Torture: getting Cheney to admit to the Tate murders...

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that as a matter of fact, torture (whatever the definition may be) is illegal under American law. I am in this thread, wholly uninterested in this point. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is about whether or not torture is effective; and by extension whether or not it is, in principle, justifiable.

That current law holds that it is unjustifiable under any circumstances, regardless of its efficacy, is a claim I accept wholeheartedly and without reservation. I have no objection to you returning to this claim in future posts. I hope that in the same spirit, you will not take offense if I ignore it.

When you're weighing whether or not a certain action is justifiable, doesn't the fact that there is a strongly-worded and unmistakable law saying that it may never be justified enter into your calculus?

It seems to me an exceptionally poor decision to ignore such an important point.

As I understand it, you're arguing that a certain course of action (in this case, "torture"), could reasonably not be taken, on the principle that some other course of action or event might achieve the same result for a lesser cost.

You don't have to try to read any understanding other than that which I've clearly stated. I brought up the Unabomber case specifically to refute the claims made that you can know for certain that torture is the only way to get information that will save lives.

If you like, you can use the ticking-time bomb hypotheticals that have been raised in these threads. The trouble is, that I reject as impossible the claim that you know torturing someone will save lives. The reason I cite, aside from the fact that you don't know whether the info you get will be good (that is, you don't know at the outset--I realize you can in some circumstances validate that information independently, but that comes AFTER you've made the decision to torture), is that you don't know that you can't get that information elsewhere. If it's the passive nature of getting the info voluntarily from another source (maybe a source whose existence was previously unknown to our intelligence community, or maybe a source such as intel that's sitting on some CIA analyst's desk but hasn't yet gotten to the person with enough other info to understand its significance).

But this principle applies to any expenditure of effort, to solve any problem. The FBI could conceivably have not bothered to investigate the case at all, on the same principle that they could get a lucky break at any moment--thus saving substantial man-hours, tax dollars, and other resources that could have been more fruitfully expended elsewhere. Exactly where else, nobody knows, because as you point out, you can never know for sure what methods will work the best.

You're right, it's sort of a cost/benefit analysis, but none of the other avenues pursued had the additional "cost" of being flagrantly illegal. None of the other methods would make the U.S. into a rogue state that openly ignores laws regarding a very serious category of crime.

This doesn't cause a firefighter to refrain from rushing into a burning building to save someone trapped inside, on the principle that for all he knows, they could escape on their own at any moment, without exposing him to grave danger for no reason.

No it wouldn't. But it would cause a firefighter to refrain from torturing someone he thought knew something about a fire. Again, entering a burning building to save someone doesn't involve committing a crime. That particular cost-benefit analysis is a little simpler. It depends on a reasonable estimate of the likelihood of the firefighter getting hurt compared to the likelihood of the other person either already being dead or being able to get out on his own.

And it doesn't cause a general to refrain from putting his men in harm's way, on the principle that the political will to fight will slacken in one government or the other, and that the war could end at any moment.

Again, you're comparing the decision to commit a crime with a decision that is not criminal. There is a very important difference. One is criminal. We've agreed not to do it.

Warfare is not criminal justice. And believe it or not, the vast majority of battles have been won by methods far worse than waterboarding--mass slaughter (of one's friends, as well as one's enemies), for example.

If this is war, then these are all prisoners of war, and there are strict rules on their treatment. If this isn't war (and from my perspective, it's not war for several reasons), then we are talking about criminal justice.

And I think the general consensus (and legal definition) that killing someone as a soldier in a battlefield is NOT a criminal act. Stuff like rape and torture --even in war time--are criminal acts.

As a final example, let's take another look at the firefighter who rushes into a burning building to rescue someone, and dies in the fire while it turns out there was nothing they could have done anyway. When questioned, the Fire Chief says "at the time, we believed that sending Fireman Bob into the building was the best course of action, and we stand by that decision." Would you accuse the Chief of claiming to KNOW FOR CERTAIN what was necessary, and argue that he should have refrained from sending anybody into the building, because for all he knew the person inside could be already dead, or have escaped on their own?

