We Must Continue the Debate Over Torture

 

CFhVhG7WoAAXipaIn the modern world of ever changing events, nothing — no matter how important — can long survive the shifting sands of something new. I don’t know which story pushed torture over the cliff. It might have been Charlie Hebdo. It might have been the opening of the new Congress. Perhaps it was simply that our heads were swimming in the Tsunami of ISIS and politics and the Holidays. But the debate should continue, and the arguments — pro and con — should still flood the airwaves and pepper the newspapers. That, I am sad to say, isn’t happen.

On Frontline last week, PBS took up the subject and focused attention on the failures of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs). Writing for The American Conservative, Kelly Thomas complains that the obsession with success has preempted the larger moral issues over the use of torture (or EIT). Thomas notes:

The persistent focus on torture’s ineffectiveness, however, naturally leads to the question: if they had worked, would we be bothered? If EITs had been as effective as Soufan’s more moderate techniques, would anyone be upset by the suffering of a few dozen violent extremists? The documentary leaves the impression that the most repulsive element of the CIA’s brutality was that it was all done in vain rendering former acting CIA Director John McLaughlin’s justifying comment, “We were at war. Bad things happen at war,” utterly indefensible.

Thomas makes an enormously important point. The moral question has been set aside, or at best left only implied. When normative ethics are swept aside, and all that matters is efficacy, we have consequentialism of the purest kind.

Purest, and also of the worst kind.

Just after the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on interrogation tactics came out I posted a piece in which I rabidly defended the CIA. Ricochet editor Tom Meyer replied with a thoughtful article challenging my many assumptions. Tom’s point (I think I am accurately representing him) was that while some circumstances might justify torture, e.g., the “ticking time bomb scenario,” the ends do not justify the means in every case. That, I now see, is correct, both morally and practically. I credit Tom for reminding me that an issue as profound as torture demands careful thought. Frontline’s analysis of the success or failure of the Enhanced Interrogation Technique program does make clear that — for the most part — beating information out of a prisoner rarely results in useful intelligence. Having independently researched the question, I now have strong reasons for the conclusion that EIT s are usually fool’s errand (more on that at some later date).

However, the real question is not whether the end justifies the means, but whether the end justifies any means. There are some means that are intrinsically evil no matter whether something positive comes out of them or not. If murder is “the deliberate taking of an innocent human life,” then murder can never be justified–not even if a thousand lives are saved.

Which leads to the question: can waterboarding, sleep deprivation, or force feeding ever be properly used to secure information about an enemy’s intentions? In Thomas’ view, this is at the heart of the matter:

But what if it had indeed been torture that had led to Osama bin Laden’s death, as the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” actively sought to depict? Would the U.S. be less morally culpable for the acute suffering it inflicted upon unarmed and defenseless men if American lives truly had been saved as a result? The CIA thought that the public would be largely appeased by the supposed effectiveness of the torture in “Zero Dark Thirty,” so the answer seems to be a deeply disturbing “yes.” We, alongside our leaders, appear to be comfortable with torture as long as it gets the job done.

The implications of this utter disregard for morality are horrifying. If efficacy and efficiency—rather than morality—become the governing ethical considerations in war, then what of the ideals the U.S. is purportedly fighting for?

This question demands that we move beyond utility and examine the issue in the light of higher principles. When utility is the sole guiding light, what happens to the heart of the nation? What will be the long-term effects of substituting “it works” for “what is morally permissible?”

To properly address the issues means developing a moral theory upon which we can rely when a new crisis emerges, as it surely will. One place to start is with the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture which provides

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…

Torture is defined as:

…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…

The UN is notoriously inconsistent in applying the rule. Still, both the definition and the prohibition have the advantage of clarity. If torture is prohibited, there are no circumstances, no matter how urgent, and no matter how great the harm that might ensue, that can justify its use.

My apodictic defense of EITs in the earlier post made passing reference to the basic moral principle that when confronted with ambiguous moral questions we must take the morally safer course. Nonetheless, I offered little in the way of moral nuance. Moral questions, however, must not be decided on emotional reactions, but on careful analytics, and with an acute awareness that some moral truths can never be set aside.

