quote:The burden is actually on the other end. I'd like to see validated evidence that torture produces reliable evidence, yet the only stories we get are intelligence disasters like al-Libi.
Actually, the burden is on the one making the absolute claims. I'm not; you are.
quote:A declassified FBI email from 2004 indicates that the experts on torture have maintained, based in part from experiences at Guantanamo, that physically abusive interrogation produces information that is always suspect. Always.
Yes, which is why I've repeatedly emphasized the special characteristic of a ticking bomb scenario that the information is quickly verifiable. "Suspect" does not mean useless. I know a lot of investigators who pursue suspect information all the time because sometimes it pans out.
quote:With hypothetical ticking-time-bomb scenariocrafting, the issue descends into reducto territory, especially given that time is not on the side of the torturers, and the torturers have to investigate claims made by the tortured party, since it cannot be assumed that they are true.
Yes, and this is why it might be effective in the ticking bomb scenario. The guy says, "The bomb is in the basement." You send a guy down to the basement to check. Meanwhile, you have everyone else conducting whatever other search operation is appropriate.
quote:Since a severe time constraint won't transform torture-extracted confessions into not being suspect, then there's no payoff. If you don't have enough time to go about things the 'nice guy' way -- this being assumed to be the only time where torture becomes an option -- you're hosed anyway.
Again, you haven't supported this at all. Answer 1 given. Checked by searcher, found to be false. Torture begins again.
Since you've essentially admitted that normal interrogation methods won't work, the ability to extract suspect but checkable information is the only option other than searching - which would be done anyway.
quote:As an extra special bonus, we're essentially required to assume that the government is going to be allowed nigh-immediate rubber-stamp approval of torture, to make it useful in the dire hypothetical timeframes presented. If we've got to wait for a warrant of some sort,
The most I've even considered is a defense to the criminal charge of torture similar to the justification defense for homicide. Even when a cop shoots someone in the line of duty, he is immediately investigated as if he might have committed a crime. Same thing here.
quote:I would venture to guess that the burden of proof lies with a standpoint that wishes to demonstrate that there is any benefit whatsoever behind the alteration of current international conventions against the use of torture.
Again, the burden of proof is on those who are making absolute claims, as you have, that torture is "by and large" useless. First, the by and large admits the possibilities of scenarios where it's not useless. Second, you have repeatedly used evidence (good evidence, I might add) about the "by and large" case with only a superficial attempt at best to show why it applies to the not "by and large scenarios."
If you want to say anyone who wants to justify torture in a particular situation needs to demonstrate a chance of success at least equal to X, then you introduced a moral argument concerning where the burden of proof should be.
But using that burden of proof to justify your factual - not moral - statement that "torture is useless in situation X" doesn't work. You've made a claim about something factual, not moral, and you've yet to support it with evidence that applies to the specific claim.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Real torture has that effect. It's fascinating (albeit grisly) from a psychological standpoint. A tortured individual is attempting only to get the torture to stop, and so they'll unintentionally be cold-reading their interrogators and telling them what they want to hear. Let's say you want to know where the bomb was planted, but you've not picked up the terrorist who knows where the bomb is. Totally irrelevant; you will get confessions and locations. It's reflexive. You could almost call it unintentional. People who know the location you are torturing for have added complications, since they could be luring, and all information that isn't immediately testable will work for purposes of ending the pain. Witness, the impossible confessions, the Green Bay Packers lineups.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've heard of the One Percent Doctrine, I'm sure; a person playing this game is playing the 0.0001% doctrine.
That, or perhaps they've watched too much 24.
Never watched the show in my life. Beyond that, I don't care how rare the circumstance is.
Look, the question being examined is "Should torture be used in scenario X?" X makes up 100% of the topic under discussion, not 1% or .0001%
Evidence that torture doesn't work in scenarios Y and Z is irrelevant unless one can show that the differences between Y, Z, and X are irrelevant to the efficacy of torture.
I'm sick and tired of you turning the factual question into an implicit attack on the morals of those willing to grapple with that question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what's your evidence that there isn't future temptation to use torture absent its use once to stop a nuclear bomb?
Actually, I think there'd be future temptation to use torture once it's used to stop anything. Which is why I think we need to draw the line so strongly.