First, I don't think the decision to rush into the building is a criminal act under the circumstances you describe. Torture is a criminal act under any circumstances.

Also, again, I'm not the one who first introduced this idea of knowing for certain what's going to happen. This was introduced as an element of these hypotheticals. If you like I can quote you from posters on several JREF threads who asked whether I think it's right to torture one person in order to save the lives of some number of people. I point out that you can't possibly know that torturing one person will save ANY lives, so I reject the hypothetical.

If someone rephrased the question to be more like, "Do you think if members of Bush's crack intel thought that torturing someone might lead to a reduction in lives lost that we should allow them to torture people at their discretion?" I would answer, "No."

I forgot who it was, but someone who started out on the fence on this issue (here in the forum) believes that there are situations where torture is probably justified. (He compared it to capital punishment.) He was not willing, however, to give the authority to a group of politicians (or military officers or anyone else in particular) to make that decision. He came to support the law as it is--a ban on torture with no exceptions under any circumstances.

 

[theprestige]

Joe, you continue to make much of the legal question.

I will try again to explain my position. Hopefully you will then be able to move on:

1. I believe the law may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a citizen of good will disagreed with a particular law. And there is certainly precedent for changing laws when they are perceived to be bad laws.

2. On that basis, I think it is worthwhile to discuss why I think the law is wrong. I don't think that "it's the law, therefore you can't argue against it" is a valid rebuttal. Perhaps you should stick to "it's a good law, and here's why I disagree with your case against it".

As for giving "the authority to a group of politicians (or military officers or anyone else in particular)", we already do this with warfare. Deeds far more heinous than waterboarding have many times been authorized by politicians and military officers in the past, and more than likely will be in the future. In fact, our very system of government explicitly grants these people the responsibility to make these decisions on our behalf.

Previously I gave two such examples: the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Japan. Are you saying that you are comfortable with a system of government that grants the military commanders and their civilian commander-in-chief the authority to make those decisions, but you draw the line at torture?

Further, if so, why? What makes waterboarding, or sleep deprivation, a special case? Why is it okay to shell an enemy position, even though you don't know if some other method would work better, but it's not okay to harshly interrogate an enemy spy under the same circumstances?

Further, if you had good reason to believe that nuking Imperial Japan would end their warfare, and you also had good reason to believe that torturing one of their officers would do the same, but you had no absolute certainty about either approach, which one would you choose? How many percentage points of uncertainty would you trade for how many Japanese lives, before you decided that torturing one person was a better guess than nuking millions?

Further, why do some choices without certainty get a free pass, and others don't? Why is it sometimes okay for you to do costly things without knowing if they'll pay off, but torture is off limits?

Why your fetishization of the law against torture, even though you can't KNOW FOR CERTAIN that there is never a scenario in which it's a justifiable option? Why is it that you're willing to commit to a policy in spite of uncertainty in some cases, but not in others?

Is it purely because it's illegal? If I were to campaign for a change in the law, and my lobbying paid off, and the law was changed, would you be content to sit back and say "well, it's not 100% certain, but it is legal, so I'm okay with it"? Or would you continue to oppose my position on other grounds and lobby just as hard to reinstate the law as I lobbied to strike it down?

You see, it's those other grounds that I'm interested in discussing in this thread.

Also, are you kidding me with this?

I forgot who it was... believes that there are situations where torture is probably justified... He came to support the law as it is--a ban on torture with no exceptions under any circumstances.

Appeal to anonymous authority? Really? Really?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I've been doing exactly this for some time. The Convention Against Torture and U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113C Section 1340 are the pertinent laws.

Joe, thank you for the response.

I recommend this article for a different look at the topic, from someone who might know a bit about it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html

I find your certainty of interest, but uncompelling.

As much as I dislike suits and lawyers, my reservation about prosecuting the lawyers who Bush consulted is the same I'd have with prosecuting a SC justice who wrote a dissenting opinion: having a particular legal opinion ought not be illegal.

As I stated in another thread, there are seven people who might be charged.

