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

[Upchurch]

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?

I'm not sure I understand your question. How could a person in custody continue to be a threat (barring escape or something similar)?

The terrorist cell, assuming there is one, continues to be a threat, sure, but they aren't the guy in custody. And, I said nothing about not getting information about the terrorist cell from the guy in custody. I'm all for that.

(Do all of us a favor and try not to fall back on a season story arc for 24. If you do, I'll have to counter with something from Harry Potter.)

 

[Whiplash]

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.

Ok, but I want to repeat, AGAIN, that I am NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO JUSTIFY TORTURE.

I have only been questioning the idea that it's 100% ineffective, always. I think that is stretching/exaggerating things too much.

I knew that some people would mistake my position as defense, but it's not. I'm just questioning why those against it feel a need to make it out to be even worse than it is. It's bad enough on it's own to merit not doing it, without lying about it's effectiveness.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, with all these laws with all their exceptions, what makes torture so special?

Mostly, as compared to the other topics you keep bringing up (like using nuclear weapons), that it's the topic of this thread.

Just because I think torture is never justified doesn't mean I think everything else under the sun is justifiable.

As Upchurch said (really, most St. Louisans can't agree on ANYTHING), torture and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not similar. Dropping the bombs does not fit the definition of torture.

If you care to discuss the issue of dropping bombs on civilians, I invite you to start another thread on that topic or participating in one of the existing threads on that topic.

The C.A.T. also doesn't say anything about assassination. It doesn't follow that because assassination doesn't fit the definition of torture that I think assassination is morally or legally OK. It's just a different topic.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

No, this thread actually started out based on Jesse Ventura's assertion that waterboarding constitutes torture.

From the OP (a quote from the Larry King interview): "Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law."

The OP also quoted the bit mentioned in the thread title about getting Cheney to admit to the Tate murders, so I think discussing the effectiveness of torture is on topic.

However, so is the legality of torture. Your assertion that the legality of torture is off topic for this thread is simply wrong.

When making the decision to torture, you don't know whether it will be effective (and you can't possibly know that), but you do know that you will be breaking the law and committing a grave crime.

 

[fishbob]

Ok, but I want to repeat, AGAIN, that I am NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO JUSTIFY TORTURE.

I have only been questioning the idea that it's 100% ineffective, always. I think that is stretching/exaggerating things too much.

I knew that some people would mistake my position as defense, but it's not. I'm just questioning why those against it feel a need to make it out to be even worse than it is. It's bad enough on it's own to merit not doing it, without lying about it's effectiveness.

Effectiveness? 100%.
You can get anybody to say anything you want if you are persistent enough.

Reliable? 100%.
As long as you are trying to get someone to say what you want to hear.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have only been questioning the idea that it's 100% ineffective, always. I think that is stretching/exaggerating things too much.

I knew that some people would mistake my position as defense, but it's not. I'm just questioning why those against it feel a need to make it out to be even worse than it is. It's bad enough on it's [sic] own to merit not doing it, without lying about it's [sic] effectiveness.

As I've been pointing out, when you are making the decision whether or not to torture someone, you cannot possibly know that it will be effective in getting you good information. Also, as I've pointed out, you can never know that torture is the only way you will get the information you want. You do know is that you will be committing an atrocious and illegal act.

By the way, you also don't know that your "less-than-lethal" techniques won't result in the prisoner's death. (In normal criminal law, we can use the felony murder rule to increase any felony to murder if the commission of the felony resulted in someone's death, even though the elements of murder are not present.)

ETA: Maybe this is just semantics, but since I can't possibly know at the outset that torturing someone will give me good information, I have no problem saying this means that torture is never justified. I don't see any exaggeration or stretching the truth in this.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure I understand your question. How could a person in custody continue to be a threat (barring escape or something similar)?

By setting threats in motion, and then keeping silent about their existence.

The terrorist cell, assuming there is one, continues to be a threat, sure, but they aren't the guy in custody. And, I said nothing about not getting information about the terrorist cell from the guy in custody. I'm all for that.

Strictly speaking, you're not "all" for that. You're only "partially" for that. What I'm wondering is, where do you draw the line, and why?

Mostly, as compared to the other topics you keep bringing up (like using nuclear weapons), that it's the topic of this thread.

Just because I think torture is never justified doesn't mean I think everything else under the sun is justifiable.

As Upchurch said (really, most St. Louisans can't agree on ANYTHING), torture and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not similar. Dropping the bombs does not fit the definition of torture.

