Torture should remain illegal and unconstitutional. Period.
However, in certain very rare situations, individual investigators should have the strength to do it anyway, and accept any consequences that may ensue. Zenster’s scenario is a prime example of this. If I’m the investigator in that situation, I do whatever it takes to get the information, no matter if that means I wind up penniless or imprisoned down the road.
That’s essentially what was going on in the Mississippi Burning scenario. Everyone involved knew that what they were doing was illegal. They all willingly put their careers and freedom on the line to get the information.
The alternative, legalizing torture in certain circumstances, is not acceptable to me, for the reasons raised by clairobscur. If you make the torture of suspected terrorists legal, then you run into problems of law enforcement officials stretching the definition of “terrorist” or classifying someone as a “suspect” with little or no evidence.
(E.g.: Is a striking miner who attacks a scab a “terrorist?”)
No. That was neither my point, nor did I say that.
My point was that the idea that war was compartmentalized, between civilians and soldiers was a ridiculous, and stupid fallacy, and that the idea that a soldier’s life was somehow worth less than a civilian’s was equally stupid.
I object to torture under the grounds that is the infliction of pointless suffering.
Why? If it is not very effective, and other alternatives are more effective and it inflicts needless suffering, shouldn’t that proclude a civilized society from engaging in the practice?
The History Of Torture-by Daniel P Mannix, Dell 1964
Panati’s Extraordinary Endings Of Practically Everything And Everybody-Charles Panati, Harper and Row 1989
Mannix concludes that torture is NOT effective in extracting information. A prisoner may confess to witchcraft,treason, or a similar offense, soley because they would rather face execution than continued torture.
Truth serum is also ineffective. The popular image of sodium pentathol and other "truth drugs" is as far from reality as the popular images of quicksand and pirhanas. Truth serum is no more effective than simply getting the subject drunk.
Torture used on religious fanatics is even less effective. If someone is convinced that comitting a suicide bombing will ensure them eternal paradise, they have no reason to tell the torturer anything. The worse the torture they endure, the greater they believe Allah will reward them. OTOH, if they betray the cause and break under torture, they believe that they have betrayed Allah and will suffer for eternity. So their incentive to tell the torturer is what?
Izzy, remember Antiochus and the seven sons? A mother was willing to watch her children be tortured to death one at a time rather than renounce Judaism. Even the youngest son was willing to suffer and die rather than submit to Antiochus. Read Penguin's Lives Of The Saints. Some of the saints stories can be historically verified. Again, torture and death could not overcome their religious convictions.
Again, I don’t think “clues” are needed - the issues are pretty much upfront.
To the extent that - as mentioned - I don’t think there is a moral problem with using torture, I would think that the use of torture - in and of itself - was not the worst aspect of those societies. I would suggest that one cannot ignore “who is being tortured” and “why they are being tortured” in the interest of making a specious point, no?
The rest of your post appears to be a rehash of the slippery slope argument. I’ve already mentioned that I don’t think it follows.
I don’t see where the definition of “terrorist” comes into play. I’d say that the rule should apply to anyone about whom there is good reason to believe that they have knowledge of a serious impending crime (possibly limited to those who are accomplices to that crime).
Scylla
I may have misunderstood you, either in this thread or the other one. My understanding of your point in that thread was based on posts such as this one:
This seemed to indicate that you believe that one cannot dismiss any tactic - no matter how ruthless - without an analysis of the practical cost vs. benefit. (The issue of civilian vs. military lives arose later in the thread).
Here, the line “A civilized society doesn’t engage in torture, IMO” seemed to imply that there were some things that were simply not done, regardless of the benefits, due to the fact that they were innapropriate for a “civilized society”. I gather from your last post that this was not your intention - that you were merely summarizing your assessment that it is not necessary or practical. If that is so, then there is indeed no inconsistency in your position.
DocCathode, the book you reference seems to refer to forced confessions, e.g. this:
In the case of a request for information, he has a third option - say the truth.
Of course I agree that it would not be effective in all cases, as mentioned previously. But it would probably be useful in many situations.
(BTW, the Talmud says in reference to Chanania, Mishael and Azaria - three Biblical figures who chose to be thrown into a furnace rather than bow to idols - that had the threat been torture rather than death, they would have bowed to the idols).
I don’t want to come across as some advocate of torture. I am not. On the other hand, I can imagine situations where no other option remains. (Like Zenster’s hypothetical, which no one seems to be addressing.)
I also disagree with the posters who leap to the conclusion that torture can never be effective.
DocCathode it seems like you are conflating two very different sets of circumstances:
[ol][li]Torture to extract a confession.Torture to find out the details of future plans.[/ol][/li]
I think we can all agree that torture to extract a confession is worse than useless, since a torture victim will confess to anything. Torture in that situation is just pointless cruelty.
Trying to learn about future terrorist acts (as in Zenster’s hypo) is a different breed of cat. It won’t do the terrorist any good to make up lies, because the truth of the terrorist’s statements can be verified. (To use Zenster’s example, if the bomb ain’t where the terrorist says it is, the terrorist has a problem.)