I'd be okay with allowing the information gathered by torture to be admissible and actionable, provided the torturers were themselves sentenced to death. Irami's suggestion -- that all acts of torture must be individually sanctioned by the President -- would also be acceptable to me, provided that an annual report listing the number of tortured individuals were released to the public.
I agree that it opens a can of worms and should be avoided. I am categorically against it.
I am against it because there are no checks and balances. Giving the president the power to say torture is okay for a given circumstance gives him too much power. What if the president is wrong and this person knows nothing and was tortured for no good? Does the president face any consequences?
Has this person that is to be tortured been convicted by 12 people or are we just going on a jack bauer gut feeling? We don't even allow torture for convicted child molestors/murders who have been convicted by 12 of their peers.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if the president is wrong and this person knows nothing and was tortured for no good? Does the president face any consequences?
That's why the deliberative process has to be as public as possible. If we resort to torture, the public process will force the President, and by extension, the Congress, to offer a defense to the public. And to be honest, if the people start voting in torturers, or congressmen start being casual about torturing on their watch, then we deserve what we get.
It's like Truman and the Bomb.
This said, I do think that we should circumscribe strict parameters in which even the President can authorize torture. In addition, I think that a violation of these parameters should be grounds for impeachment. _______________
Again, this is where the law fails. We can talk about "clear and convincing" evidence, or a "preponderance" of evidence, but I don't know if it's possible to license the President to torture without giving him freedom to torture.
This is how Congress let Bush get us into this Iraq mess to begin with: giving him the authority to go to war, and watching as this authority collapsed into a semblance of freedom to go to war.
The nightmare scenario is to have some President defend himself(and it would be a him who would say this) by saying, "It was completely within my constitutional right to torture X."
quote:Again, this is where the law fails. We can talk about "clear and convincing" evidence, or a "preponderance" of evidence, but I don't know if it's possible to license the President to torture without giving him freedom to torture.
Which is why I think the only possible recognition of torture we should give is a defense against criminal charges. Just like we don't "authorize" people to kill in self-defense, we don't "authorize" people to torture. We say, if you do, we might not throw you in prison if you had a good enough reason. But, the person using it is taking a chance that they will be found guilty, just as a person pulling the trigger on an intruder is taking a chance of being convicted of murder.
And note, I'm still not convinced it's a good idea to even allow this defense. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other.
quote:Does the constitution say something about cruel and unusual punishment or is that the bill of rights?
The constitution also says that we won't deprive anyone of life without due process of law, let we allow normal citizens, prison guards, and police officers to shoot to kill in certain situations.
quote:And I assume those considering torture are at least agreeing that the person has been tried and found guilty?
Doubtful. I can't imagine an exigent circumstance that would justify torture AND still exist after a conviction. I can imagine exigent circumstances that might justify torture immediately after an arrest.
quote:My question is, how many lives is there a possibility to be saved for torture to be viable?
I'm not sure one isn't enough. For example, the buried-alive for ransom scenario only risks one life, but if the kidnapper is caught somehow and identified, I might use torture to find the victim.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, the question being examined is "Should torture be used in scenario X?" X makes up 100% of the topic under discussion, not 1% or .0001%
quote:I'm sick and tired of you turning the factual question into an implicit attack on the morals of those willing to grapple with that question.
Perhaps you should read my contentions again: the meat of it has to do with the fact that I think a policy of giving the government the right to torture captives 'just in case' needlessly infringes on human rights for the sake of implausible scenarios.
In case it needs to be said, I'm not making implicit attacks against those grappling with the question. I am actually making very open attacks against the practice. Boo on torture! I do not like it! I think it's a terrible thing! We should not torture!
quote:Again, the burden of proof is on those who are making absolute claims, as you have, that torture is "by and large" useless.
I've referenced several expert opinions which lead me to be greatly confident that granting the feds 'the torture option' will confer negligible benefit at the cost of opening massive avenues by which the government may abuse power over detainees. We may sit here and dream up millions upon millions of addendum hypotheticals. "Yes, but in my scenario, the government WON'T end up abusing the power." "Yes, but in my scenario, this DOES happen in exactly the way that would make it potentially useful, and the international community gives it the OK."
