Would Torturing Zubeida be Justified?

[Philote]

I don’t think there are that many people who would agree with the “protect American security at any cost” idea if that cost meant some kind of grotesque torture like that which gobear pointed out, and would agree that we need to define the kind of torture we’re talking about here. Would the potential to save 10,000 lives justify some horrific kind of abuse? It may just be one life against 10,000, but I agree with SuaSponte and Guinastasia here: we have principles as a nation that supercede pragmatic concerns.

But would sleep deprivation violate that principle? Or coercive drugs? It seems to me like torture is too big of a catch-all. Put another way: would sleep deprivation be considered “cruel and unusual punishment?” Whether or not the prisoners are “legal fighters” or whatever–and using that distinction to get around enforcing rules that are a good idea anyway seems like real bad-faith activity to me–cruel and unusual punishment seems like it would be a good standard to hold to. This would give us the added benefit of being able to show the world that our deeds are consistent with our words: we treat ALL of our prisoners ethically, and fairly, even if we might have something to lose by doing so.

[Giraffe]

The U.S. should never, ever torture people. No matter how useful it seems in the short term, it will hurt us in the long term.

The scary truth is that it is not possible to make ourselves completely safe from people who are willing to die to hurt us. Increasing our willingness to commit brutal and cruel acts will not deter them. It will validate their hatred of us, at least in the minds of future generations, and keep a fresh supply of terrorists coming.

Plus, I think it’s a very slippery slope. If we’ll torture a potential terrorist, why not a suspected child molester? What happens when we torture someone and learn nothing? Or an innocent person? I don’t want to live in a country that tortures people.

[gaeila]

I think a lot of this revolves around semantics. What precisely is “torture”? Some give it a broad definition, including the mildest of brainwashing techniques (which we are all subject to in some form during our daily lives, through advertising, corporate pep-talks and team-building, religious exhortations, and so on.) One could argue that keeping a human being confined to a cell, away from family and freedom, is torture, yet we consider that an acceptable punishment for wrong-doing.

My position is this: if there is clear and present danger, where it is certain to near-certain that our hypothetical terrorist has knowledge that could save many lives; prevent a disaster like the Towers; then go the full treatment with clever brainwashing, interesting drugs, and a full medical team monitoring the process, so he comes to no or minimal physical harm. Not only is that more humane, it’s likely to be more effective. Is is torture? Probably. Or possibly not; after all, there are people who choose similar experiences for a recreational weekend. For that matter, given a choice, I personally would probably prefer such an experience over lengthy prison confinement. Is it as bad as bamboo splinters under the nails or electrodes to tender body parts? Not in my book. It would still be the kind of decision that might leave me grinding my teeth in the middle of the night, and I’m glad I’m not the one that would have to make it. But if I had to, I’m pretty sure I would. I’m idealistic, I love our flawed but wonderful system of justice and protection of individual rights (because hideously flawed though it is in implementation, it is still the best that there is) but when it comes down to cases, perhaps there are no moral absolutes when survival is at stake. Perhaps that’s why we have judges and juries, instead of trying cases by rulebooks or computers. And that’s why, for extreme cases, exceptions are made and solutions are extreme.

One thing the “bring-out-the-rubber-hoses” crowd seems to be overlooking, is that torture involving physical pain is probably the least likely method that’s going to be effective. I despise what these guys have done, and the blind stupid cruel mind-set that allows them to blithely and self-righteously murder the innocent. But you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re physical cowards. Beatings and physical pain are just likely to seal their lips and cement their beliefs that they’re on the side of God and that much closer to glorious Paradise. On the other hand, suppose the right combination of meds plus sleep deprivation plus staged setting can convince him he’s in the presence of God and perhaps a few of those promised virgins; that might get him talking. And after it’s over, he wouldn’t be any the worse for wear, and all those lives would be saved. Yes, there would some extra tarnish on our ideals. Sometimes, that’s a necessary price.

I think that quote from Nietzsche applies nicely to this kind of moral dilemma:

“He who fights monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee”

And yet, the monsters must be fought.