Pres Bush.
CIA Director Tenet
Sec Def Rummy
Four Senators on the Select committee for Intelligence: two Dems, two GOP.
(Maybe a couple in the House, not sure, have not thought that line of as much interest.)

But the charge may not stand up in a court. The risk of making those charges is

Losing the case.

You think it's a slam dunk?

I don't.

Justice is a game. So too is hiring lawyers to loophole dive. So too is convening Politically Motivated Star Chambers courts.

We now get to Obama and his sack size: does he have the balls to try this out and see if he wins? Seems that the answer is no. Nor does AG Holder have a sack large enough.

He Has So Stated in public some weeks ago.

I thus ask any of you, why the hell are you still foaming at the mouth about it? The political risk of taking this to court has been adjudged as too high for the benefit accrued.

Therefore, this harangue is a load of wind.

Unless

AG Holder has a change of heart.

What do you think will induce the AG to have a change of heart on this matter?

A post here in Whoville?

DR

 

[Texas]

So do you accept or reject his testimony? It seems your only objection to it is that it doesn't feel right rather than anything concrete.

No I don't reject his testimony any more than I reject the testimonies of 2 former CIA Directors, Goss and Hayden that the EITs worked.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Previous threads on this topic:

Is torture ever warranted?
US torturers to go free

It's somewhat sad that we have to engage in this same argument over and over again.

Torture is illegal, by US law and in the laws of all civilised nations. There are no extenuating circumstances under which torture is legal, under US law or anybody else's, for the very good reason that if claiming extenuating circumstances got you off the hook then everyone would claim extenuating circumstances every time they tortured anybody. There should be no exception for having a tame and morally supine lawyer issue a spurious "opinion" that torture is not torture either - you can argue about whether the lawyer should be prosecuted as an accessory, but certainly anyone who listened to them should not be let off the hook, for exactly the same reason. If that's all it takes then any state can torture anyone.

To once again quote Admiral Blair: "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Everyone who actually tortures anyone belongs in court, to explain why they shouldn't be in jail. "I thought it was legal" or "I really wanted to do it" or "my lawyer said it was okay" aren't usually defences that go down well when you are charged with rape, torture, murder or other offences any morally normal person should know are wrong, but they can try their luck.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Everyone who actually tortures anyone belongs in court, to explain why they shouldn't be in jail. "I thought it was legal" or "I really wanted to do it" or "my lawyer said it was okay" aren't usually defences that go down well when you are charged with rape, torture, murder or other offences any morally normal person should know are wrong, but they can try their luck.

Sorry, but if you are given a legal order, it is not illegal to obey it. That is the issue here, Kevin. You completely miss the point. This was an issue wherein a considerable amount of expert legal opinion was sought, and legal experts offered competent legal advice that "yes, this is a legal order."

You may disagree, but I cannot fathom why you don't grasp this. See also that legal opinions changed, as they are wont to do, and in time the orders were no longer sanctioned, again after the usual bouts of lawyers arguing away. So, the orders changed, as did the behavior.

I agree with Admiral Blair's take on this. Note how practically minded his remarks are, and how emotionally charged and vacuous yours are. You are appealing to some absolute, and I had thought that absolutism was laughed at here. Not much on skeptic today, from the Tasmanian bench.

DR

 

[theprestige]

Previous threads on this topic:

Is torture ever warranted?
US torturers to go free

It's somewhat sad that we have to engage in this same argument over and over again.

What's this "have to"? Nobody's making you engage in this same argument.

Unless you mean that you know you are right, and it's sad that people still insist on agreeing with you anyway?

Torture is illegal, by US law and in the laws of all civilised nations. There are no extenuating circumstances under which torture is legal, under US law or anybody else's, for the very good reason that if claiming extenuating circumstances got you off the hook then everyone would claim extenuating circumstances every time they tortured anybody.

Search and seizure is illegal, by US law and in the laws of all civilised nations. There are no extenuating circumstances under which search and seizure is legal, under US law or anybody else's, for the very good reason that if claiming extenuating circumstances got you off the hook then everyone would claim extenuating circumstances every time they searched anybody's private residence and seized their personal effects.