My simple suggestion is that we take the UN definition as a jumping off point. The most effective approach to important questions is to start at each end of the extremes, i.e., “torture never” versus “torture whenever,” and try to work towards something in the middle. This is a form of negotiation, and as with all negotiations, the best settlement is that which leaves each party a bit dissatisfied.

We must renew the debate, and soon, for this is an issue that will simmer below the surface—until something terrible cracks the crust.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 71 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    I would argue that torture is never justified but the techniques used by the CIA were not torture.

    • #1
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Waterboarding is not torture.  We do it to our own servicemen as a part of SERE training.

    Sleep deprivation isn’t torture.  When I underwent it, it was called “college.”

    You got me on forcefeeding.  I wouldn’t do that.

    • #2
  3. Jason Rudert Inactive
    Jason Rudert
    @JasonRudert

    I’m not sure we really do need to tackle this question with any real honesty. We’ve gotten this far by looking the other way, pretending EIT is not torture (see above), and only telling the public what has been done after the fact. Neither the moral absolutist view nor the efficacy-based view really has to be embraced or made into policy. You can operate this system for a long time with very murky moral decisions. You just have to keep up the illusion of the US as a nation with a “heart” and “ideals” and keep on torturing people, as long as you can point to some “success” and beat down any arguments by saying HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN!?!!?! DO YOU WANT TO SEE A MUSHROOM CLOUD OVER SAN FRANCISCO!?!??!?! Then do kind of a FOOM noise and make a mushroom cloud motion with your hands. No one can stop us. There is no referee here.

    • #3
  4. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    You want to truly torture somebody then give them a job in a cubicle with no sunshine for years on end then take most of their meager wages in taxes and mandatory healthcare.

    • #4
  5. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Would one rather be tortured or take a bullet or chunk of shrapnel in one’s chest on the battlefield? What, precisely and without recourse to weepy emotion, is the difference? I ask seriously, and I ask anyone who thinks they have an opinion of value to consider both. Take your time, put yourself in both sides and feel it through.

    Torture, that is physical torment including injury, perhaps permanent or even fatal, is an effective means of gaining the cooperation of the subject. Like anything else, it must be skillfully applied to be effective. The function of torture is to gain the cooperation of the subject. To deny any of those facts is to remove oneself from serious debate on this issue.

    • #5
  6. Jason Rudert Inactive
    Jason Rudert
    @JasonRudert

    First, barfly, yes, torture/war wound are both about equivalent. Though you woild have to talk to someone who had been through both to get a definitive answer. I suspect such a person would say that torture involved more anguish or suffering, because it’s done with so much more intention and control, and of course it lasts for as long as the torturer wants. The rifle wound is inflicted in haste and at least gets, at least in the American army, fairly prompt treatment. But I’ll concede the point–morally you’re doing something horrible either way.
    I would use the same logic with NBC weapons vs conventional, btw. If you’re burned with a flamethrower or an atomic flash, the distinction is just scientific.
    But I would challenge the way you’ve set up the choices. These are about the same–for someone who’s already in a war, in an army, in a terrorist group, and on the battlefield.
    But if you ask: would you rather be tending your sheep on a hillside in Afghanistan, or locked up in Guantanamo; or would you rather be working in your dad’s bakery in Baghdad or get waterboarded in a secret US prison, then you’re closer to what our government actually does. You have to ask what other future was open to this person, and what did we do to him instead?
    So yes, it sounds nicer when you say you’re just getting someone’s cooperation. But the real question isn’t whether you would torture one guy who you “know is a terrorist”, as the formulation usually goes in these discussions. You have to ask:how many totally innocent people are you ready to torture to capture Jose Padilla?