Note that my view on the time-bomb-scenario torture is not swayed by custom-fit hypotheticals. My position originates from an attempt to tie it in to actual plausibilities and an attempt to reference historical precedent. Based on this wider reasoning, I'd stand by the principle of the matter -- unalienable human rights -- were it to come down to me having to decide whether or not we grant the government the power to utilize torture. If I've got to decide to grant the government that power, I don't.
To narrow the hypothetical down more: the scenario happens and I'm a part of some group that has to decide whether or not we get to torture some dude to try to keep a bomb from going off and killing thousands (or millions, sure, whatever) of people (the right to do so or the prohibition against doing so not having been resolved). Those millions of people better hope that they can get someone else to do it, since I won't do it. Part of this is "ew, I don't like torture" and part of this is that I reliably would have no reason to suspect that torture would help us out at all, and experts in the matter, as published in such seedy rags as the CIA's "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" (no joke) are feeding me that information based on knowledge they have accumulated from their own study and practice in the matter.
Exa:
quote:But does torture work? ... I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
...
Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works.
If I were a person having to decide whether or not to torture him, I would base my decision not to torture off of experience from guys like Herrington. I would be concluding that it's not worth trying.
But if we narrow down the hypothetical even more and assume that -- for whatever magical reason, maybe God told me or something, or maybe the CIA released a new torture handbook saying 'whoops, we found out some new stuff about torture, and now think it's a good idea' -- I've got plausible evidence that torturing this guy will actually stand a good chance of saving the millions of people, above and beyond any other available option?
Well, gee. Who knows. I might take a drill to his kneecaps. I'm not sure, just like I'm not sure how I would respond if an alien told me that I had to decapitate a busload of adorable doe-eyed orphan children with an icepick by nightfall if I wanted to keep him from killing three-quarters of earth's population. It's why I'm -- as mentioned before -- really not good at the plausible utilitarianist hypotheticals game!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:really not good at the plausible utilitarianist hypotheticals game!
\
BTW, one thing I am NOT is a utilitarian. Nor is the hypothetical strictly utilitarianist. For example, the culpability of the subject in the threat would certainly factor into my decision.
Further, once again, you are the one who is actually answering the hypothetical here, not me. You are answering yet STILL won't address those factors which make it different form the intelligence-gathering scenarios presented in your evidence against torture's efficacy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW, one thing I am NOT is a utilitarian. Nor is the hypothetical strictly utilitarianist. For example, the culpability of the subject in the threat would certainly factor into my decision.
Don't worry, I'm only talking about the scenarios They're usually reductionist/utilitarianist since they generally ask questions that pit virtues and ethics versus a calculated cost.
Generally. "Do you personally do a TERRIBLE thing? To prevent ANOTHER TERRIBLE THING from happening?"
As for efficacy, note my last presentation: Stuart Herrington. Real-life ticking scenarios. Interrogated people in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq. Front of the renditions class. Easily a man who knows what he is talking about, and if he can conclude so strongly that he doesn't know any experts in his field who think it's a good idea? He's really talking, here, about nonconfidence in torture even in last-minute scenarios.
If it's still a leap of faith to assume that torture probably isn't realistically going to be much of a silver-bullet utility in these hypothetical situations, then, golly I'm a leaper. I'm welcome to being proven wrong, but I don't expect to see any studies or practices of time-critical torture on fanatical extremists with non-torture methods as a control group. You are hinting towards a personal requirement of proof which I am happy to say I cannot provide, since I -- thankfully -- have never heard of that sort of study ever existing. I'll just continue to assume that the body of knowledge we have on torture indicates the same 'dubious utility' concept I was working on, a few posts back.
Fortunately and lazily for my position, I'm not advocating any change to openly allow torture: I could base my nonallowance of torture entirely on axiomatic principles. Specifically, I'm happy to stick with the 'universal human right' angle, and be all in favor of contracts between civilized nations that agree not to torture people. This is because I'm still, after all, all like "hooray for no torture."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would help to define torture. Interrorgation is a mind game. There is a line when it quits being a mind game and starts inflicting physical pain.
As some of the quoted interrorgators say, once a prisoner starts talking, it is easy to get information out of them through deception. It is like the stories about hypnotism. You can't hypnotize a person and tell them to undress. But you can tell them that they are going to take a shower and off come the clothes.
