Yes, I should have put it better. One of the main reasons I find torture abhorrent is that innocent people will suffer. I don’t consider a payment afterwards sufficient compensation.
I also find the use of the phrases ‘law enforcement’ and ‘torture’ incompatible in a civilised society.
My point is once you decide that certain people deserve lesser standards (“these suspects are probably terrorists - let’s torture them”), you have started a moral decline that leads to the sort of appalling behaviour described above.
I think you massively underestimate the passions aroused by the statement above.
I think you have no idea of how people in other societies view the US.
I think you know little about terrorism in Europe.
I think from a purely pragmatic standpoint that physical torture isn’t very useful.
I guess if you’re looking for specific information, and you have several different subjects, you can use the double blind method to ensure that you don’t get told merely what you want to here. If you have well-trained torturers you could also hopefully ensure that they don’t lead the witness so to speak.
Even so, I’m not sure how much credence you can put in information received under duress.
I imagine that a trained interrogator is much better at extracting information through psychological manipulation than physical torture.
I don’t really think you can consider truth serum a form of torture, but that’s a whole different can of worms.
A civilized society doesn’t engage in torture, IMO.
Most of the responses to my post have, unsurprisingly, selectively misrepresented my argument.
For once, IzzyR, I think we are in complete agreement. When the goal of the interrogation is to extort a confession, be it 1692 Salem or 1492 Spain, torture is manifestly useful. There is only so much an ordinary person can endure thumbscrews, the rack, the wheel, or any of the other inventive mechanisms developed for the purpose of information extraction.
But neither IzzyR nor I are particularly interested in confessions. We are not trying to save the terrorists time in Purgatory by inflicting earthly pain on them now.
To prevent further mischaracterization of my argument, I would repeat my first sentence:
Just because I think an appeal to pragmatism is a poor argument does not mean that I endorse torture. In no universe does ~P necessarily equal Q.
I agree with Izzy completely.
Steve Wright
I am surprised someone as intelligent as you are would address my claim so superficially.
Or you apply pain until you are satisfied that he is answering the question to the best of his ability. Do recall that torture is not terribly effective absent a certain amount of existing evidence. Moral reasons aside, I would not advocate pulling a random person off the street and torturing him until he admits he is a terrorist. Any confession or prediction of future events simply cannot be verified in any way.
Part of the psychological appeal of torture is the fear that the torturers know something that the client doesn’t, and are hence leading him and leading him to give a false answer, whereupon they can inflict yet more pain on account of his dishonesty. So the client can fabricate whatever stories he wants, but the fact is, he will never know exactly what dirt his torturers have on him. If they have no dirt at all, and he is essentially a random man on the street, then they have no business excruciating him.
Perhaps you need to read my post more carefully before imputing these kinds of things. ~P != Q
Unless Wildest Bill has just been reincarnated, I’m finding it difficult to believe that we are even having a discussion about the use of torture here in America.
Um, the answer is “No”. No, we should not use torture. Not now, not ever.
I don’t understand how you can make a distinction here. You say that Increase Mather and the boys were already convinced, and weren’t really seeking the truth. That might well have been the case. But there are no guarantees that these hypothetical US torturers would be any different. Apart from the issue of how to determine the veracity of coerced statements, which I believe you have not yet adequately addressed, there remains the issue of personal biases. If our CIA torturers have reason to believe that Ahmed Doe is an al Qaeda lieutenant, and therefore must know X, Y, and Z pieces of information, then Ahmed willl be tortured until he provides that information, whether he actually knows it or not, until the torture ceases.
Nor do I. I don’t think it evens the score. As I said, I was introducing compensation as a possible means of preventing such abuses from happening, rather than as a way of making everything right afterwards.
I understand what a slippery slope is. I don’t think it will happen in this case in the manner that you describe. Two guys, two opinions, nothing more to add.
What does this mean? This sounds like some British aristocratic “we just don’t do things that way”, rather than the pragmatic cost/benefit analysis you engage in here.
There are no “guarantees” of anything. Every system can be abused, and I agree that the consequences of these abuses will be greater if the penalties are greater as in a system involving torture. The reason I haven’t “adequately addressed” this is because I do not know all the answers myself. I would be in favor if such abuses could be limited, I would oppose it if they could not. The article suggests that in European countries (France, in particular) there is more physical pressure applied than in America, and Israel has been known to use such techniques. We might be wise to study their examples.
