Nice that Jesse Ventura has found his balls, but this courageous display of integrity might have been a bit more helpful back during the period when we first learned the Bush Administration was torturing people. You know, back when those of us who have always opposed torture were being called every name in the book, it would have been nice to have an additional ex-Navy Seal/Conservative on our team. Especially as the only other person in Congress with any personal experience with the subject seems to have sacrificed his to political expediency.
Whack-A-Mole
In re: Your ‘New Yorker’ cite.
Interesting stuff. I suppose, if it’s the considered opinion of field experts that torture would be counterproductive even in ‘ticking bomb’ circumstances, I should revise my opinion accordingly.
Here’s a more interesting, ethics based question. If you were in charge, would you consider it moral to torture the terrorist if you knew, with 100% certainty, that he would quickly give up the location of the bomb? Assume, just for the sake of argument, that all the alternatives have already been exhausted.
Well, I pictured the conversation going a bit more like this:
“Achmed, here’s one billion dollars. Now tell me where the bomb is.”
“Okay. It’s on 183rd street”
You send cops to 183rd street. While they’re getting there you decide to see if Achmed’s bullshitting you. You burst back in with a pair of jump leads and say…
“The cops turned the place over. There’s nothing there. Hook up the battery!”
Now, if Achmed was lying the first time, he would probably switch to another location. If, however, he’s telling the truth he’s going to want to be believed, not least because he still has his eye on that cash. If he persists in telling you that the bomb is on 183rd street then you can be more confident that it is actually there. If, however, he switches to another location then you (a) have ruled out bribery as an effective strategy, and (b) ruled out 183rd street as a potential location. Still, in light of Whack-A-Mole’s latest post this is all something of a moot point.
I’m prepared to admit I was wrong, but not because of the reasons you’ve provided. I certainly don’t have to accept your sanctimony. Frankly, while others (notably Whack-A-Mole and Lemur866) have undermined my initial suppositions with compelling arguments, you haven’t contributed anything remotely persuasive. In fact, the cite you’re waving around like a victory banner is something of a non-sequitur in the context of this thread.
We were given a very specific scenario by the OP. A terrorist is in custody. He has planted a nuclear weapon somewhere in a large city, set to explode in 60 minutes. The last thing we need, when debating the efficacy of torture in this situation, is a cite to show such scenario’s don’t generally occur in real life. Well no shit! What a fucking revelation. I, for one, didn’t respond to you because you don’t really have anything relevant to say.
Cool, thanks. The inefficacy of torture was why the FBI people left Guantanamo when the torture started. They knew that “Alpha Male bullshit” didn’t work, was counter-productive, and would stain their reputations if they got any on them.
Sorry, but I’m not interested in hypothetical arguments that are fundamentally impossible. There is no way to know “with 100% certainty” any such thing. Accepting your hypothetical is neither particularly interesting, or morally acceptable.
One part of my cite was about how such things don’t happen in the real world. The other part is about how, even in a real situation, with real bombs planted by real Muslim extremists, it wasn’t necessary and would have been counter-productive.
Your position is like that old saw:
“Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Yes? Well then, would you sleep with me for $20. What do I think you are? We’ve already established that, now we’re negotiating.”
Trying to be an ex-torturer is like trying to become a virgin again. Torture poisons a nation, you risk becoming what your enemies claim you are and you’ll never regain that innocence.
By the way, the New Yorker cite was Weston’s.
If you knew with 100% certainty that torture would work (and nothing else was so certain)? In that fantasy land I would say that the moral action would be to do the torture, save the lives, and then insist that you be tried in court for the crime of torture and take at least the minimum assigned legal punishment.
Lest this sound like a concession, I will add that if you have a magical 100% certainty that putting on a tutu and doing a little dance would get the bomb defused, you should do that. But in the real world, (and the given hypothetical scenario) neither ballet nor torture is 100% certainly effective in short time periods.
Let’s look at this by cases:
Case 1: Achmed was accomodating (and/or greedy) and told the truth. Your policemen will find the bomb at 183rd street regardless of what you do after they left to go check. So, aside from unnecessary certainty, you gain nothing from the torture. Well, nothing good anyway.
Case 2: Achmed was stalwart and lying. Your policemen will not find the bomb at 183rd street. And now that you’re torturing, we’re back to the basic scenario - all Achmed has to do is keep lying for another 55 minutes (or however long it is until it’s too late to send another search team) and he’s got you.
Clearly you shouldn’t let Achmed leave with the bribe until you’re sure he wasn’t lying - but you can achieve that just by waiting for the bomb to explode or be found. Torture isn’t necessary to learn that.
Moral?
I do not know. I am very uncomfortable with an ends justifies the means basis for decision making. This would take a lot of thought on my part.
That said, given your premise, I’d light the bunsen burner and torch his balls with only a moment’s hesitation (assuming we are averting a nuke in New York).
I would have a hard time living with myself torturing the guy. I couldn’t live with myself if I knew I could save hundreds of thousands of people and did nothing.
Well, while not “a lot of thought” I came up with this on the way home.
It is no argument for the morality of this on my part, indeed I am passing the buck here.
I’d say make torture unequivocally against the law (by which I mean more explicit than the fun redefining of the law we have under Bush).
If I find myself in a situation as posed and I torture someone to stop a nuke I should be prosecuted for it. From there let a jury of my peers sort it out.
Honestly I cannot imagine someone who saved New York from being nuked ever getting convicted as the premise was given.
Still, I think this is important. The premise took an absurd extreme (could never really work out like that). What it seeks to establish though is that it is ok to torture in some circumstances. Now we are on the slippery slope big time. How far can we step back into less and less extreme circumstances and still say it is worthwhile to torture someone?
As such my instinct tells me the best we can do is, as said, make it illegal with no ifs, ands or buts about it. If anyone finds themself in a position where they think torture is necessary they need to weigh it against getting busted for it. Save New York from a nuke? Willing to bet you get a Presidential pardon for it. Torture 10 guys to find out nothing? Willing to bet you get to see the inside of a jail up close and personal for a long time.
Agreed, totally. As Pratchett put it : “Look, that’s why there are rules : so that you *think *before you break them”.
And also agreed on the slippery slope - I’m sure anyone can come up with similarly absurd and convoluted Hollywood-style ticking time bomb scenarios in domestic matters, without even pulling the domestic terrorist card :
“We caught the kidnapper, but not his victim, who’s going to die of starvation in 6 hours, torture the bad guy !”.
“The perp threw the crime weapon away, and a kid is going to stumble upon it and shoot himself in the head with it in 6 hours, torture him !”
And from then :
“The murderer won’t tell where he hid the bodies, the families need closure NOW, torture him !”
"Suspect won’t count the votes right, tortu… wait, no, maybe not that one 
But you see the point.
OK, in that situation, I’d use my telepathic powers to determine where the bomb is, then fly there at twice the speed of light, and throw the bomb into a black hole, no torture needed. In every single situation where your premise is true, it is also true that I have all of those superpowers.
I’m just glad we have you on our side.
We do, don’t we?
I think this is on topic:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30745139#30726062
FBI undercover operative talking about how “enhanced interrogation” is worthless, slow and counterproductive.
He also mentions that using conventional techniques he was able to get actionable intelligence within an hour.