long, distinguished history. But certainly the men who did the torturing should have been punished severely. Civilized nations do not condone torture. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/144 "2003-03-14T13:21:06Z")
Psst, Sam? That’s the story that prompted me to revive this thread a week ago. 🙂 > [@](#): > > what part of: > > “Nowhere do I support torture as a viable tool for normal interrogation.” > > do you not understand? The part where you refuse to say AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN whether you support torture in any circumstances other than the classic ticking bomb scenario. Great, now you’ve eliminated “normal interrogation.” How 'bout everything else short of the ticking bomb? Sheesh, it ain’t that bloody complicated. Why do you insist on being so evasive about it? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/145 "2003-03-14T14:13:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Please immediately withdraw your assertion that I am attempting to rationalize torture. 😕 Your entire first post in this thread (3/13/03, 6:54am) was a lengthy and passionate exposition of the (to you) unprecedented horror of modern terrorism, how it must change our understanding of the moral equations for the sake of the greater good, fighting “fire with fire in ways we have never before… considered.” You single out terrorists as having by their actions “forfeit[ed] their right to humane treatment”, while giving us the moral dispensation that’s been used countless times in defense of the indefensible: “How we treat [_x_ class of criminals] does not entirely reflect upon our society as a whole.” The fact that you closed your post with hand-wringing about the difficulty of knowing _which_ terrorist it might be productive to torture doesn’t detract from your central message. Which is a rationalization for the situational use of torture. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/146 "2003-03-14T14:57:22Z")
Oops. I guess I missed that, Minty. In any event, it looks like we’ve found something we both agree on. ---
**Author:** ![McDuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@McDuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDuff)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/147 "2003-03-14T18:47:36Z")
First things first. **Shodan** , I’m not really interested in whether or not the CIA has used or condoned torture in the past at this precise moment in time. **xenophon41** summed it up pretty well. Let’s say this: at the moment, I have a suspicion that they did, and the existence of evidence like declassified manuals on how to torture people makes me veer towards believing this more positively. On the other hand, the fact that it’s hard to get any information at all on the subject reinforces my original point that I’m unlikely to get information relating to a complex and detailed scientific study of the information-gathering abilities of torture. If you would like me to spend a great deal of time and study the CIA’s historical attitude towards torture, I’ll be happy to do so, but give me a month in which to do it, won’t you? Now, onwards towards **Zenster** \> > [@](#): > > Yes, 9-11 has ushered in an era where a terrorist nuclear attack, not a military one, is now a distinct possibility. No it didn’t. A terrorist nuclear attack has been a distinct possibility since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, at the very least. Given the state of the Soviet army in its later years, there was a very good chance that nuclear warheads were available, for a price, before then. Nothing changed in September 11, other than the fact that the population of the USA, as a whole, got more scared about all the potential bad things that could happen to them. > [@](#): > > I am not so much attempting to dispute your own eloquent stand as to point out that the stakes are now much higher than ever before in history. Previously, malefactors like al Qaeda could not possibly promote the level of destruction currently available to them. Now they can and actively seek to do so. Do you recall, by any chance, the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you recall the Lockerbie bombing? As I said before, the possibility of terrorists getting hold of nuclear warheads is something we in Europe, especially given our geographic closeness to the fallen Soviet Union, have lived with for a long long time now. So far, the attacks have not been nuclear, they have been with Semtex, fertiliser, dynamite and AK-47s. If you want to claim a “paradigm shift,” you could make a semblance of a case for it happening gradually between 1960 and 1991, but one has certainly not happened in the last ten years, no matter how much US-Centric thinking would claim it has. > [@](#): > > The Bali bombing has been said to cost Indonesia ~$1,000,000,000 in lost tourist revenue already. This is an interesting statement. Let’s look at it, shall we. [CIA World Factbook entry on Indonesia](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/id.html) GDP - $687Bn (assuming we’re working on the US Bn at 10^9, 687,000,000,000). A loss of 1Bn from that would be bad, yes, but hardly catastrophic. It seems that Indonesia’s economic makeup is 42% services, with tourism having far less of an influence on its economy than the various petrochemical and manufacturing industries. A story [here](http://www.indo.com/indonesia/news152.html) contains the following data: > [@](#): > > the number of tourist arrivals in Bali dropped to 84,668 per month in the fourth quarter of 2001 from the previous 139,036 per month That is to say, the revenue for Bali itself was down approximately 40% in the final three months of the year, although it looks to be ]url=http://www.indo.com/indonesia/news152.html]recovering now, and the Bali bombing is [hardly the least of Indonesia’s problems](http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/01/1036027036733.html). From the CIAWFB again: > [@](#): > > faces severe economic development problems, stemming from secessionist movements and the low level of security in the regions, the lack of reliable legal recourse in contract disputes, corruption, weaknesses in the banking system, and strained relations with the IMF. Indeed, it seems that, supposing we take this 1Bn decrease as accurate, to blame it on “the Bali bomb” is disingenuous at best. Looking at the circumstances surrounding Bali and Indonesia as a whole, I find it hard to believe that this is an example of a “Paradigm Shift,” when its roots are planted firmly in the type of seccessionist terrorism that