[wring]

I have yet to see evidence that torture is effective against some one willing to impale themselves in a firey crash into a building.

and while you’re busy defining terms (such as what constitutes torture), we should also come up with what constitutes credible knowledge. IIRC, we have had several ‘credible’ specific and semi specific threats since then.

John war does indeed carry with it specific possabilities of innocent lives lost. This, of course, is not a good comparison to a very specific deliberate act of torture against an individual. (IOW that tangent that got played out went a bit far for analogous situations).

[fluiddruid]

Ok, now I’m getting mad.

When folks like me spoke out about the detainees being denied human rights, we were accused (or at least, this was implied) of being untrusting. After all, we’re “good” and they’re “bad”, and America won’t abuse this.

Uh huh.

Now apparently torture is justified, because “they’re bad” or “they used torture”. Ok, folks who support this: at what point do we need to stop? If torture is OK, is killing thousands of citizens (like on 9-11) ok? At what point do we become what we intend to destroy?

The justification always seems to be “but they’re bad people”. News flash, folks: that is exactly the kind of bull that caused the 9-11 attacks in the first place. Do you think that Al Qaida didn’t think that they were “good” and Americans were “evil” when they did that? Don’t you think they were wrong?

This propaganda about ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and that every single captured Al Qaida or Taliban soldier should be considered a mass-murdering terrorist needs to stop. For Christ’s sake, we are becoming what we have set out to destroy – people that do not care about human life or human rights if a person falls on the wrong side of some national or religious line in the sand.

In my opinion, it would simply be better for the US to be destroyed rather than for that to happen. If we don’t honor human life and human rights, then what’s the point? Why even bother of being proud of America if we’re not a land where freedom and inalienable bloody rights?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Summary: torture is not OK. Throwing around buzzwords about terrorists and good and evil does not make it any more OK.

[elucidator]

One of the unfortunate aspects of torture derives from the extreme motivational factor on the part of the victim (or subject if you prefer). The victim wants it to stop, he will lie to the interrogator. Of course. Who wouldn’t?

The interrogators problem comes with verifying the answer.

Boiled down, unless the interrogator already knows for certain that the victim knows the answer and the interrogator can confirm that answer, the answer is useless.

Thus, torture is worse than cruel and morally depraved. It is ineffective cruelty.

[gex_gex]

to those of you advocating or considering the use of torture: if the u.s were to use such methods, how would you feel if in future conflict other nations used this as a precedent, and tortured american soldiers or officials? would this be ok? if not, why not?

[My_Darn_Snake_Legs]

*Originally posted by gex gex *
**to those of you advocating or considering the use of torture: if the u.s were to use such methods, how would you feel if in future conflict other nations used this as a precedent, and tortured american soldiers or officials? would this be ok? if not, why not? **

IF? Are you kidding? Do you think that American soliders are not tortured/treated very very baddly when caught by enemy forces? You are deluded. When/if I enter the military, I fully expect to be tortured. That’s why I will be very careful not to be captured!

–==the sax man==–

[sailor]

What makes America better than China is that America is based on certain moral standards which proclaim the dignity of human life and the ends do not justify the means. If America relinquishes those principles, it will be no better than many other countries where I would not like to live.

Anyone who believes the ends should justify the means is a fool because who will determine what ends justify what means? Look at the history of communist countries for the last century and you will see what was done to individuals and was justified by the “common good”. The common good is not served by casting aside moral principles.

WWII was a much greater struggle than anything facing the US today and the allies still respected the bounds of human decency and that is one reason when it was all over they were not only militarily victorious but also morally superior.

The US does not need to sink to the level of its enemies.

[furt]

Bravo Two-zero detailed the hideous torture of British troops captured in the Gulf War.

The problem with the OP’s question is the definition of torture. As others have said, physical torture is not really helpful for gathering accurate informnation, which is why it will likely not be used here. What likely will be used is sodium pentathol and sleep deprivation. Is that torture?

What definitely will be used is massive psychological manipulation. Note Rumsfeld’s emphasis that “We will control his environment.” For the next few weeks, every sight, sound, smell, and taste will be designed to play on his mind.

It’s good cop/bad cop to the Nth degree. At what point (if any) do you call that torture?