If you care to discuss the issue of dropping bombs on civilians, I invite you to start another thread on that topic or participating in one of the existing threads on that topic.

The C.A.T. also doesn't say anything about assassination. It doesn't follow that because assassination doesn't fit the definition of torture that I think assassination is morally or legally OK. It's just a different topic.

So... the difference between torture and mass slaughter is that torture isn't mass slaughter? And you're okay with allowing exceptions for mass slaughter because it isn't torture?

But in fact you refuse to actually explain why torture doesn't qualify for an exception, in your opinion. Let's review:

• We can't allow exceptions for torture because then people who don't care about the law will use our righteous exceptions to justify their own evil acts. But people who don't care about the law will commit those evil acts regardless of our policies. You have yet to reconcile this conundrum.
• We can't allow exceptions for torture because torture doesn't work with 100% certainty. But nothing works with 100% certainty, outside of simple arithmetic. We allow exceptions all the time, for making great expenditure at great risk without 100%certainty of success. You have yet to reconcile this conundrum.
• We can't allow exceptions for torture because torture is really, really mean. But we allow exceptions for really, really mean things all the time. Mass slaughter, for example, which is arguably much meaner than torturing a single indivual. You have yet to reconcile this conundrum.
• We can't allow exceptions for torture because the law prohibits them. But laws can be changed. The law does not determine whether a thing is right or wrong; only whether it is permitted or punished by society. You have yet to reconcile this conundrum.

When pressed to reconcile these conundrums, you fall back on the empty argument that torture is different, somehow. It's not any of these other things for which we allow exceptions, therefore we can't allow exceptions for it.

And to this you've now added the novel argument that we can't even compare torture to anything else, because nothing else is torture.

Alright, then, let's talk about torture, qua torture: What makes it special? What is it about the nature of torture, that makes it ineligible for exceptions?

But be warned: If your argument is that the nature of torture is something common to the nature of many things (e.g., that torture is a really mean thing to do to someone), then I'll consider it legitimate to compare to torture other things that share its nature, until you come up with something unique to torture, that makes it ineligible for exception.

I am, of course, assuming that you actually believe torture is unique in this way, and that it merits a unique place in law and custom. I'm also assuming that you actually know why you believe this.

 

[Upchurch]

Strictly speaking, you're not "all" for that. You're only "partially" for that.

No, I'm all for that. Restricting the how does not diminish the what.

What I'm wondering is, where do you draw the line, and why?

I draw the line at becoming monsters.

Do you think we're better than terrorists? I do. The reason I think we're better than them is because there are some levels to which we (usually) won't stoop.

 

[theprestige]

I draw the line at becoming monsters.

Do you think we're better than terrorists? I do. The reason I think we're better than them is because there are some levels to which we (usually) won't stoop.

I'm not sure we're "better" than terrorists. I'm not even sure what "better" and "worse" mean in such a context.

We don't imprison people unless we think there is a good reason. Neither do terrorists. Which of us is "better", and which is "worse"?

We don't commit mass slaughter unless we think there is a good reason. Neither do terrorists. Which of us is "better", and which is "worse"?

We don't use explosives in areas known or suspected to contain civilians, unless we think there is a good reason. Neither do terrorists. Which of us is "better", and which is "worse"?

We don't play good-cop/bad-cop with people, in order to get them to divulge information, unless we think there is a good reason. Neither do terrorists. Which of us is "better", and which is "worse"?

We don't wrap protective padding around a prisoner's neck, and throw him up against a false wall from a short distance away, to create the psychological impression that he's being battered against a real wall... Unless we think there is a good reason. Does this make us "worse" than terrorists?

Terrorists don't kidnap reporters, behead them, and publish the video footage of the event... Unless they think they have a good reason. Does this make them "better" than us?

You see my point? I find the rule of thumb "there are certain things we just don't do, because we're better than the terrorists" to be simplistic and naive. It's just not satisfactory to me. We do all sorts of horrible things all the time, because they are the lesser of two evils, and the situation requires that we do something.

I'm willing to accept the premise that there are some things which are almost never justified. Certain things which might be justified under scenarios that are so far-fetched as to be practically irrelevant.

What I want to know is, what's so special about waterboarding? Why is that where you draw the line? Why is that the thing that makes you better than terrorists? You'll deprive a man of his freedom. You'll commit mass slaughter--of civilians, even--if you think there's a good enough reason. You'll do all of these things, and pat yourself on the back that you're still better than the terrorists. But waterboarding someone? That puts you right up there with the men who beheaded Daniel Pearl. Why? What's so special about waterboarding?