Oh, wait... that's not true, is it?

There should be no exception for having a tame and morally supine lawyer issue a spurious "opinion" that torture is not torture either - you can argue about whether the lawyer should be prosecuted as an accessory, but certainly anyone who listened to them should not be let off the hook, for exactly the same reason. If that's all it takes then any state can torture anyone.

There should be no exception for having a tame and morally supine judge issue a spurious "warrant" that grants policemen legal permission to engage in search and seizure either - you can argue about whether the judge should be prosecuted as an accessory, but certainly anybody who applies for such a warrant should not be let off the hook, for exactly the same reason. If that's all it takes then any policeman can search anybody's private residence and seize anybody's personal belongings.

Oh, wait... that's not true either, is it?

Everyone who actually tortures anyone belongs in court, to explain why they shouldn't be in jail. "I thought it was legal" or "I really wanted to do it" or "my lawyer said it was okay" aren't usually defences that go down well when you are charged with rape, torture, murder or other offences any morally normal person should know are wrong, but they can try their luck.

So who died and made you the King of What is Morally Normal?

And why should your definition of "torture" be the one we all accept?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sorry, but if you are given a legal order, it is not illegal to obey it. That is the issue here, Kevin. You completely miss the point. This was an issue wherein a considerable amount of expert legal opinion was sought, and legal experts offered competent legal advice that "yes, this is a legal order."

I repeat: If a spurious legal opinion was allowed to make torture legal, everyone would do it.

If some tame lawyer issues an opinion saying it's okay to shoot POWs, you can't do that either.

On borderline cases, sure, I can have some sympathy for people who made a genuine effort to stay on the right side of the law but got poor legal advice. When it comes to rape, torture or murder I have no such sympathies.

I agree at all with Admiral Blair's take on this. Note how practically minded his remarks are, and how emotionally charged and vacuous yours are. You are appealing to some absolute, and I had thought that absolutism was laughed at here. Not much on skeptic today, from the Tasmanian bench.

In my opinion it's not unreasonable to get angry about torture, or angry at the people who try to justify torture. There are worse people in the world, to be sure, but torturers are definitely at an extreme end of the bell curve.

What's this "have to"? Nobody's making you engage in this same argument.

Unless you mean that you know you are right, and it's sad that people still insist on agreeing with you anyway?

I take it for granted that decent people have to stand up against torture.

Search and seizure is illegal, by US law and in the laws of all civilised nations. There are no extenuating circumstances under which search and seizure is legal, under US law or anybody else's, for the very good reason that if claiming extenuating circumstances got you off the hook then everyone would claim extenuating circumstances every time they searched anybody's private residence and seized their personal effects.

Oh, wait... that's not true, is it?

There should be no exception for having a tame and morally supine judge issue a spurious "warrant" that grants policemen legal permission to engage in search and seizure either - you can argue about whether the judge should be prosecuted as an accessory, but certainly anybody who applies for such a warrant should not be let off the hook, for exactly the same reason. If that's all it takes then any policeman can search anybody's private residence and seize anybody's personal belongings.

Oh, wait... that's not true either, is it?

It helps to have a vague clue about the relevant law before you open your piehole to support activities which are crimes throughout the civilized world and for damned good reason.

Go read this. Then you can come back and participate in this discussion once you are up to speed.

So who died and made you the King of What is Morally Normal?

And why should your definition of "torture" be the one we all accept?

I'd call this a failure in the media and in our educational system. People like you think they are entitled to an opinion yet they have no goddamn clue about why the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment exists in the first place or what the hell it says.

Note that the USA ratified it in 1994, so it's US law.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, but if you are given a legal order, it is not illegal to obey it. That is the issue here, Kevin. You completely miss the point. This was an issue wherein a considerable amount of expert legal opinion was sought, and legal experts offered competent legal advice that "yes, this is a legal order."