Nor do I think religious zeal is a magic antidote to the effects of terror. Listen to the accounts of POWs and one thing becomes clear. Everybody breaks down under torture.
Their incentive is to stop the pain, frankly. The pain is immediate. “Punishment from Allah” is very abstract, and can be easily rationalized away. (“Allah will forgive me.” “I can make it up to Allah later.” “Maybe Allah won’t notice.”) I suspect the mind will accept even the feeblest rationalization to stop the immediate pain of torture.
We are talking about a very uncomfortable equation. Is the right of the subject of interrogation to be free from torture more important than the lives of the victims who will die in the terrorist act? And how does the fact that the interviewee is a suspect (as opposed to a convicted terrorist) impact that equation?
I will restate my position:
Keep torture illegal and unconstitutional. That way, only in the most dire circumstances will an interviewer be tempted to step across that line of legality and face the consequences.
This really shouldn’t be this tough. Since torture is ineffective and unnecessarily cruel, how is the cost benefit favorable to society?
Your confusion may be that that particular post isn’t a clear representation of my feelings, but rather a suggestion of what I thought was a meaningful way to discuss these issues with Zenster.
Torture is cruel, and most importantly, it doesn’t work well. These are two pretty big drawbacks. I can’t imagine a scenario where it is the best or the only course of action available.
Dropping bombs on people is cruel, yet we still do it when we think it’s necessary i.e. Hiroshima, where such an action was cruel in the short run, but ultimately saved a great deal of lives.
Because torture is neither particularly effective, nor the best way to extract information, if we choose to engage in the practice we are being unnecessarily cruel, and hence, uncivilized.
I think it would be fair to say that a civilized person does not inflict harm unnecessarily.
Make an argument that torture is both effective and necessary, and I’ll reconsider my statement. Failing those conditions it is unnecessary cruelty, and therefore uncivilized.
I can’t believe my eyes! Some people actually think torture can be a good idea? Please! :rolleyes:
First, if tortured is allowed, innocents will be tortured. That is a fact. Why? Because mistakes happen. Not everyone suspected of a crime is guilty of it. But torturing a person is a barbarous form of punishment that would be used on people who have most probably not faced a trial.
Second, even in the hypothetical situation underlined by Zenster, torture would be useless. Let’s say X is one of the conspirators and knows where and when a bomb will blow up. X is arrested and put under torture. Why would he tell the truth? He would have no reason to believe he won’t die after telling you the truth, but he is certain that by speaking, he is condemning himself to eternal damnation. People say, well if he lied, we could find out and torture him some more. Not so sure. The bomb could blow up before you have time to torture him some more.
Third, Torturing suspected terrorists would most likely result in heightened terrorist activity. After all, people would have one more proof that the USA is the ‘Great Satan’. Some moderates would become radical, and the already radical elements would become even more fanatical.
Nothing good can come out of torture. People who don’t see that don’t look at a wide enough picture.
That’s fine, we disagree about this. But we apparently agree that whether it is effective and necessary (and whether it would have other negative consequences e.g. slippery slopes, innocent people being tortured etc.) is all that needs to be considered, and that it cannot be ruled out without such consideration. If we are indeed in agreement on this, I am more than happy to drop the discussion of what you said/meant, if its all the same to you.
Well, it may the only course of action in the present circumstance. As noted in the article that I linked to in the OP, the impetus for allowing torture is the fact that the current crop of terrorist suspects have been silent, including such notables as
Law enforcement and intelligence seem convinced that other terrorist attacks have been planned for this country, and it is not unreasonable to think that these folks might have some information that would be useful in heading them off. However,
No can do. My common sense, and that of others, tells me that it is effective. Yours, and that of others, tells you that it is not. I’m afraid we’re at an impasse, unless someone has any actual evidence. (Collounsbury and DocCathode have provided some references).
As I type this, we are dropping bombs in Afghanistan. At least some of those bombs are going to kill innocent people, including women and children. We all know this, and yet seem prepared to accept this truth and write it off euphemistically as “collateral damage.” As a nation, we seem to see this loss of innocent life as an unfortunate but necessary cost of stopping terrorism.
On the other hand (judging from some of the posts in this thread) we are unable to accept the infliction of pain as a means to get terrorists to reveal their plans for future attacks. This we find horrifying and, well, “un-American.” Why? Because some innocents may suffer? Please see the preceding paragraph.
As between an innocent child on the ground in Afghanistan, and a known associate of bin Laden in our custody, whose safety and comfort should we value more?
Am I the only one seeing a truly bizarre double standard here? Why the seeming disconnect? Why are we willing to accept suffering and death of innocent civilians, but not among the members of al-Qaeda operating on our own soil?
We are straining at gnats and swallowing camels in my view. (To use an appropriately-Semitic metaphor.)
Again (for the record): Torture should remain illegal and unconstitutional.
But it is no more horrifying (and I would argue that it is less so) than the death and maiming of innocent civilian bombing victims.
To be honest, when I first saw the thread title, I thought “WB is at it again”, forgetting that he has been banned. (Which may explain why I opened it up so fast. ;))
But, the thread is by IzzyR, whom I respect, and is based upon a trial balloon sent up by the FBI, so it is worthy of discussion.
