Is torture ever warranted?

[JoeTheJuggler]

We cannot aspire to completely sever our more basic instincts and urges, but we can aspire to a society that reflects what is best in humankind.

I like that.

I would add that the U.S. has also signed and ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture, so that when we violate that agreement we're breaking the law. Part of the C.A.T. required nations that signed it to pass their own laws reflecting the agreement. We did so in the U.S. Code. So again, when we commit torture, we're breaking the law.

I remember once hearing G. Gordon Liddy speak. During the Q & A, a man stood up and introduced himself as a retired career law enforcement professional (I forget the exact jobs or titles he had). He pointed out that in his career, he took oaths to uphold the law at several points. How can any of these operatives justify violating the law that they too, no doubt, were sworn to uphold?

I think not torturing prisoners isn't exactly a tremendously lofty aspiration.

 

[paximperium]

Sigh...beats me. Not an easy question.

I've generally opposed torture especially the whole Abu Graib and Guantanomo Bay debacle. Damn, I've marched on the streets agants those things a few years back, written by local congressperson etc.

However, I've always left open the rare situation where it may be needed in the most dire of circumstances. If there is evidence that it is useless even in those situations, I may change my mind even in these "dire situations"...I'll do some reading.

 

[paximperium]

Dude, T-rexes in F-14s would just shrug off the bombs with their powers of sheer awesomeness.

Or, are you suggesting every country (who has one) punch the shiny red button to fend off a fleet of fighters flown by prehistoric pilots?

ETA:

You'll likely find the first since it was a pretty decent seller on the book market. The latter is probably not widely available in libraries unless you go through inter-library loans to get it.

I believe the secret Star Destroyer should be used in such a situation.

 

[Cavemonster]

And should we not hypothetically have a valid case to use nuclear bombs against those invading T-rexes in those situation just because it won't happen?

We should. Nuke em back to the tar pits.

But there really isn't a threat of some country launching nukes and then claiming they thought they saw a T-Rex. There is a threat of certain nations pretending and muddying the waters around the concept of clear and present danger. Just like the justification for the Iraq war and the prisoners at Gitmo. The authorities told us that there was a ticking timebomb, but they couldn't show us the classified information that proved it.

If we give them the power to torture in that extreme situation, it is trivially easy to abuse, and has been abused.

But I guess it's sort of a separate question. Could torture itself under certain circumstances be justifiable? Yes. Is giving authorities the power to torture under those circumstances justifiable? No, because from past experience it's clear there will be more abuse of that power than the unlikely benefits warrant.

 

[paximperium]

But I guess it's sort of a separate question. Could torture itself under certain circumstances be justifiable? Yes. Is giving authorities the power to torture under those circumstances justifiable? No, because from past experience it's clear there will be more abuse of that power than the unlikely benefits warrant.

Yeah, it is two separate questions but they second reasoning but it is a strong and very valid reason to ban it.

The first part of the question is where I'm trying to figure out.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yeah, it is two separate questions but they second reasoning but it is a strong and very valid reason to ban it.

The first part of the question is where I'm trying to figure out.

I sort of understand it as an intellectual exercise, but doesn't the second question make it a moot point?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, I've always left open the rare situation where it may be needed in the most dire of circumstances. If there is evidence that it is useless even in those situations, I may change my mind even in these "dire situations"...I'll do some reading.

My problem with even leaving that option open is that you'll always have people (Dubya, Cheney, and so on) who will exploit that opening to justify whatever they want.

Also, I think having a clear cut law (like the C.A.T.) lets everyone know the rules at the outset. You don't need to worry about having some operative in a tense, perhaps emotional, situation trying to decide whether this is that "dire situation" that calls for an exception to the rule.

Also, from his perspective, I'd think he'd want to know that he's on the right side of the law to protect himself from possible prosecution. In other words, it would be horrible if the law left it to his judgement, but then allowed that judgement to be second guessed.