we have known and loved in Ireland and Spain and Italy and France for many years now. > [@](#): > > I find it intensely ironic that you juxtapose “terrorist” with “heretic.” Remember, the rest of civilization is viewed as heretics by these fundamentalist Muslim fanatics. You want to know what “irony” is? Try reading what I said again, then consider how you responded to it. _THAT_, my friend, is irony. > [@](#): > > The pervasive global detriment to progress that modern terrorism represents is a wholly new phenomenon. That so few can affect so many was one of my major points. No, it’s not. What might be considered to be “new”, inasmuch as it has emerged over a period of time beginning in the late 19th century and developing over the 20th, is that the “few” are not necessarily all rich now. But Al Qua’ida hardly fits that mould, does it? We’ve had people inheriting wealth and using it to raise armies with which to invade other countries for at least 3,000 years now. Their methods haven’t always been the same, but Al Qua’ida are operating under the same old idea that William the Conqueror and Augustus Caesar had and, indeed, that is still prevalent among the Neocons and Old Imperialists of the USA and the UK. > [@](#): > > Yes, we are all obliged to lead by example but those who seek to deceive whilst marching under false colors and swaddling themselves in religious sanctimony represent a dire threat to us all. How do you propose to fight them? Well, I marched against one set of liars in London not so long ago, and I’ve written to Tony Blair (my MP as well as my PM) asking him to explain quite how his moralistic sanctimony isn’t a deception when it has no discernible relevance to his actions, but I assume that that’s not what you’re talking about here. Oh how easy it is to find the mote in the other’s eye, eh? How does one fight terrorism, without torture, eh? What a tough, harsh question to answer. Except not. Let me refer back to something I said above: “Our enemies are our enemies because of what they do, not because of who they are. So if we do what they do, that means we become our enemies, so that even if we win, our enemies beat us.” I stand by that. A “victory” over terrorism won be resorting to torture is no victory at all. And as to how we fight them? Well, I particularly like the methods which we’ve shown to be fairly effective in the past. We eradicate terrorism by alienating the extremists from the populations they claim to represent, or, rather, by allowing them to alienate themselves. Terrorism **cannot** be countered by attacking and killing terrorists or those suspected of terrorism - its nature is such that these actions only add fuel to the fire. On the other hand, terrorism can be limted and contained by giving populations who previously had a vested interest in joining terrorist groups a vested interest in maintaining society and order - ie, not joining terrorist groups. Let me give you an example. There is a gentlemen in London known as Abu Hamza. He is an inflammatory sort, tending to preach that it is the duty of every young Muslin to sacrifice his life by killing Christians etc etc. We haven’t arrested or deported him, and I don’t believe we ever will, simply because it is much safer to have him wandering around claiming that westerners are Evil to people who can see, just by looking out of the window, that for all our faults the man is obviously off his rocker, than to have him in Palestine or Afghanistan, where the obviousness of his delusional ranting is not as apparent, and, indeed, can make a great deal of sense to people. Abu Hamza’s own Mosque recently told him he couldn’t preach there because he was giving it a bad name. The man is alienating himself, and we haven’t had to torture him, or even arrest him, to get him to do it. We let him expose himself as a crazy nutjob, and most of the population see more benefit for themselves in ignoring him than buying his rhetoric, with the result that he has about seven mad people and a dog who believe what he says, and we know who they all are, and they can’t do any physical damage. So how do we fight terrorism in other parts of the world? We let people know that supporting us will be better for them than supporting the fanatics, and I don’t mean threatening them militarily. I mean not reneging on our promises. I mean supporting them with trade and supporting the development of democracy in their countries. The Arabic speaking world is [by no means backwards or archaic](http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,913002,00.html), but it has been made to appear so by Western-centric involvement. I by no means support backing away and leaving the region entirely, but I do support approaching them with greater flexibility and understanding that “different” does not equal “bad”, so that we can work with them to develop their nations and economies in ways that suit everyone. Terrorists are not beaten with concessions or with opression, they are beaten with bread on the tables of the hungry and the voices of the powerless being listened to without them having to kill someone to be heard. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/148 "2003-03-14T23:34:19Z")
I’ll share with you a post I made right after 9-11. Since then I have gained even greater confidence that technology may allow us to gather the intelligence that torture might not. I find it curious that none of you have responded to my suggestion that brain scans and other technology may obselete any application of torture. As a devout capitalist, I firmly believe that prosperity and education are the best solutions to combating disenfranchisement and aggression. I still maintain that there may not be sufficient time to rely upon them as the sole means of doing so. I believe that torture is wrong. A recent thread discussing the possibility of torturing terrorist’s children utterly revolted me. One of the only things that revolts me more than the idea of torture is the prospect of mega-deaths occurring at the hands of terrorist scum. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > **Tamerlane** , I will share with you a detail about my composition of the OP. At the outset of writing it I was all set to advocate torturing terrorists as _some_ sort of deterrent to their heinous acts. As I wrote the OP and walked through the details of the entire mess, I too came (again) to the realization that it was just plain morally reprehensible. I could not bring myself to bang the drum for such a measure, even against such scum as terrorists. I agree with you that if our free society is able to devolve back to methods of the Inquisition then we may as well abandon all progress and return to the caves we once inhabited. > > That said, I still hope that there is some way for us to discourage and (preferably) pre-empt terrorism. I feel that it is critical to our world’s survival. The lack of restraint that Al-qaeda and maggots like bin Laden exhibit with their callous disregard for human life knows no bounds. The (however remote) possibility of these b@stards starting a nuclear war or even just instigating a single nuclear attack is so ghastly that they _must be stopped_. I am not talking about a long term plan to bring peace to the Middle East, I’m talking about here, now and today. We must find a way to destroy these maniacs and it may well involve unheard of measures to neutralize the further possibility of unheard of atrocities like that which occurred in New York. > > I am wholly unable to accept anything less than the complete dismantling of all terrorist networks. Large, small and in between, we need to root them out and make the penalty for such conduct so harsh as to permanently discourage those who would consider it. As to how one humanely goes about combating inhumanity on a previously unknown scale, I would like to know. I do not see much alternative to some form of brutality as a method to do so. Again, we return to the issue of abandoning all of the strides towards civilization made in the past centuries. > > If we allow the terrorists to operate with even the slightest degree of impunity, they have won. If we for any reason give up our relentless prosecution of the terrorists, they have won. If we surrender our hard earned civil liberties in the name of assailing them, they have won. There are so few avenues towards any sort of sure victory against these scum that I can only desire a complete obliteration of terrorists throughout the world. Their intentional redirection of all that is sacred to modern society against itself is so despicable as to make me wish slow death upon them all. This is the principal reason for this thread. As civilized human beings (a term more than a few people are probably unwilling to apply to me) it is incumbent upon us to find a path out of this labyrinth. The minotaur awaits our failure to do this and I cannot sit by idly and risk squandering the few chances we might have. > > It is far too easy, and (as **Collounsbury** has so ably pointed out) deadly wrong for us to fault ourselves over the degenerate and corrupt socioeconomic structures that were imbedded in the Middle East long before America was _even discovered_. > > * * * > > [Special Note: **Collunsbury** did dispute some of the above statement and its content should not be attributed to him.] > > * * * > > There has been bred up an intolerant monster swaddled in the robes of devout religiosity that has no holds barred in its attempts to revert all of modern society back to their stone age mentality. This cannot be permitted to happen. The short term risks are too vast to permit us to take a strictly long term view. There must be measures put in place that serve as the strongest possible disincentive to such a reversal of our world’s current advances. > > If countries are unwilling to advance themselves past such barbarity they may need to be stripped of their right to rule. America may find itself an unwilling possessor of the club needed to bludgeon the uncooperative into line. Our might and military prowess automatically nominate us for this loathsome chore. How can we abdicate this monumental responsibility? I firmly believe this board has the collective brainpower to sort out this onerous task. The fact that so few have stepped up to the plate in this thread is disheartening to say the least. > > I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for both your’s and **Collounsbury** ’s responses to this call for ideas. This is not to dismiss the reasonable and decent attempts made by other posters here, but it is with keen appreciation for the critical insights that you and **Collounsbury** are able to provide that I focus upon the two of yours’ efforts. A full fledged knowledge of the motivational structure underlying the mindset of those we are pitted against will be required in order to defeat their cruel aims. That you two are willing to direct your energies towards that end is something I am intensely grateful for. ---
**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:** [March 15, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/149 "2003-03-15T00:32:50Z")
Keep on dancin’, Z. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/150 "2003-03-15T07:47:44Z")
I refer you to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=169811) thread. Do not think that I am jesting. ---
**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:** [March 15, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/151 "2003-03-15T18:11:16Z")
So, you refuse to answer the question? How lame. ---
**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:** [March 15, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/152 "2003-03-15T18:14:20Z")
BTW, this statement in the other thread is priceless: > [@](#): > > Face the question squarely. :wally ---
**Author:** ![McDuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@McDuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDuff)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973/153 "2003-03-15T23:17:33Z")
Oh dear. You want an opinion on CAT scans and the like? Go for it. As long as you can actually prove that they work and that their weight as evidence is given in proportion to the amount that they work (ie, if they work 85% of the time, jurors should know this when being asked to consider evidence which relies on CAT scans, meaning it should not be the only evidence presented), as long as you can operate a system within the boundaries enshrined in the constitution and/or the ECHR and/or the Geneva Convention, then _by all means_, go for it. But given that we’re actually talking about torture, I have to ask, whafu…? What the hell kind of point is this supposed to make? “Look, we have new technology which means we don’t have to torture people any more… but here’s why I think we should still torture people!” That’s almost amusing, in a “cognitive dissonance” kind of way. With regards your other thread, I’ll take it seriously when you explain how my answer to an _impossible_ situation has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisiting-the-moral-highground-torturing-terrorism-suspects-in-afghanistan/144973.md?page=7)