My take - I have long believed that rights have real consequences, up to and including the loss of innocent life. I mean, Big Brotherism (cameras in every home, police in every office, etc., etc.) would be a very effective crime prevention strategy. And the fact we do not use that strategy means that we are condemning innocents to be victims of the crimes that could otherwise have been prevented. I further believe that those consequences are penalties we should bear for the benefits we receive from those rights.
So, within certain limits, we value liberty over security, and IMO that is the correct valuation. So, even if torture could aid in preventing future attacks (and therefore future loss of innocent life), we should not use torture. It really is as simple as that.
Truth serum is a slightly different question. IANA doctor, so I can’t speak to the safety of sodium pentathol, etc. If truth serums are safe, however, I think they could be used, with the following caveat - not only can whatever is revealed not be used against the suspect, but the suspect should be immunized against prosecution concerning whatever is revealed. Prosecutors and intelligence agencies would have to make a trade-off between security and criminal prosecution.
No, spoke, but I don’t think it’s all that bizarre. It’s the standard disconnect between hot blood and cold, between perception and reality. Many people who would faint or puke upon being called to butcher a hog have no problem chowing down on a ham sandwich. And many who would happily shoot a trespasser would blanch at slow, methodical vivisection of that same trespasser.
SuaSponte: it seems to me that you are comparing invasion of privacy in all cases to torture in some cases. A better comparison would be invsaion of privacy in some cases (which is allowed) and torture in some cases.
spoke-: you took the words out of my mouth. There are times when it is moral for individuals to commit torture. That is very different from it being moral for the government to commit torture. However, I disagree with this stateement:
The difference is that in the former case, the government gets to choose who is tortured. Which means that matters of life and death will be decided by politics. The US government accidently killing a thousand Afghans is very different from the US government choosing a thousand specific people to die.
I do not think that anyone has noticed a very specific set of postulations in my hypothetical case.
[li] You have captured two terrorists from the same cell so that you have the remote hope of extracting information that can be coroborrated.[/li]
[li] You have full verification of their complicity in the crime being discussed.[/li]
[li] You have little or no alternative in preventing the deaths of millions as compared to the inflicting of harm upon those that are already known accomplices.[/li]
[li] The individuals in question are not suspects per se (although not convicted in a court of law there is a preponderance of already established evidence pointing to deep involvement in the act.)[/li]All of this points to forceful extraction of information. In such a situation I would be able to find very few reasons to not torture the individuals in question. I fully realize that very thin ice that is being discussed here. For that reason I shall begin another thread devoted to the ramifications of this particular topic. I look forward to the participation of all who are involed in this thread.
An opening from an editorial from Tuesdays Wall Street Journal
In 1995, a little-known operative, Abdul Hakim Murad, was arrested in the Philippines on a policeman’s hunch. Inside Murad’s apartment were passports and a homemade bomb factory–beakers, filters, fuses and funnels; gallons of sulfuric acit and nitric acid; large cooking kettles.
Handed over to intelligence agents, Murad was violently tortured. For weeks, according to the book “Under the Crescent Moon,” agents struck him with a chair and pounded him with a heavy piece of wood, breaking nearly every rib. But Murad said nothing.
(snip)
In the end, they broke him through a psychological trick. A few Philippine agents posed as members of Israel’s Mossad and told Murad they were taking him to Israel. Terrified of being turned over to the Israelis, he finally told all. Then and only then.
And what a treasure trove of information it was. One of his roommates was Ramzi Yousef, a mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, now serving a 240-year term in a US prison. Murad recounted a horrific plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II in Manila, simultaneously blow up 11 US airplanes in the Pacific, and fly another plane, loaded with nerve gas, into the Central Intelligence Agency.
One wonders, of course, what would have happened if Murad had been in American custody?
The main problem I have (besides the ineffectiveness of torture in providing reliable information) is the fact that the US is considering torturing suspected terrorists.
Inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on a suspect is beyond reprehensible.
Okay, fine. Take the same example and narrow it down “if we place cameras in The Ryan’s home, we can ensure that he will not commit any crimes that will harm or kill innocents.” The point remains the same - in some or all cases, we as a society have stated that we will hold certain values that we will cling to, regardless of the fact that clinging to these values will cause harm. The abolition of torture is one of those values.
Sua, I admire your principled stand on this matter. On the other hand, I have to wonder if you will waver when (not if) we enter the age of nuclear terrorism.
Will you sacrifice entire American cities to those principles?
Again, I agree that torture should remain banned. However, I would not be surprised or particularly upset if individual investigators violated that ban under the most dire of circumstances. It will of course be in the hands of a judge and jury to determine guilt and appropriate punishment for such violations. I suspect that neither a judge nor a jury would be particularly eager to punish an interrogator who uses torture if that torture uncovers information which saves a city from destruction.
To put it another way, I am in favor of the status quo, since I have just described the situation as it now exists.
The point remains the same - in some or all cases, we as a society have stated that we will hold certain values that we will cling to, regardless of the fact that clinging to these values will cause harm. The abolition of torture is one of those values.