Instead, we just define what torture is and agree that there is absolutely never any emergency, any unusual circumstance that ever allows the prohibition against it to be suspended. From the C.A.T., this is Part I Article 2 (my highlighting):

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

 

[GreNME]

Sigh...beats me. Not an easy question.

I've generally opposed torture especially the whole Abu Graib and Guantanomo Bay debacle. Damn, I've marched on the streets agants those things a few years back, written by local congressperson etc.

However, I've always left open the rare situation where it may be needed in the most dire of circumstances. If there is evidence that it is useless even in those situations, I may change my mind even in these "dire situations"...I'll do some reading.

The problem with the "dire situations" thing is, to use the equivocation mentioned earlier (the pedophile in Germany), the results are likely not going to be positive. In the German case, the reason the guy probably didn't give directions in the first place is that he knew he'd probably be leading them to a corpse. Considering he's fighting (or has fought) a legal defense on the case, chances are high he's going to say precisely the opposite ("I didn't know it would kill him!"), if only to get lesser sentencing if at all possible. That kind of thinking doesn't really translate to war or terrorism, where a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, and an enemy is either a prisoner of war or a target.

Dude, T-rexes in F-14s would just shrug off the bombs with their powers of sheer awesomeness.

Or, are you suggesting every country (who has one) punch the shiny red button to fend off a fleet of fighters flown by prehistoric pilots?

ETA:

You'll likely find the first since it was a pretty decent seller on the book market. The latter is probably not widely available in libraries unless you go through inter-library loans to get it.

I believe the secret Star Destroyer should be used in such a situation.

I could probably be convinced to support the deployment of a secret Star Destroyer for just such an occasion. It could be our last and only hope against the T-rex-flying-F-14 threat.

 

[paximperium]

I sort of understand it as an intellectual exercise, but doesn't the second question make it a moot point?

Let me stew on this for awhile.

Perhaps it will simmer and produce a paximperium the torturer or hippie dude...we shall see.

 

[GreNME]

We should. Nuke em back to the tar pits.

But there really isn't a threat of some country launching nukes and then claiming they thought they saw a T-Rex. There is a threat of certain nations pretending and muddying the waters around the concept of clear and present danger. Just like the justification for the Iraq war and the prisoners at Gitmo. The authorities told us that there was a ticking timebomb, but they couldn't show us the classified information that proved it.

If we give them the power to torture in that extreme situation, it is trivially easy to abuse, and has been abused.

But I guess it's sort of a separate question. Could torture itself under certain circumstances be justifiable? Yes. Is giving authorities the power to torture under those circumstances justifiable? No, because from past experience it's clear there will be more abuse of that power than the unlikely benefits warrant.

Wow, that's taking my T-rex analogy pretty far.

In all seriousness, what you get at is very valid: the problem is that there are no black-or-white situations out there, just a bevvy of examples with varying degrees of grayness and muddied waters. Sticking to the nukes thing, that's precisely the reason they were developed in the first place: because there was a clear and present danger these were supposed to mitigate. Now all sorts of countries have The Bomb, even ones I'm personally a little bit scared that that have it.

Sure, we've got mutually-assured destruction keeping the nukes from flying, but where's the incentive to keep the same from happening with activities like torture? That's why instead of MAD unspoken agreements we have signed treaties stating we're not going to do that stuff.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Man, this thread is moving quickly...

He was agreeing to a statement that essentially made the point that in an actual ticking time bomb scenario there would be no time to validate statements made under torture...

Thanks for getting that, Cavemonster...

paximperium,

You might already have seen this, but there is a wiki-sort-of page discussing this topic with several links to more information. I only skimmed it so I can't speak to the quality of the information, but you might give it a look. It seems to present both sides of the discussion in detail.

 

[JihadJane]

Could you for once not derail a conversation with your contrariness?

You have yet to define "contrariness".