I disagree. Competent legal advice was sought to construct a legal support for the use of torture, not to determine whether the use of torture was legal. (More specifically, they constructed a legal argument that torture was not torture when it very clearly was.)

 

[fishbob]

You know, it was just a quick example I came up with without much thought. It was not meant to be a scare tactic or anything. It was not meant to imply that all the torture took place to stop some imminent bombing. It was just a simple example.

Why didn't you address anything else I said? Just nitpicking this part? Why?

Many of the posts that attempt to justify torture use this example.
It is a poor and tired justification. Give it a rest.

See Joe's post 118 for details.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Here is an informative article from Salon, "The 13 People Who Made Torture Possible", giving a good overview of who did what and when to create the illusion that some torture was legal, and the illusion that the torture that was going on met that standard for legality.

It looks like the Bush administration wasn't even following its own made-up rules about what constituted torture.

Torture advocates: If it indeed turns out that the torture conducted was illegal even if you think that the Bush regime's opinions about the legality of torture were valid, would you then support prosecuting those involved? If not, what on Earth would it take?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As much as I dislike suits and lawyers, my reservation about prosecuting the lawyers who Bush consulted is the same I'd have with prosecuting a SC justice who wrote a dissenting opinion: having a particular legal opinion ought not be illegal.

But ordering torture and doing torture is illegal. These crimes were actually committed during the Bush administration, yet not one person has been charged with the crime of torturing a prisoner.

I have no problem with not charging the lawyers for complicity in torture (though I suspect a case can be made because of the close connection between this legal advice and setting policy). But certainly someone set these policies (basically ordered torture). The law clearly says that those people are culpable. If it's not Bush's lawyers, then it should certainly be Bush--"the decider".

Oh, and the lawyers should at least be disbarred. They advised their clients that the only thing the torture laws make illegal is the intentional infliction of pain equivalent to organ failure, loss of bodily function and even death. This is such an egregious misinterpretation of very clearly worded law that whoever wrote that should never practice law again.

ETA: FWIW, I agree with your list of the people who should be prosecuted, though I wouldn't limit it to just them. (The C.A.T. specifically states that just following orders is not a defense.) I think you should also consider the risks of not prosecuting any of them. It sets a dangerous precedent. It means the U.S. flouts international law (acts as a rogue state). It effectively undoes the C.A.T. for everyone.

By the way, Bush publicly stated that we don't torture even after at least some of the cases where prisoners were tortured to death. Even under the ultra-tight definition of torture, this still constitutes torture. Yeah, I think that alone is cause for some serious investigation into what Bush knew when, and how much of this was policy that he is responsible for setting.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I disagree. Competent legal advice was sought to construct a legal support for the use of torture, not to determine whether the use of torture was legal. (More specifically, they constructed a legal argument that torture was not torture when it very clearly was.)

And that alone sounds like a pretty strong case for complicity.

At the very least, we shouldn't just rule out any culpability on the part of the lawyers involved.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1. I believe the law may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a citizen of good will disagreed with a particular law. And there is certainly precedent for changing laws when they are perceived to be bad laws.

I've mentioned several times that the C.A.T. has several ways a member state can challenge it if they think it's bad law--up to and including renunciation of the treaty (basically un-signing and un-ratifying it). However, that's not the approach the Bush administration took. They gave no indication that they thought it was bad law. They made no effort to leave the C.A.T. Since they did not, it is binding law.

If you're talking about challenging the law through civil disobedience, (an argument I anticipated some time ago), I'd point out that part of that process is to break the law openly and accept being prosecuted for it, even accept a conviction and punishment in order to appeal the validity of the law itself. Again, that's not what happened under the Bush administration. Nothing even remotely like it.

2. On that basis, I think it is worthwhile to discuss why I think the law is wrong. I don't think that "it's the law, therefore you can't argue against it" is a valid rebuttal. Perhaps you should stick to "it's a good law, and here's why I disagree with your case against it".

Yes, you can discuss why you think the law isn't good. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is and was established law at the time these crimes were committed. The fact that you might think it's not good law doesn't make the law go away.