    • #6
  7. user_309277 Inactive
    user_309277
    @AdamKoslin

    I think that it’s generally a good idea to discuss topics like this, but it kinda seems like the focus on the combo of drones and profiling enabled by bulk data surveillance have rendered the interrogation-method debate a bit moot.  If we’re judging whether or not someone’s a terrorist based on a data profile and then parking a drone over their head for 72 hours straight to confirm the suspicion and (if necessary) killing them and anyone within a 10 foot radius with a Hellfire missile, we seem to have moved beyond the idea that intelligence needs to be extracted from a person we actually have in custody.

    Mike, do you think this is a better solution than capture-and-interrogate?  Do you think that it’s only a supplement to capture-and-interrogate?

    What about EIT opponents? Are you satisfied with the idea of signature strikes as a replacement for interrogation?  Do you think it can be a replacement for interrogation?

    • #7
  8. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Barfly:Would one rather be tortured or take a bullet or chunk of shrapnel in one’s chest on the battlefield? What, precisely and without recourse to weepy emotion, is the difference? I ask seriously, and I ask anyone who thinks they have an opinion of value to consider both. Take your time, put yourself in both sides and feel it through.

    Torture, that is physical torment including injury, perhaps permanent or even fatal, is an effective means of gaining the cooperation of the subject. Like anything else, it must be skillfully applied to be effective. The function of torture is to gain the cooperation of the subject. To deny any of those facts is to remove oneself from serious debate on this issue.

    Here’s the difference. In war there are defined limits to what a soldier can do to the enemy. Fir example, he cannot go up to a wounded and incapacitated opponent and shoot him in the head. As for torture, I am merely arguing that similar limitations should be considered. I did not say the UN Convention was the definitive answer, but only that it seems a good starting place for moral reflection.

    As for the efficacy of torture, I set that aside in this post because I am asking whether there are moral limits. As Thomas Kelly argues, to look only to utility means there will be no moral debate. That means that it is everything goes if it works. I would guess that if a interrogator held a gun to the head of the suspect’s wife, there’s a good chance he would talk. If the interrogator shot the wife to prove he means business, then grabs the suspects 5 year old child and threatens to kill him that would almost surely work. Does that make it okay?

    • #8
  9. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Adam Koslin:I think that it’s generally a good idea to discuss topics like this, but it kinda seems like the focus on the combo of drones and profiling enabled by bulk data surveillance have rendered the interrogation-method debate a bit moot. If we’re judging whether or not someone’s a terrorist based on a data profile and then parking a drone over their head for 72 hours straight to confirm the suspicion and (if necessary) killing them and anyone within a 10 foot radius with a Hellfire missile, we seem to have moved beyond the idea that intelligence needs to be extracted from a person we actually have in custody.

    Mike, do you think this is a better solution than capture-and-interrogate? Do you think that it’s only a supplement to capture-and-interrogate?

    What about EIT opponents? Are you satisfied with the idea of signature strikes as a replacement for interrogation? Do you think it can be a replacement for interrogation?

    Adam:

    I fear there will come a time when human intelligence will be needed and that EIT/Torture will again become an issue. If a terrorist sets off a bomb in downtown Chicago, and if some terrorist group takes credit and brags that it has hidden bombs all over the country, satellites and drones will be largely useless. Interrogating suspects will again be necessarily. The EIT program was, as far as we know, shut down some years ago. But there will be calls for EIT when another attack comes.

    As for drones, I am ambivalent. That’s especially true when the target is an American citizen. If the use of drones is, as they say, a “drone war,” then the morality of it should be addressed, perhaps relying on the principles of the Just War Theory.

    I’ve moved a long way from my initial position on EITs. I am now trying to work through the higher moral principles to say where I think things should come out. I’ve tried to see every side of the issue, but I post this to hear what intelligent people have to say.

    • #9
  10. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Jason, I believe it’s your characterization of the dilemma that is false.

    Since you concede their equivalence, I’ll substitute the battlefield wound for torture in your scenarios (which I hold to be inventions.) Would you rather be tending your sheep or baking bread, or shot on the battlefield? The question is silly, isn’t it?

    As I argued in a previous post, we don’t debate whether we should be savages or apply torture as a matter of bureaucratic routine. The question is not whether we should torture indiscriminately.