 

[marting]

Sometimes torture works and sometimes it doesn't. Guy Fawkes is perhaps the most well known case where torture was used to identify the co-conspirators. Some things were similar back in that day but some things are different.

Back in 1605 torture for the purpose of extracting information was illegal. It required that the Crown sign off on it. This was reluctantly done, the King advising that the torture only be as limited as possible to extract the information needed. Sound familiar?

However, one huge difference is that torture to the death was quite a widespread legal practice as punishment after conviction.

In any case torture is immoral and wrong but it's efficacy is an orthagonal matter.

 

[Texas]

Is using drone attacks in Pakistan to kill suspected terrorists and sometimes civilians ever justified?

 

[Cobalt]

Well I don't know what I did to warrant Celine Dion performing still.

 

[Toke]

Is using drone attacks in Pakistan to kill suspected terrorists and sometimes civilians ever justified?

I am not sure about justified* but it seems remarkably counterproductive.


*vague term, to put it mildly.

 

[Texas]

I am not sure about justified* but it seems remarkably counterproductive.


*vague term, to put it mildly.

But is harsh interrogation, one guy at a time, worse than killing the suspects plus anyone else in range of the bomb? I would love to see Obama release his legal advice memo covering those attacks so we can get all the lawyers at once.

 

[Lonewulf]

If there's a better alternative to bombing, then we should pursue it. Do you agree or disagree?

If there is a way to cut down on collateral damage as much as humanly possible while still striking the target, we should do so. Do you agree or disagree?

Being out on the field is not the same as what you do to prisoners. Do you agree or disagree?

If you don't agree on the latter, I can see why you cited some guy that claimed that Eisenhower starved almost a million people (without any real evidence to prove it); you see POWs as equivalent to soldiers on the field.

 

[GreNME]

Is using drone attacks in Pakistan to kill suspected terrorists and sometimes civilians ever justified?

Is the price of tea in China the same as it is in Spain?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Discussion from this thread moved to here:

Firstly, Paximperium, would you care to elaborate on this remark?

You may need to read the clauses that the US inserted into the convention.

In context you seemed to be saying that the clause in The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment specifically saying that you could not use an emergency as an excuse to torture people had some loophole or exception which made US torture legal. If that is the case, please explain what the hell you are talking about. If not, please clarify.

Secondly, ticking time bomb scenarios: It's trivial to come up with absurdly contrived scenarios where to save the world you have to torture a terrorist. Of course if you want you can make up equally absurd scenarios where you have to rape supermodels, rob banks, set fire to kittens and piss on the Mona Lisa.

None of these absurd scenarios are grounds for changing the laws so that it's legal for you to do those things if you feel like it.

If you are ever thrust into a bizarre situation where you just have to torture, rape, kill and maim, presumably the consequences of not doing so are so awful that you should be perfectly willing to do it, turn yourself in to the police afterwards and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.

In my view torture is a social institution akin to the death penalty in that while it's conceivable that it would be a good thing to torture some people or execute some people, I sure as hell do not trust any government not to abuse the power to do it. Therefore I feel very strongly that every single US citizen who aided and abetted torture should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The probably won't be. The polite euphemism for the reason is "lack of political will", which is a nice way of saying "far too many Americans are so morally bankrupt that they have no problem with torture, and the ones that do have a moral compass aren't willing to stand up for their beliefs".

Lastly, I think it's fascinating that Pax wanted to shift the topic from the highly specific topic of the previous thread, which was "US torturers to go free", to the much more vague "Is torture ever warranted?". I think the specific question of whether the most recent batch of US torturers should be brought to book is much more interesting and relevant than abstract talk about imaginary time bombs. These people were not in a ticking time bomb scenario, yet they still broke the very clear US laws (thanks to the ratification of the aforementioned convention) forbidding torture at any time, under any circumstances.

The real moral test is not whether you'd torture in an imaginary time bomb scenario. It's whether you think these very real torturers belong in jail.