Your post was in response to Maeglin’s point about the notion that torture is ineffective as a practical matter, and I interpreted your post in that context and responded accordingly. The fact that there is no guarantee that abuses will not occur does not make torture ineffective as a law enforcement technique.
And the discovery that the Spanish government had used torture against ETA suspects resulted in an upsurge of ETA violence. What good is it to use torture to gain knowledge of one planned terrorist action, when the torture itself prompts many others?
Andros, I believe I have misinterpreted your most recent post in my response. I incorrectly read you to be making the point that system will result in abuses, when you actually were continuing the line of reasoning about the method being ineffective. My apologies. Nonetheless, my main point still applies - it is true that such a system will not be foolproof, but most methods are not, and I imagine it will add quite a lot.
Traditional torture is frowned upon for all the reasons noted above.
My own experiences seem to indicate that one can adapt very quickly to extreme pain, which might mean that actual torture isn’t as effective as its reputation. And once tortured, there is very little reason for a prisoner to believe he will escape the situation with his life. That may actually reinforce his willingness to remain silent or to fabricate a story.
However, the threat of torture might be very persuasive, in combination with other psychological pressuring methods. Truth drugs, sleep deprivation, cross-referencing between subjects, and the mention in passing that extradition to Saudi Arabia is being processed could be effective in getting a straight story out of a prisoner.
An article on the subject might make for some fascinating prison bathroom reading, too. Wink, wink.
However, it’s worth pointing out that just the threat of torture may meet Amnesty International’s definition of torture:
[T]he deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering by state agents, or similar acts by private individuals for which the state bears responsibility through consent, acquiescence or inaction. We also use the term “torture” to refer to deliberate pain or suffering inflicted by members of armed political groups. (my bolding --SK)
Does scaring the living shit out of someone constitute “suffering inflicted”? I’m not sure.
I don’t see anything wrong with the truth serum in Federal terrorist investigations - no physical harm is done. It must not be that reliable or else they would probably use it all the time.
There is a slippery slope here, but sometimes common sense has to be exercised, whether it fits some broader definition of freedom or not!
I’m not sure either, but your post reminds me of the razor blade scene in Mississippi Burning. Though fictionalized, the movie portrays a situation in which the threat of torture is an effective (if not moral) investigative tool.
Yeah, I saw that, Homebrew, but not to split too fine a hair, the threat of extreme debasement and pain might hold greater sway than the threat of death, which a lot of these yahoos appear to welcome.
Perhaps another country, like France, which has a (possibly erroneous) reputation for torturing terrorists, might have been a better suggestion.
I don’t know about AI, but it may meet the UN definition (in your link)
Scylla
Well that thread was not about torture - it was about civilian casualties. But your main point (or one of your main points) was that though we might prefer to keep to a higher standard, we can sometimes be forced by circumstances to abandon this - that in such cases one cannot simply say “we never do this”, but must make a rational analysis of the suffering that will occur with or without the suggested action. And if an action will lessen suffering overall, we should engage in it, no matter how ruthless it is.
This does not mean that you cannot argue against torture on the grounds that it is ineffective, or not effective enough to justify it. But it seems to be inconsistent with an argument that “A civilized society doesn’t engage in torture”.
By the way, in the thread on torture by Izzy,
advise them to see the film 'La Batialle d’Alger"
before commenting one way or another on torture. The
film is stunningly accurate and stunningly relevant to
the current events, for numerous historical reasons.
Indeed for folks who wish to understand the mentality
of both al-Qaeda (why do some many folks fucking add a
“u”?) and the larger movement.
“One remarkable feature of the film is its
non-partisan approach to the subject. The Arabs and
the French are shown in the same colours. The
atrocities committed by one side are matched equally
by those on the other. The French soldiers are shown
torturing prisoners in graphic detail, whilst later we
see innocent French civilians being slaughtered by
Arab bombs. Whilst there is some pretty vivid
demonstrations of violence and cruelty, this is
probably less shocking than the attitudes of the
French and FLN terrorists.”)
Oddly enough, although I have both seen the first hand
results of toture (stomach churning it is) and have
mild unconfidence, I am not willing to rule it out. I
have seen al-Qaeda’s allied groups operate, I have
seen the reality on the ground.
Knowing the direct contact Collounsbury has had in this arena, I am forced to rethink my own revulsion about government sponsored torture.
I will mention something once said to me about American neo-nazis;
“The framers of the constitution could not have possibly been able to anticipate the advent of something so morally repugnant as Nazism and its attendent horrors when they sanctified free speech in such a manner.”