    Where do you get the idea that we sweep up the innocent and torture them indiscriminately? That would be foolish and incompetent. But if we believe the baker’s son has information that would stop Padilla, then we must obtain it. If the shepherd has information that bears on the safety of our forces or civilians and fails to yield it under soft questioning, then he is our enemy. That is a reality of war. He may wish he didn’t know and wasn’t involved, but it wasn’t us that involved him.

    My position is that we may morally do what is necessary to any enemy for the success of our mission. Torture is no more or less morally justified than killing on the battlefield. If the mission is worth one, it is worth the other.

    I do not care one whit for an enemy’s future. I care for your future, and mine.

    • #10
  11. user_494971 Contributor
    user_494971
    @HankRhody

    When the torture memos came out, I read them. I concluded then that nothing described in them I’d call torture. But then I read the first volume of the Gulag Archipelago, where he describes the interrogation techniques used by the Soviets, some of which seemed less painful or damaging than those described in the memos. So I’m not sure.

    In the end we need to get information out of bad people who don’t want to tell us anything. I’m willing to countenance the enhanced interrogations given the way we generally know they were used in the Bush administration.

    • #11
  12. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Jason Rudert:First, barfly, yes, torture/war wound are both about equivalent. Though you woild have to talk to someone who had been through both to get a definitive answer. I suspect such a person would say that torture involved more anguish or suffering, because it’s done with so much more intention and control, and of course it lasts for as long as the torturer wants.The rifle wound is inflicted in haste and at least gets, at least in the American army, fairly prompt treatment. But I’ll concede the point–morally you’re doing something horrible either way.

    No, if we shoot an enemy on the battlefield we are not doing anything “horrible.” Of course, that same argument applies to torturing a captive for information. We’ll treat his wounds afterwards in both cases, if the conditions of the conflict permit. We are a Christian people.

    How does the degree of our intention and control affect the subject’s suffering and anguish? He’s hurt and will suffer, whether by our artillery or interrogation.

    • #12
  13. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Here’s the difference. In war there are defined limits to what a soldier can do to the enemy. Fir example, he cannot go up to a wounded and incapacitated opponent and shoot him in the head.

    That’s an invention. If one’s needs in the conflict so dictate, then one can do that. What one may not do, morally, is to kill or torment gratuitously.

    I would guess that if a interrogator held a gun to the head of the suspect’s wife, there’s a good chance he would talk. If the interrogator shot the wife to prove he means business, then grabs the suspects 5 year old child and threatens to kill him that would almost surely work. Does that make it okay?

    The problem with these contrived scenarios is that they fail under their own logic, with just a little extension. I add that your suspect has imprisoned your wife and child and their air is about to run out. Now, what is okay for you to do?

    • #13
  14. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    I get it, y’all. War isn’t the worst thing in the world, but it’s close. If one goes to war, then the only moral thing to do is to prosecute that war with all one’s might and will, with every tool.

    • #14
  15. user_494971 Contributor
    user_494971
    @HankRhody

    Barfly:Where do you get the idea that we sweep up the innocent and torture them indiscriminately? That would be foolish and incompetent. But if we believe the baker’s son has information that would stop Padilla, then we must obtain it. If the shepherd has information that bears on the safety of our forces or civilians and fails to yield it under soft questioning, then he is our enemy. That is a reality of war. He may wish he didn’t know and wasn’t involved, but it wasn’t us that involved him.

    I’d also like an answer to this question. My understanding was that we only waterboarded four people, and that those people were known to be higher level Al’Qaida.

    It’s a legitimate question; my statement above was conditional on a generally limited application to targets known to have information. If we scooped up bakers and shepherds, not terrorists I’d like to know.

    • #15
  16. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Hank Rhody:When the torture memos came out, I read them. I concluded then that nothing described in them I’d call torture. But then I read the first volume of the Gulag Archipelago, where he describes the interrogation techniques used by the Soviets, some of which seemed less painful or damaging than those described in the memos. So I’m not sure.