I'm happy to debate with you whether or not the law is good. I think it is good. I've pointed out the problem with allowing torture in an extremely rare case when you think it is justified is that you effectively put that decision in the hands of every tyrant, bully, or ideologue who thinks his ends justify any means. You've effectively removed the ban on torture altogether.

Seriously, I don't think anyone commits this type of torture just because they're sadistic. I think everyone involved genuinely believed it was an effective means to some worthy end. That's why I think it's very important to have the strongly worded law that we have in the C.A.T. that clearly says there is NO situation, no emergency of any kind whatsoever that can ever justify torture.

Previously I gave two such examples: the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Japan. Are you saying that you are comfortable with a system of government that grants the military commanders and their civilian commander-in-chief the authority to make those decisions, but you draw the line at torture?

Not at all. We have international law that forbids the indiscriminate bombing of an entire city. I think the only reason such laws weren't in place in WWII is that nobody anticipated the technology or will to do it previously.

Further, if so, why? What makes waterboarding, or sleep deprivation, a special case?

I'm not arguing a special case. Torture is well defined.

Why is it okay to shell an enemy position, even though you don't know if some other method would work better, but it's not okay to harshly interrogate an enemy spy under the same circumstances?

It's not always okay to shell an enemy position. In fact, in most cases, if you just shelled someone you regarded as an enemy, it would be regarded as a violation of the UN Charter itself. (Many of us regarded the invasion and occupation of Iraq as exactly that.)

Further, if you had good reason to believe that nuking Imperial Japan would end their warfare, and you also had good reason to believe that torturing one of their officers would do the same, but you had no absolute certainty about either approach, which one would you choose? How many percentage points of uncertainty would you trade for how many Japanese lives, before you decided that torturing one person was a better guess than nuking millions?

I think you're asking to argue whether the nuking of 2 civilian cities in Japan was justified. I don't think it was. However, that's another topic and really doesn't belong on this thread, I think.

Further, why do some choices without certainty get a free pass, and others don't? Why is it sometimes okay for you to do costly things without knowing if they'll pay off, but torture is off limits?

Asked and answered. In the examples you've cited, you left off a significant part of the cost (the question of legality, which you want very much to ignore).

Why your fetishization of the law against torture, even though you can't KNOW FOR CERTAIN that there is never a scenario in which it's a justifiable option? Why is it that you're willing to commit to a policy in spite of uncertainty in some cases, but not in others?

Is it purely because it's illegal? If I were to campaign for a change in the law, and my lobbying paid off, and the law was changed, would you be content to sit back and say "well, it's not 100% certain, but it is legal, so I'm okay with it"?

No, then I would campaign very hard to get the law reinstated for the reasons I've expressed many times. However, that isn't what happened in this case, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. I've yet to hear anyone propose that the U.S. renounce the C.A.T. and change its own Code to reflect the position that torture should be legalized.

Appeal to anonymous authority? Really? Really?

It was not an appeal to authority of any kind. It's not my position (because I don't think there even exists rare situations when torture is justified). I would have preferred to mention who it was (one of our regular forumites), but I can't remember who it was. It was not an argument based on authority at all. It was making the case that EVEN IF you think torture is justified on rare occasions, you should be able to see that allowing it on those occasions opens up a can of worms. You will effectively do away with the ban on torture altogether.

 

[Brainster]

Torture advocates: If it indeed turns out that the torture conducted was illegal even if you think that the Bush regime's opinions about the legality of torture were valid, would you then support prosecuting those involved?

No, of course not. If I think the Bush administration's opinions about the legality of EITs was valid, why on earth would I support prosecuting them for acting in a way that they believed was legal? Just because somebody else has another legal opinion?

If not, what on Earth would it take?

1. Absolute certainty that waterboarding amounted to torture.
2. The knowledge that waterboarding was used on innocent detainees, or "suspected" terrorists. Abu Zubaydah and KSM are not "suspected" of terrorism.

 

[theprestige]

stuff

This thread started out as a discussion of the efficacy of certain interrogation methods, not the legality of them.