 

[Upchurch]

We don't imprison people... {snip}

We don't commit mass slaughter... {snip}

We don't use explosives in areas known or suspected to contain civilians... {snip}

We don't play good-cop/bad-cop with people, in order to get them to divulge information... {snip}

We don't wrap protective padding around a prisoner's neck, and throw him up against a false wall from a short distance away, to create the psychological impression that he's being battered against a real wall... {snip}

Terrorists don't kidnap reporters, behead them, and publish the video footage of the event... Unless they think they have a good reason. Does this make them "better" than us?

Hey, what happened to the "we don't..." for kidnapping/beheading/publishing thing? Would we, the United States of America, kidnap reporters, behead them, and publish the video if we thought we had good reason?

Honestly, this is a level of moral relativism I had not expected from you. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers felt they had good reason for what they did. Do you excuse them their actions?

You see my point?

A little too well and I hope you are never in a position of authority.

 

[theprestige]

Hey, what happened to the "we don't..." for kidnapping/beheading/publishing thing?

I'll tell you what: You answer my questions, and I'll answer yours.

Would we, the United States of America, kidnap reporters, behead them, and publish the video if we thought we had good reason?

Why not? Why else would we do something, if not because we thought we had a good reason?

So the only thing that makes us "better" than the terrorists, according to you, is that we haven't yet found a good reason to do some of the things they've done?

But we've done some pretty horrible things; things even terrorists haven't done. We've killed a lot more people, for example. And the only excuse we have is "we thought we had a good reason".

What makes that excuse any better when we use it, than when terrorists use it?

Honestly, this is a level of moral relativism I had not expected from you. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers felt they had good reason for what they did. Do you excuse them their actions?

Why shouldn't I? Is there anything other than "we thought we had a good reason" that you would use to judge their actions?

Again, what is so special about waterboarding, for example, that there is never a good reason to use it? What is so special about waterboarding, that if you use it, regardless of your excuse, you're no "better" than the terrorists who beheaded Daniel Pearl?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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?

You need to read what I actually wrote. Here, look, I'll say it all again just for you.

Suppose the Bush government's legal position was "A, B and C do not constitute torture, as long as you do Z as well".

Suppose it turns out that in addition to A, B, and C they were also doing E, F and G, and that they were not doing Z. So what they were doing was illegal even if the Bush memos had legal or moral weight.

Would you prosecute then? If not, what on Earth does it take before you grow a moral backbone?

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.

"Absolute certainty" is an absurd standard, so I guess you're never going to grow that backbone I mentioned. As for whether or not the people tortured were "innocent", the convention makes absolutely no exceptions based on "innocence" or "guilt" so it's legally irrelevant that they had not been convicted of a crime and lawfully sentenced to waterboarding.

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.

Your point is idiotic. I suggest you read the actual documents you are trying to appeal to.

Just to begin with, the US constitutional prohibition is against unreasonable search and seizure, and lawyers argue over what is reasonable. The Convention is not a half-arsed agreement banning unreasonable torture, it's a ban on torture. Full stop, no exceptions.

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.

I think the passage you are thinking of says "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty except by..." and then goes on to list the exceptions.

Whereas the convention has no passage saying "No person shall be tortured except by...", because it's a ban on torture. Full stop, no exceptions.

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?

If nothing else, because the USA never ratified a law saying that it was illegal to ever use a nuclear weapon, full stop, no exceptions.

 

[theprestige]

You need to read what I actually wrote. Here, look, I'll say it all again just for you.

Suppose the Bush government's legal position was "A, B and C do not constitute torture, as long as you do Z as well".

Suppose it turns out that in addition to A, B, and C they were also doing E, F and G, and that they were not doing Z. So what they were doing was illegal even if the Bush memos had legal or moral weight.

Would you prosecute then? If not, what on Earth does it take before you grow a moral backbone?



"Absolute certainty" is an absurd standard, so I guess you're never going to grow that backbone I mentioned. As for whether or not the people tortured were "innocent", the convention makes absolutely no exceptions based on "innocence" or "guilt" so it's legally irrelevant that they had not been convicted of a crime and lawfully sentenced to waterboarding.



Your point is idiotic. I suggest you read the actual documents you are trying to appeal to.

Just to begin with, the US constitutional prohibition is against unreasonable search and seizure, and lawyers argue over what is reasonable. The Convention is not a half-arsed agreement banning unreasonable torture, it's a ban on torture. Full stop, no exceptions.



I think the passage you are thinking of says "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty except by..." and then goes on to list the exceptions.

