Torture… how far should we go?

Since torture was a political hot topic Friday I thought this might be an interesting topic.

Millions of lives are at stake... there is an eminent nuclear attack in a major city in the US in the next 24 hours… we capture a known terrorist who we have a 95% certainty that he has knowledge that could prevent it… he is our only lead and only hope of stopping this attack… how far should we go to get the information?

Another way to frame this question is for 24 fans. Should a equivalent Jack Bauer exist?

Good question Billy. If he is a known terrorist, I'd say no holds barred

As far as is allowed for any other criminal.

The deaths of millions of people is sad but what is really tragic is allowing people to believe that they will be safe by depending on wildly unlikely strategies that cause them minimal inconvenience. If it takes a few million dead to wake people up to that, so be it; better millions than billions.

There will eventually be an eminent nuclear attack in a major city in the US and there will not be any known terrorist to convince to stop it. Stop pretending that torture is anything but a dog and pony show to make our lizard selves feel better about the complete control we crave but lack.

The solutions that are likely to save lives in such a situation will require major and unsettling changes to your daily lives, it is high time we started talking about them.

No one shall torture or be tortured - no way.

http://www.amnesty.org/

Beep


Beep



Beep



Beep

Well, mccain recognizes that in these situations you are generally allowed to do whatever you want.

His concern was about the general case.

Probably best to torture everyone, just in case; that way, no guilty person walks away unpunished. Plus, our cause is righteous - George told me so.

How far should we go, as in, all of us reading this thread, with a suspect tied to the table, medical and dental tools, a videorecorder, and butcher's aprons?

I really don't care for the sight of blood, so even without my moral objections I would not make a very good assistant.




The Marquis De Sade, who actually escaped execution during the Terrors, and arguably someone who might be rather difficult to torture, was tortured nonetheless.

How?

They placed him in a prison cell, and just outside began operating the guillotine in full view, pretty much non-stop. Not clear on the details but this was not a one day thing; it went on and on.

Thing is, I don't think anyone wanted information, they merely wanted him to suffer. Watching people of his house fall under the blade, and knowing that at any moment, unexpectedly, they would come for him.

He was eventually released, and wrote about the experience later.

How likely is this scenario, though? We always hear about the intelligence "chatter." I doubt that there would ever be just "one" source of information in a situation like this. IMO, this is a rather specious attempt to prop up or justify torture -- a method, by the way, that isn't 100% guaranteed to unveil the desired information.

So, why don't we just suspend our pesky Constitution, altogether, so that we can subjugate our long-held values in order to satiate, ever so briefly, our drive for vengeance? That we are even having these debates is a very telling sign of the times...

Torture is never acceptable, no matter how dire the circumstances. If we stoop to such things then what the hell are we fighting for? It must be resources, land, and power, because it sure as hell isn't principles.

Let me get this straight… you weigh millions of lives lost as being preferable to allowing people to believe they are safe???


First of all, you do not know that. Second, I posed the question, you may make up your own but I posed it the way I did for a reason. Please stick to the parameters I set up and answer the question.


Just for clarification, who are you talking to? I took no side and did not share my opinion. Who is pretending what here?

Also expand on what you mean by “our lizard selves” I don’t understand that at all.


Unsettling changes like what?

We as in the United States, not you and I individually.

The question was framed the way I did for a reason. How likely it is is irrelevant. What would you recommend given the parameters given? I would be interested in your answer though.


This as in this question?

The question is an attempt to gauge how far we should go to extract information given millions of lives hanging in the balance. It appears that all some would allow is to ask “Pretty please tell us everything that you know” and somehow expect to get any information at all.

Personally I am conflicted on how I would answer this. On one side millions of lives could be lost because we were not willing to do what is necessary to get the information that someone has to stop it. On the other hand, torture is horrible and we should be above using such methods for any reason.


It is not a matter of vengeance but a matter of what we should be willing to do. Saying pretty please isn’t far enough and outright torture is too far.

We are having these discussions because it is an extremely important, relevant issue and some people want to basically remove measures other than asking the person nicely to tell us what he knows.

I agree with you Chip but to play the devil's advicate are you willing to lose millions of lives to protect the rights of a known terrorist? What if that bomb went off in your parents home or yours killing most of your family and friends does that change your perspective at all?

No. I'm willing to lose millions of lives, including my own, to live up to the principles we espouse and that this country is supposed to stand for.

Good answer Chip.

This subject is of great interest to me as it calls into play the two main philosophical theories that define my morality, deontology and utilitarianism.

Deontological theories assert that an act can maximize the good yet still be wrong (and therefore should not be carried out) if it violates some deontological principle such as a right or a duty or the categorical imperative. Utilitarian theories assert that if an act can maximize overall good, that act should be taken.