I fully understand your position that, effective or not, the methods are (or should be) illegal under current law, and therefore are off limits.

What I don't yet understand is your position on other horrible acts of mass murder and wanton slaughter.

Was nuking Japan during WWII okay because it was legal? Or was it okay for other reasons as well?

As for putting "that decision in the hands of every tyrant, bully, or ideologue who thinks his ends justify any means", do you really think that such people are bound by bans on torture to begin with?

There are laws against search and seizure, but somehow they don't prevent corrupt policemen from conducting illegal searches and seizures anyway. What makes bans on torture different?

Please help me to understand: You are willing to stipulate that torture is sometimes effective, that it is sometimes justifiable, and that even in this uncertain world it can sometimes be the most likely route to the desired result. Nevertheless, you support the ban on torture, because if we ever allow good people in difficult situations to choose the lesser of two evils, this will give bad people the excuse they've been waiting for to choose the greater of two evils whenever the like.

Is this about right?

 

[theprestige]

stuff

I know all about the UN ban on torture, and the position of US law on torture.

My point, which you seemed to have missed, is that we also have laws against search of your private residence and seizure of your personal belongings, but we seem to have found a way to allow exceptions to those laws, in certain cases.

In fact, we have laws against all sorts of things: depriving a person of their right to life, or their right to liberty, for example.

And yet, for each of these legal prohibitions, we agree that there are sometimes good reasons to grant an exception: Criminals are imprisoned against their will. Enemy soldiers are summarily executed on the battlefield. The police actually do have the authority to search your home and take your stuff, if a judge agrees it's necessary.

Speaking of enemy soldiers, warfare is an excellent place to find exceptions to all kinds of laws: POWs can be held indefinitely without trial. Even civilians can be slaughtered en masse, if that's what it takes. Spies can be sent into another country under false pretenses, and they can be killed on the spot, without question, if discovered.

So, with all these laws with all their exceptions, what makes torture so special? Why can torture never, ever have an exception, but the use of nuclear weapons can sometimes be permitted?

 

[Upchurch]

Was nuking Japan during WWII okay because it was legal? Or was it okay for other reasons as well?

That's a very complex question for a simple "yes" or "no" answer. I think the important part for this discussion is what distinguishes a nuclear attack from using torture.

Again, this is grossly simplified, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both areas of military significance. They were, so to speak, players on the battlefield. They were not under Allied control and were in a position to contribute to the war against the Allies.

Captured prisoners, on the other hand, are removed from the battlefield. They are under US control and are not in a position to contribute to any war effort against the US. There is no longer a case of imminent, or even potential, danger posed by the prisoner. That is why torture is "special" and never okay. It is violent action against someone we already in our custody.

 

[Cicero]

Again, this is grossly simplified, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both areas of military significance. They were, so to speak, players on the battlefield. They were not under Allied control and were in a position to contribute to the war against the Allies.

Of course.

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the V Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's II General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Not to mention it was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

Nagasaki had much industrial activity relating to war production including ordnance, ships, military equipment, etc.

But if you are on the battlefield and find yourself in a vice, as being nearly surrounded by the enemy, and you have a recently captured prisoner, to say that American soldiers would not employ methods to force the prisoner to reveal where the mine fields are, or use that prisoner to lead the way through areas that are booby trapped, is just ridiculous.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

 

[theprestige]

That's a very complex question for a simple "yes" or "no" answer. I think the important part for this discussion is what distinguishes a nuclear attack from using torture.

Again, this is grossly simplified, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both areas of military significance. They were, so to speak, players on the battlefield. They were not under Allied control and were in a position to contribute to the war against the Allies.

Captured prisoners, on the other hand, are removed from the battlefield. They are under US control and are not in a position to contribute to any war effort against the US. There is no longer a case of imminent, or even potential, danger posed by the prisoner. That is why torture is "special" and never okay. It is violent action against someone we already in our custody.

What is it, specifically, about being in custody, that prevents the leader of a terrorist cell, or the coordinator of several such cells, from continuing to pose a threat, simply by keeping silent about events he has already set in motion?