If inflicting pain is part of the mind game, that is something. But in my opinion, emotional pain is much more powerful than physical pain. Isn't that what typical police detectives usually do? Threaten emotional distress? "I'll drag you to the station and book you..." Even threats of physical pain raise emotions.
But once you start physically hurting someone, the body of kicks in and it actually fortifies the victim's mind. Hasn't anyone been in a some sort of physical fight? I lost all of mine, but my mind never gave up.
And it is why we scratch itches. The pain drowns the itch and we feel better. The pain makes us feel better! Inflicting physical pain is the LAST thing you want to do when interrorgating a person!
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you want a form of torture that I think might work... Give a person anesthetics so they can't feel their arm but their mind isn't affected at all. Then slice their wrist. If the person doesn't feel any pain and they are fully aware of what is happening, the emotional distress would likely break any resistance they felt and they would probably talk.
Even better, if you could somehow put them in a device so that they couldn't see their arm correctly, and slice the wrist of a fake arm, that might even be legal and wont lead to the person's death... Deception at its best. Still don't know if it would work though. But it at least gets past my belief that physical pain fortifies the mind.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you want a form of torture that I think might work... Give a person anesthetics so they can't feel their arm but their mind isn't affected at all. Then slice their wrist. If the person doesn't feel any pain and they are fully aware of what is happening, the emotional distress would likely break any resistance they felt and they would probably talk.
Even better, if you could somehow put them in a device so that they couldn't see their arm correctly, and slice the wrist of a fake arm, that might even be legal and wont lead to the person's death... Deception at its best. Still don't know if it would work though. But it at least gets past my belief that physical pain fortifies the mind.
I asked this awhile ago and nobody tackled it. I really hope somebody does. If we use the deception of Torture, or fool somebody into believing we are GOING to toture them, is that unethical?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no one, no one, we should trust with the authority to authorize torture. If we did, that authority would be abused. If we did, our own moral authority would vanish. If we did, our right to expect and demand humane treatment of our own captured personnel disappears.
The situation in which we have absolute certainty that there is (a bomb, a person buried alive...) but no knowledge of where that Macguffin is is a fiction. And virtual certainty means an unknown number of innocents, ignorant captives, attention seekers and the like would be tortured.
If someone believes beyond doubt that if they don't torture someone to get information immediately many people will die, then perhaps they should be prepared to suffer the legal consequences for performing that illegal act. Under no less circumstances should it happen, and we as a society should never condone it.
posted
BlackBlade: From what Terry said it seems like they already do it, to some degree. Take guy A, question him, don't take him back to the cell. Do the same thing with guys B, C, D, E, and F, spaced ten minutes apart. Guy G has been waiting for an hour and none of the others have come back and he's probably thinking that he'll be tortured and he'll have no reason to believe otherwise. You bring him in, and he'll be scared enough to talk...and you don't even have to say the "t" word. Same thing with the letters; tell them that if they talk they can write letters home. Of course they're guaranteed that right under Geneva anyway but they don't know that and you can make it take longer for them to get the chance anyway. And since a lot of people don't know what their rights are under the Geneva Conventions, they're easy to sucker in through rewards that are theirs anyway. Right on, Sterling! --The thing about the earlier suggestion (or maybe it was somewhere else, I can't really keep track) that evidence obtained through torture only be admissable in court if the torturers are executed is that it admits torture in non-eleventh-hour situations; people already act on information gotten through torture in dangerous situations, but allowing it in court brings in a totally different idea. The goal is to stop bombs from being exploded and the like. Doesn't the Geneva Conventions have something to say about torture? Or am I missing something?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Torturing an American citizen before they have been tried and convicted would totally throw the American legal system into chaos. I just don't see how it wouldn't.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that's because you can kill someone as self defense under immediate personal threat of harm. The tangent doesn't really flow over, since anyone being tortured is a captive in your charge, already well beyond the point of a mitigating self-defense scenario. It's the apples-and-oranges point of comparison.
Only because you've seized on only one aspect of self-defense's justification. The apple in each comparison is "Do X or bad thing Y happens."
You can make statements about greater good all you want. The fact is that, for most people, there are situations where it is moral to kill. There are situations in which it is moral to lie. We ought to spend a lot of effort defining those situations as best we can. The same goes for torture.