However much I might gain some small (or large) personal satisfaction from torturing Osama bin Laden (and gaining critical information about Al Qaeda, oh to Hell with it, just torturing the maggot), I am intensely opposed to government sponsored torture.
That said, terrorism as we now know it, is almost a creature of another color. The psychotic disregard for human life represented by such heinousness is light years beyond our daily lives like an atomic bomb is to a firecracker. Speaking of atomic bombs, here’s our hypothetical scenario:
You are involved in law enforcement. You have completely credible intelligence indication that a group of identifiable terrorists are in possession of a thermonuclear weapon that they are successfully arming. The intelligence shows that this act is without a doubt being perpetrated within the limits of a recognizable major metropolis. While attempting to interdict this heinous crime in progress you manage to capture two of the conspiritors identified to you. The remaining terrorists are able to remain hidden and retain possession of the bomb although they cannot transport it from the location of its arming.
You know that you have a limited amount of time before the nuclear device is detonated and you are unable to convince the detainees to reveal the location of the bomb in a nonviolent fashion. What reasons do you have for not resorting to torture at that point? The lives of millions hang in the balance and despite the possibility of receiving misleading information you know that you must make an effort to avert the situation.
Do you quickly transport the suspects out of range from the blast epicenter and promise them Hellish years of prolonged and unrelenting agony punctuated only by sufficient physical and mental recuperation to allow for more years of prolonged and excruciating torture? Or do you allow millions to perish while you maintain your “moral purity”?
However extreme this scenario may seem, it is a portion of the equation we face with villans on the order of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. We are now confronted with a new breed of psychopath the likes of which we have never seen before. I cannot claim to have all of the answers to this little thought problem but I would ask all who have staked out their moral turf in this thread to provide some sort of cogent reply to this query.
At first blush I agreed wholeheartedly with Maeglin’s initial post to this thread. After Collounsbury’s submission, I am not so sure. I promise to do my best to answer my own question here tomorrow evening and I ask that all of you do so as well.
The kind of societies in which torture was routinely used definitely gives clues about its morality and its merits.
And no, you aren’t discussing emulating these society in all aspects. Only in their worst aspect.
But you’re free to advocate for a regression in civilization, human and civil rights, etc…
By the way, since it’s useful, probably you should advocate also for the use of torture in time of war on ennemy soldiers (they also can know informations who can save many friendly lives), criminals (they certainly know informations about other criminals which could avoid, said a bank robbery and save the live of innocent civilian and cops).
You’re plainly using the logic that permitted torture in the past. There’s an ennemy (terrorist in your case, but he could be a soldier, a patriot, a counter-revolutionnary, a witch, whatever) whose live and rights are worth nothing, and on whom using torture can prevent a major harm for the society/the army/the state/whatever. How could you compare the well-being of a (supposed) terrorist with the many worthy lives (american citizen, waffen SS,…) which could be saved? I’m not sure the word exists in english, but I believed it’s called a process of deshumanization.
Let’s suppose, just for an instant that someone who is allowed to use torture under some new regulation you’re advocating for suspect…say, your son/brother/father to be involved in a terrorist network. Yes…You know that your son/brother/father can’t be a terrorist. But sometimes even close relatives ignore very important elements in the live of their parents. Anyway, what you think doesn’t really matter. What matters is what someone else belonging to some state organization believes.
Under usual circumstances, your son/father/brother would benefit from the usual legal guarantees. But it’s a terrorism case, you know…Many innocent lives could be saved. So, he won’t benefit from anything. He will be tortured. Assuming that he’s actually innocent (but who knows? the opinion of a relative is totally biased and worth nothing), he will probably be released, anyway…if he survives, of course. Well…he’ll probably be in an piteful state, after some weeks/months of torture, and broken for life. But well…the end justified the means. So many innocent lives were at risk. perhaps he’ll even get some sort of pension or indemnification. Perhaps some official apologies. But well…some errors were unavoidable. And we were dealing with terrorists…many lives had to be protected.
You’re thinking that I’m fantasying? Think twice. Thrice. How can you be sure that yourself or a relative can’t be suspected by someone, someday, for some reason of knowing something about a terrorist attack? Suspected by someone who has any right on you. What did you stop in this Snack-Bar, this night, Mr Izzyr? Do you know this person who was sitted just by you? Did you ever met him before? Why did you speak to him? What did you tell him? You were speaking about the weather? You believe I’m a naive, Mr Izzyr? Do you know what we can do to people who don’t want to speak, Mr Izzyr?