Whereas the convention has no passage saying "No person shall be tortured except by...", because it's a ban on torture. Full stop, no exceptions.



If nothing else, because the USA never ratified a law saying that it was illegal to ever use a nuclear weapon, full stop, no exceptions.

So this ends up being a variation on Joe's theme: torture is illegal, therefore it's inappropriate to discuss whether or not it should be illegal.

As for the exceptions, that's exactly my point: These other laws include exception clauses. Why not laws on torture? And please, you've already tried "because they don't, that's why!". As an explanation it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Upchurch]

Would we, the United States of America, kidnap reporters, behead them, and publish the video if we thought we had good reason?

Why not? Why else would we do something, if not because we thought we had a good reason?

I am speechless.

So the only thing that makes us "better" than the terrorists, according to you, is that we haven't yet found a good reason to do some of the things they've done?

No, that's your distorted logic, not mine.

Honestly, this is a level of moral relativism I had not expected from you. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers felt they had good reason for what they did. Do you excuse them their actions?

Why shouldn't I? Is there anything other than "we thought we had a good reason" that you would use to judge their actions?

...are you being sarcastic? Because that really doesn't come across online without a smilie of some kind.

Again, what is so special about waterboarding, for example, that there is never a good reason to use it? What is so special about waterboarding, that if you use it, regardless of your excuse, you're no "better" than the terrorists who beheaded Daniel Pearl?

In order to have a debate, two parties must have a common ground of premises that is taken as given (3b). Your position is so utterly and self-servingly devoid of ethical principle, that I honestly don't know where to begin building a logical argument.

Is there nothing you find beyond the pale? Is there no action so inhuman that it should never be considered?

Okay, how about this: The Holocaust. The Nazis thought they had good reason for the systemic destruction of six million defenseless Jewish people. Would we, the United States of America, do that if we thought we had good reason?

What is the means that is not justified by the ends?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So this ends up being a variation on Joe's theme: torture is illegal, therefore it's inappropriate to discuss whether or not it should be illegal.

It depends. Are we having a conversation about whether what the US government did was illegal, and hence deserving of prosecution? If so, discussing whether it should be illegal is neither here nor there. If they think torture should have been legal they can tell that to the jury.

On the other hand if we are having a more philosophical discussion about whether it should be illegal it's appropriate to discuss whatever you want. The framers of the Convention realised that if you let governments torture people when they decided for themselves that it was convenient to do so, every ratbag government on Earth would just say "Oh, that guy was trying to overthrow us, we had to torture him" or "that guy had information that he wasn't divulging, we had to torture him" or "we ran a few hundred volts through his testicles but we have a legal opinion saying that it didn't technically constitute torture".

In other words to ban torture in all participating nations, you have to ban torture. Otherwise there's no point having a convention in the first place.

As for the exceptions, that's exactly my point: These other laws include exception clauses. Why not laws on torture? And please, you've already tried "because they don't, that's why!". As an explanation it leaves a lot to be desired.

Now you know why.

ETA: Oh look, remember that guy that they tortured until he said stuff that could be used to pretend there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Who later recanted his story, and whose story was never confirmed by any hard evidence whatsoever? He just "committed suicide" in a Libyan jail. Washington Post Article.

Chalk up another reason why governments shouldn't be allowed to torture people. They might just torture the hell out of people until they say whatever is politically convenient, regardless of what the truth is. So much for the fantasy that torture is only ever used to get reliable intelligence that saves lives.

 

[theprestige]

I am speechless.



No, that's your distorted logic, not mine.





...are you being sarcastic? Because that really doesn't come across online without a smilie of some kind.



In order to have a debate, two parties must have a common ground of premises that is taken as given (3b). Your position is so utterly and self-servingly devoid of ethical principle, that I honestly don't know where to begin building a logical argument.

Is there nothing you find beyond the pale? Is there no action so inhuman that it should never be considered?

Okay, how about this: The Holocaust. The Nazis thought they had good reason for the systemic destruction of six million defenseless Jewish people. Would we, the United States of America, do that if we thought we had good reason?

What is the means that is not justified by the ends?

I think that there are plenty of means that are not justified by the ends.

About certain harsh interrogation techniques, I'm honestly not so sure.

Since you seem to be very sure indeed, I'm asking you sincere questions about your surety. What, exactly do you rule out, when it comes to interrogation, and why? Personally, I'm not sure where to draw the line. I'm not sure that the UN ban on torture draws the line in the right place.

You are. Why?