This is something that commonly confuses me in your posts Dag. What do you actually believe? I am not being snide, I really don't know if you're just arguing because you can, or because you really believe that torture is a good idea in the right circumstances? Failing that, what do you believe about torture, forgetting all the possible benifits and downsides (if that is an answerable question)?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Torturing an American citizen before they have been tried and convicted would totally throw the American legal system into chaos. I just don't see how it wouldn't.
You would be suprised the measures that can be taken in war time so as to avoid the slowness of due process in favor of winning.
From the US constitution: Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
And more recently during Hurricane Katrina, from Wikipedia: "Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a state of emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that "officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters." Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city to curb its descent into chaos and looting."
posted
I like the idea of disallowing torture, and prosecuting anyone who uses it, while allowing them the chance to defend its use as "necessary" in the circumstance.
Sadly, I don't think that's where this country is going with its use of torture. CIA operatives have asked for protection from prosecution for violations of the Geneva Convention. This sort of came out of the blue, but I suspect that what prompted it is that someone, somewhere is starting to narrow down the list of people who may, just possibly, have visited Abu Ghraib a week or so before things got turned onto a bad footing there. We have repeated heard tales of the "operative" who instructed the jailers on prisoner treatment. No-one has disputed those claims. They've just prosecuted the dumb-@ss regular army chumps who took it too far, took pictures, and were complete bone-heads about it.
But somewhere, there's at least one CIA or Army intelligence officer wondering when his name will surface.
Add to that the folks who arranged the extraordinary renditions and violated the laws in some foreign lands that are supposedly our allies.
I think there are quite a number of "operatives" out there who may not want to see the inside of a courtroom. Ultimately, we "asked" them to do some things on our behalf.
I think, as a nation, we have a moral obligation to identify and prosecute the people who went beyond what is lawful under our own laws, or who broke our laws by violating treaties that the US has signed and ratified. If we fail to do that, then we condone the torture, renditions, etc.
Ultimately, the courts may decide on our behalf that the circumstances warranted use of torture in specific cases. If so, so be it. I'll work to change the laws. On the other hand, I have little doubt and less hope that ALL the uses of torture in this war and in our recent history WERE legal or necessary.
I suspect there may be a small number of them that a court would find "acceptable" due to circumstances.
I continue to be worried about ALL uses of torture by our government and our proxies. When we have full disclosure and open review of our use of torture, and we see exactly how much of this activity was legal, I'll be willing to learn that there are a few circumstances in which the use of torture was valid.
I won't buy it now because I haven't seen anything like full disclosure or any attempt to hold the real leaders and instigators responsible.
Bring a few of those operatives to trial, then let's talk.
Disclose what the Administration's orders have been with respect to "rendition," and then let's talk.
Until then, I'll just laugh at the hypotheticals and the rush to prove that 11 guys were caught in England because someone was tortured by our buddies in Pakistan. It's a bunch of all-too-convenient theater.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This quote was making the rounds of the progressive blogs in June, and I didn't see it on this thread. I think it perfectly illustrates the seductive, illusory comforts afforded by torture, in this case apparently approved by the President.
quote: From the Washington Post’s review of the The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind: Bush “was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,” Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, “Do some of these harsh methods really work?”
Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep.
Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety — against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, “thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each…target.” And so, Suskind writes, “the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.”
All of this torture, or harsh interogation if you insist on euphemisms (certainly waterboarding at least is torture), was conducted after the CIA and FBI knew that Abu Zubaydah was clearly delusional, not a high-ranking al-Queada operative, and "appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations."
quote: Now let's keep firmly in Mind all of this Torture (best to call things what they really are, I find) , was going on MONTHS after the CIA and the FBI had conclusive proof this guy was not merely insane, but actively suffering from multiple personality disorder:
CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."
and it Bears repeating again
Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," {long BEFORE the torture was ordered-ED}
I odn't believe anything about martial law allows torturing citizens because the arresting authorities believe they have done something wrong, particularly if the civilian courts are available. I'm not even sure torturing is currently allowed for non-citizens out of country, at all, and that's not getting into a trial. See
The argument that has been put forth for a while on this thread by those promoting torture is that of the 'ticking time bomb'. The problem with this is that it doesn't really define how much life should possibly be at stake in order to use torture. That's why I asked Dagonee my question. According to him, the loss of life can be as little as one person. So, what we are basically saying at this point is that the state can use torture to save a life. Furthermore, the situation is implied to be such that speed is of the essence. That is, torture must be used right then because the state doesn't have time to wait for a confession.