The benefit of deontology is that it maximizes morality but not necessarily good, whereas utilitarianism maximizes good but not necessarily morality (I have seen it used to justify slavery). For me I seek to strike a balance between these two philosophical theories through reason with the goal of maximizing good and morality. I feel that this question shows the conflict between deontology and utilitarianism very clearly, asking individuals to weigh the costs between maximizing good or maximizing morality. In this case Billy favors the utilitarian course of action where Chip favors the deontological course of action.

In addition to these two courses of action we've seen in this thread, there is an alternative, where one can reconcile the two theories by creating hybrid techniques where good and morality are simultaneously maximized. For instance, one could allow torture in extreme cases but after that torture was implemented, those who authorized it and participated in it would spend mandatory time in jail and be liable for damages to the victim.


Personally, in the case of torture implemented by the state, I am strongly opposed to it in all circumstances. There are some powers the state should not have over its citizens (and "detainees" and torture is definitely one of them. (This argument breaks the rules a bit as I'm jumping out of the deontology-versus-utilitarianism paradigm and using a sociopolitical argument. )

~Ulrika~

I have not said exactly how I feel yet but I agree with Chip actually with the caveat that certain levels of "soft" torture so to speak should be allowed such as sleep deprivation, bread and water, threats of extreme torture without actually carrying any of it out, intense questioning etc...

To be clear, I am not in favor of physical torture such as beatings, humiliation, rape, physical pain etc...

I think that saying "Pretty please tell us what you know" will never yield any information but flat out torture is morally wrong. Intense pressure on the person is another thing.

Thanks for the information Ulrika. That was an interesting post!

Side note; It is interesting Ulrika that you are against torturing a guilty terrorist for information that would save millions of innocent people but would be in favor of the death penalty for that same person. I know that is another thread and don't want to sidetrack this one but it is interesting just the same. Those two stances somewhat conflict.

where does water boarding fit on your scale?

you know, tying them to a board, dunking them under water making them think they are going to drown, up to and including them passing out, only to be given air, and the water boarding repeated

is that or is that not torture?

I see your conundrum, Billy, but you seem to have more of a blind faith in GovCo than I do. Absolute power corrupts, my friend, absolutely. Until recently, I always just took for granted that our country's actions were above reproach in terms of human rights, or that at minimum, the US would eventually own up to its mistake and correct them. Instead, now we get all of this stealthy, police-state activity by a bunch of ideologues in Washington.

Gee, are we the "new Russia?"


When we, as a society, begin rationlizing and justifying the use of torture, we've pretty much given up the very things that we so zealously sought to protect. Can the fall of American society be far behind?

Some of the most effective Nazi interrogators used fine food and wine, intellectual discussions and a show of respect to gain what they wanted. It is telling that such a method to gain information was employed by a group that had no inhibitions whatsoever with regard to torture and killing.

I've tried to find a source to back this up (I had read of this), but the internet has many questionable sources with regard to such things.

So I'll leave you with this song, and perhaps some will catch the movie reference:



Brazil...

Where hearts were entertaining June

We stood beneath an amber moon

And softly murmured... someday soon...


We kissed

and clung together then


Tomorrow was another day

The morning found me miles away

With still a million things to say.



Now, when twilight dims the skies above

Recalling thrills of our love,

There's one thing I am certain of

Return

I will

to old

Brazil.

Torture… how far should we go? Until they cooperate is usually good enough


Telling the CIA not to torture is like telling pro wresters to not take steroids.

On a side note:

The famous pictures from Abu Ghurayb is shows stuff the local police to in the US do every day.

- Local police use attack dogs to intimidate
- Local police deny or stall medical care if they think you are uncooperative
- They perform humiliating strip searches
- They kick your ass
- A of the above on film

I do not consider any of the above torture even though it my feel like it to the recipients.

Confess quickly, son, you don't want to jepordize your credit rating.


...I think we've lost him, Jack.

Here's my take on it, Billy....

Under the scenerio you outlined, I could see where it might make logical sense for officials in the government to order torture in that sort of situation.

And when they're done extracting the information, the individuals responsible should still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I understand extenuating circumstances come up. Sometimes one has to make a sacrifice for the greater good. But legislating it ahead of time so its 'okay' is a slippery slope I'm just not comfortable with.

If lives are truly at stake, and a situation comes up that is so incredibly critical that it warrants actually torturing someone -- surely that's worth going to prison for 20 years for to protect the freedoms all of us hold dear, isn't it?

under the circumstances of the original post Id have to say yea I guess.. but seems to me the US gov will say these circumstances are nearly a constant.. which basically gives it free right to torture all it likes.. :/