If I were confident of my answers to your questions, I would answer them. But I'm not. You seem to be supremely confident of your answers, but you consistently refuse to share the basis for your confidence with me. Why is that? Why not just answer my straightforward questions in a straightforward way?

Your continued insistence that your beliefs are so obviously true that you don't need to explain or justify them to me, and that I should simply trust your opinion on faith, is getting very frustrating.

Please, share the basis of your confidence with me.

 

[theprestige]

It depends. Are we having a conversation about whether what the US government did was illegal, and hence deserving of prosecution?... On the other hand if we are having a more philosophical discussion about whether it should be illegal it's appropriate to discuss whatever you want.

I'm having (well, trying to have) a "more philosophical discussion about whether it should be illegal". I hope we can proceed on this basis.

The framers of the Convention realised that if you let governments torture people when they decided for themselves that it was convenient to do so, every ratbag government on Earth would just say "Oh, that guy was trying to overthrow us, we had to torture him" or "that guy had information that he wasn't divulging, we had to torture him" or "we ran a few hundred volts through his testicles but we have a legal opinion saying that it didn't technically constitute torture".

This doesn't make sense to me.

"Ratbag" governments violate international human rights conventions--including the ban on torture--all the time. It seems pretty obvious to me that the ban on torture is totally worthless as a method for regulating evildoers.

Responsible, humanitarian people will generally be responsible and humanitarian in the use of exceptions to the rules. Irresponsible, inhumane people will generally make exceptions whenever it suits them, even if such exceptions do not exist in the rules as written.

In other words to ban torture in all participating nations, you have to ban torture. Otherwise there's no point having a convention in the first place.

We ban all sorts of horrible things in general, and yet still see a way to permit exceptions in particular situations.

We manage to avoid the slippery slope in all kinds of situations. We manage to find ways to permit good people to make principled use of an exception to some rule, while still punishing bad people for engaging in unprincipled exploitation of the same exception.

I keep asking, what makes torture so different from all these other rules, that it, uniquely, cannot ever be permitted, regardless of the situation.

And the answer continues to be "because it just can't, that's why!"

And I continue to find this answer unsatisfactory.

I mean, I ask the same question about the targeting of civlians during war, and the answer is that the indiscriminate targeting of civlians is an abomination that can never be tolerated, but that the discriminate acceptance of civilian casualties in some circumstances is a necessary evil that, while regrettable, can be tolerated.

This seems reasonable to me. It's consistent with my beliefs about morality and the sanctity of human life. It strikes me as a rational acknowledgement of the grim realities of warfare, and the regrettable necessity of warfare. I think it is an ethical, humane attempt to reconcile several conflicting values, and to resolve the dilemma of being forced to choose the lesser of several evils.

But when it comes to certain harsh interrogation methods, styled by some (but not by me) as "torture", and certain other methods which even I would agree are "torture", it appears no such reasoning is necessary, or even possible.

It cannot be discussed. It cannot be debated. The possibility of mitigating circumstances can never be raised. The idea of offering a rational rebuttal is utterly rejected.

The mantra seems to be "The UN bans it. You can't question it. That settles it."

But that doesn't settle it for me. I have doubts. I have questions. I want answers. Real answers, not strawmen, appeals to authority, and ad hominems.

What. Makes. Torture. SPECIAL?

 

[I Ratant]

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?

.
If you torture the information out of him, how do you know it's THE information, and not something that will divert your attention from the actual event intended?

 

[I Ratant]

...

When making the decision to torture, you don't know whether it will be effective (and you can't possibly know that), but you do know that you will be breaking the law and committing a grave crime.

.
Even the "just following orders" defense fails when it is obvious the orders are illegal/immoral, and a person refuses to follow the order(s).
There are few trials for such people, as those who promulgate the illegal orders know they're illegal.
That there were apparently no such refusals at any stage in the torture proceedings, from the lawyers that wrote the briefs through the persons in command who passed on the orders to those who perpetrated the orders shows a considerable systemic bankruptcy in moral and ethical standards.
Americans -should- know better than to think up and implement what these scum have done to our country.
That prosecution is being ruled out demonstrates the rot isn't merely in the Bush administration.

 

[I Ratant]

...
"Ratbag" governments violate international human rights conventions--including the ban on torture--all the time. It seems pretty obvious to me that the ban on torture is totally worthless as a method for regulating evildoers.

...

.
We, the United States of America, aren't supposed to be a "ratbag government".
Our behavior can't regulate any other government, but it should be able to -influence- those that have similar high-minded intentions of decent human behavior.