The problem as I see it is that in order for this to be done to citizens, you must almost totally abandon every single right a citizen has. Innocence till proven guilty, right to a speedy trial, right to an attorney. Everything. It's a situation that doesn't currently exist even when there's martial law, I don't think.
Well, we say, if it's to save a life, isn't it worth it? The problem here is the underlying assumption that we must know for a verifiable fact that a life is at stake, for if the state does not know verifiably that there is imminent danger to life, then this opens the door to the worst kinds of abuses. Not that, mind you, even 'verifiable' doesn't. In any case, let's keep it simple and say that the state must have some kind of almost absolute proof that there is a life hanging in the balance if it doesn't get information soon.
The problem here is that loss of life can't be verifiable. If the state knows that someone is in danger, then it almost certainly must know where the danger is. If it knows where the danger is, then it can almost certainly prevent that danger.
For instance, in the case of ticking bombs, how does the state know for sure that there is a bomb waiting to go off? Think about the number of times that the state has raised the alert level and nothing has happened. Well, it could have, we might say. The problem is is that could have shouldn't be good enough in this situation, because could have allows the state carte blanche to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to prevent not even clear and present danger, but the possibility of danger for just one person. Did the state torture the wrong person? Oh, well. Some sadistic jackass on the police force extorting confessions out of people? Well, there were lives to be saved, right?
We might say that torture can only be done with proper authorization, and I'm open to that idea as a possible answer to the torture issue, but what of issues of national security where things must be kept under wraps? What happens if the use of torture was incorrect? Will he who gives the order be held accountable? I doubt it. Even now, if there is a miscarriage of justice, a person *might* get some kind of settlement. Then again, chances are good that they get nothing. And that's after a full trial where all the facts are examined.
It comes down to what I first wrote in this thread. The circumstances defining what is reasonable for the use of torture, and the definition of what is torture, are jsut so vague and nebulous that it opens the door too wide to abuse by the state.
I agree with those who say to keep it illegal as it is. If there is a real need for it to be done, then let the person doing it do so with the full knowledge that if what he does is ever found it, he will be punished, and if it saves lives, then he can do his time (or whatever) confident that from he at least had some good come from his decision to do something wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that New Orleans is not the first city to declare a state of emergency. I seem to recall that we had a few declared when I lived in Florida too, and no one was tortured.
posted
Oh I was not saying that Martial Law gives the govt a basis for torturing somebody. Merely that declaring martial law pushes everything much closer to a state where torture is possible.
It reminds me of the movie "The Siege" Denzel Washington, and Bruce Willis. Too bad the movie sucked, but the basic premise is that there are terrorists that bomb a bank. Martial law is declared in the city and the army captures and tortures a terrorist to get information about the next attack. They end up torturing him and then putting a bullet in his head because to went too far. I do not remember if in the movie torture yielded valuable information, but the Bruce Willis's character is court martialed for ordering the torture.
People keep submitting anecdotes where a suspected terrorist was tortured in all sorts of nasty ways, and then we find out he wastes our time with false leads, and then we find out he knew nothing. Remember the point of the thread was that Pakistan seems to have used torture and gleaned information enough to warn Great Britain of a clear and present danger.
Were you able to wind back the clock, would you have prevented the capture of the man they (allegedly) tortured into talking, in order to preserve his human rights. Then hoped that the British govt would figure out the plot on its own through sensible more humanitarian means?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not clear that the one man's torture was what led to the case breaking open, but let's take it as true. The question is, did those people capturing him know what he knew before they captured him, but only needed to torture him to prevent the harm? If so, this falls under the 'ticking time bomb' scenario.
If they didn't, then you can't claim ticking time bomb.
It's clear, 100% clear that torture can lead to valuable information. I said this in my first post in this thread. The problem is, freaking look at Pakistan. Without looking, it was an out and out dictatorship for a while. I think it might ahve loosened up some, but I can't remember whether it's still a military dictatorship or not, but it still doesn't have the rights that we have, as Americans.
We are Americans. We don't want to become Pakistan. We want to stay American. Free(ish). Able to look at porn, read naughty books, wear scandalous clothing, and generally be goofy.
This freedom carries a price. The price for that freedom is people die because they are allowed to do stupid crap, and because our society is open.
Leave torture alone. We could prevent deaths and mayhem just by having border checks at each of the state lines before letting people into each state. Would it be a pain in the ass? Sure. Would it be doable and prevent deaths from undesirables moving around? Sure. Same thing goes for motorcycle helmets, drugs, sunbathing in the nude and letting people drink. Yes, taking those freedoms away would mean that more lives would be saved, but in the end, for the most part, most people who engage in those activities are responsible, law abiding citizens.
I firmly believe that we are not in a war against terror, we are in a war against stupidity. 90% of the people in the world can get along and try to be good neighbors. 10% of the world is stupid enough to try and bomb other people, drive drunk, and generally not care about others. Trying to keep these people from screwing over the rest of us, or themselves, by penalizing decent smart people doesn't really penalize the stupid people--they'll just move to sniffing glue or building bombs out of gas and nails. (Somewhat pessimistic, but I'm grouchy.) It only penalizes the innocent.
If torture is sanctioned, the people who it's going to be used against, by and large, are giong to be the poor, the ignorant, and the basically harmless. I have no doubt that something so clandestine will be abused and misused for the reasons that I've already layed out.
So, to answer your question, while I can see that 1 times out of a million, torture might be useful, the corruptive influence on the state and society that routine use of torture will have is not worth it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that we're even having this discussion, on hatrack, among people I consider to be the best and the brightest that our civilization has to offer, physically sickens me.
I am appalled, and more than appalled. I am afraid to have anything to do with you who condone torture. I think you are sick. This is my gut reaction.
Torturers do far worse damage to themselves, and to the side they represent, than to any enemy, real or imagined. Torturers represent the epitome of the evil I would struggle against with all my being. Whatever side embraces torture, that side has lost my support and gained my opposition.
Please do NOT imagine, when condoning torture, that it will not ever come to the torture of you and your dear ones. Please don't imagine only foreigners, or terrorists, or murderers will be tortured. History shows us that it is far more often the powerless, the political opponent, the population at large, who are singled out by torturers. Don't imagine that it will be confined to the guilty, or to people with skin a different color, whose accent is a different flavor from yours. No, it will be you. Your family. Your friends. Your brothers and children. They are the ones whom you condemn to the torturers' art.
Think deeply and long about this. Get down on your knees and pray about it with all the energy of your soul.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a democracy, I do not think we should ask our fellow citizens to sacrifice themselves or their principles for the public good unless we are, at least in principle, prepared to do the same. We may not be capable of serving in the military, but we should understand what that means before we ask our fellow citizens to fight for us. One of the signal characteristics of the TTB is that it treats the interrogators and their agency, their principles, as a black box. Who they are is unknown. But we should not assume “democracy for us, dictatorship for the interrogators.” The interrogators are our fellow citizens, part of our democracy, and it would be wrong to ask them to do something we were not prepared to do ourselves. Thus the democratic implication of the TTB is that we must steel ourselves to do something that is very unpleasant, but necessary.
So let us imagine ourselves in the interrogation room with the suspect. Evidence collected from his apartment certainly seems to indicate that he has knowledge of a looming terrorist attack, but he is begging for mercy. Too bad, isn’t it? All we have done is deprive him of sleep and clothing. And it is a bit cold. Unfortunately, he may be scared and cold, but he hasn’t given us one scrap of useful information. And we’re under some time pressure. Your superior has an idea. For better cover, the suspect was living with his family, a wife and young daughter. We’re detaining them in another room. The evidence seems to show the suspect cares for them. Perhaps if we brought them into the room? Your superior warns you to steel yourself for what comes next. Perhaps the suspect will respond to mere threats that they might be put to death in front of him. If threats are not enough, however, we must be prepared to do the worst. Of course, in some cultures there are acts regarded as worse than death. Your superior looks at you. Do you understand what he is talking about? Of course you do. You are experienced in the ways of the TTB, of doing what is necessary to elicit information under the terrible pressure of a deadline.
posted
Almost anything can be justified in very unlikely and extreme circumstances. Consider the situation of an operator whose job it is to raise a bridge to let ships through. A child has somehow gotten his clothes caught in the machinery, and there's no time to get him out, because a ferry is headed for the bridge, and for some reason there's no one at the controls. If the operator pulls the lever, the machinery will crush the child. If the operator doesn't pull the lever, hundreds of people will die when the ferry hits the bridge.
If the situation isn't extreme enough, make it thousands. If there's a way out of the dilemma, assume that for some reason that won't work.
If your decision is to pull the lever, does that mean we should legalize the murder of children? If you decision is not to, should we therefore legalize mass killing?
Wild and unlikely cases make for bad law. Let torture remain (or become) extremely illegal, and people will use it only when the alternative is also extreme. Legalize it because you might need it someday, and we end up with torture (I should say, more torture) of people who aren't even remotely connected with terrorism.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree wholeheartedly, Dan. But no one is advocating torturing an innocent. Kalid Sheik Mohamad does not count as an innocent in my book. Captured AQ don't count as innocents either. And what do you consider torture? Bamboo under the nails? Yes. Electrodes to the testicles? No doubt, yes, Waterboarding? Forced to listen to Jessica Simpson? Maybe, but not to the same degree as others. Frankly, I'm less concerned with these and can see myself waterboarding, without any regrets or guilty conscience, on captured AQs.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would I ever knowingly torture an innocent? Under any circumstances?
Yes, I can imagine circumstances under which I might torture an innocent human being. If, for example, someone were standing over me with total believability and said, "Torture this innocent human being, or I will torture to a slow and agonizing death everyone you like and love."
Perhaps I am defective somehow, but I don't think I'm really all that unusual in that sense. While fortunately this decision will never be forced upon me, I think it is more effective in general for things like this to say, instead of, "Never," take proactive steps to avoid having the decision forced at all.
Because 'never' is a very big word, bigger than every human being I've ever met.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why on Earth is waterboarding different than bamboo under the fingernails?
I can easily see someone being just as terrified by waterboarding as by bamboo under the fingernails. At least with bamboo under the fingernails, you're only in excruciating pain and not constant fear of death by drowning.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, Storm Saxon's post has us torturing a terrorist's daughter in order to get the terrorist to talk.
However, the claim that "we only would torture terrorists" puts an almost divine omnicience on the intelligence community, one they have often shown does not exist.
How many innocent people would be permissable to be tortured before the whole idea of torturing Terrorists would not be worth the price?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked this anti-torture essay, "The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb" by Alfred W. McCoy, a history professor. It examines torture and the ticking time bomb scenario very logically and with historical perspective.
quote:[edit:the end of point three:So the choices are clear. Major success from limited, surgical torture is a fable, a fiction. But mass torture of thousands of suspects, some guilty, most innocent, can produce some useful intelligence. /edit]
Number four: Useful intelligence perhaps, but at what cost? The price of torture is unacceptably high because it disgraces and then undermines the country that countenances it. For the French in Algeria, for the Americans in Vietnam, and now for the Americans in Iraq, the costs have been astronomical and have outweighed any gains gathered by torture.
Official sources are nearly unanimous that the yield from the massive Phoenix program, with more than forty prisons across South Vietnam systematically torturing thousands of suspected communists, was surprisingly low. One Pentagon contract study found that, in 1970-71, only 3 percent of the Viet Cong “killed, captured, or rallied were full or probationary Party members above the district level.” Not surprisingly, such a brutal pacification effort failed either to crush the Viet Cong or win the support of Vietnamese villagers, contributing to the ultimate U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War.
Similarly, the French army won the Battle of Algiers but soon lost the war for Algeria, in part because their systematic torture delegitimated the larger war effort in the eyes of most Algerians and many French. “You might say that the Battle of Algiers was won through the use of torture,” observed British journalist Sir Alistair Horne, “but that the war, the Algerian war, was lost.”
His conclusion?
quote: Number six: The use of torture to stop ticking bombs leads ultimately to a cruel choice—either legalize this brutality, à la Dershowitz and Bush, or accept that the logical corollary to state-sanctioned torture is state-sponsored murder, à la Vietnam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They're usually reductionist/utilitarianist since they generally ask questions that pit virtues and ethics versus a calculated cost.