    In the end we need to get information out of bad people who don’t want to tell us anything. I’m willing to countenance the enhanced interrogations given the way we generally know they were used in the Bush administration.

    The question is whether there are limits, and if the answer is yes, what are they? The reason I call for debate is that we tend only to look at effectiveness, giving only short shrift to the broader moral questions. I don’t have a clear answer, but if we begin by analyzing the UN Convention, we can then ask whether all infliction of pain is immoral, or whether there should be some limits, or whether there should be any limits. Once broader questions are addressed, we can then form policies that guide us in determining what is permissable or impermissable in given cases.

    • #16
  17. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Barfly:

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Here’s the difference. In war there are defined limits to what a soldier can do to the enemy. Fir example, he cannot go up to a wounded and incapacitated opponent and shoot him in the head.

    That’s an invention. If one’s needs in the conflict so dictate, then one can do that. What one may not do, morally, is to kill or torment gratuitously.

    I would guess that if a interrogator held a gun to the head of the suspect’s wife, there’s a good chance he would talk. If the interrogator shot the wife to prove he means business, then grabs the suspects 5 year old child and threatens to kill him that would almost surely work. Does that make it okay?

    The problem with these contrived scenarios is that they fail under their own logic, with just a little extension. I add that your suspect has imprisoned your wife and child and their air is about to run out. Now, what is okay for you to do?

    So if I understand you correctly, it is okay to kill him if he is a threat. But I agree with that. I do not accept that it is okay to kill a helpless man. Under traditional moral principles that would be murder. Under the UCMJ, a soldier could be prosecuted for such an act. There are limits in war.

    As for the question of what I would do if my family was under a death threat, I would tell the enemy what he wanted to know. Thus is utility is served. But if utility is the measuring stick, what right do I have to complain?

    Look, the whole point of the OP is to raise the question of whether some higher principles exist above and beyond utility. If the answer is no, then I guess the debate ends.

    • #17
  18. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Hank Rhody:

    Barfly:Where do you get the idea that we sweep up the innocent and torture them indiscriminately? [snip]

    I’d also like an answer to this question. My understanding was that we only waterboarded four people, and that those people were known to be higher level Al’Qaida.

    That’s pretty much my understanding as well, although I recognize there may be instances we don’t know about for security reasons. And maybe a few that we don’t know of because they were immoral and kept dark – bad things happen in war. That’s not to excuse them, but crimes don’t necessarily invalidate the legitimate practice.

    Of course, I take issue with the characterization of waterboarding as torture. It’s torment, yes, but not injurious. Finally, I’ll add that the large number of reported waterboardings of (e.g.) KSM are misconstrued – he was subjected to the practice for a relatively few sessions, each with a set number of “pours” strictly determined by regulation.

    My point is that U.S. forces are very sparing with these techniques. God help you if the savages get you.

    • #18
  19. user_494971 Contributor
    user_494971
    @HankRhody

    Mike Rapkoch:The question is whether there are limits, and if the answer is yes, what are they? The reason I call for debate is that we tend only to look at effectiveness, giving only short shrift to the broader moral questions. I don’t have a clear answer, but if we begin by analyzing the UN Convention, we can then ask whether all infliction of pain is immoral, or whether there should be some limits, or whether there should be any limits. Once broader questions are addressed, we can then form policies that guide us in determining what is permissible or impermissible in given cases.

    You can’t say that no infliction of pain is permissible, because confinement can be pretty distressing. Going off of the UN standard quoted (and yes, it bothers me to say that too), we’re considering the infliction of “severe” pain suffering. Waterboarding is the nicest way I’ve ever heard of to interrogate a determined opponent and still get usable information out of him.

    I agree with Barfly’s contention that it’s immoral to prosecute a war to anything less than your full ability. Given that though it is immoral to be any more cruel than necessary. Within those parameters I’m okay with waterboarding.

    • #19
  20. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Hank Rhody:

    Mike Rapkoch:The question is whether there are limits, and if the answer is yes, what are they? The reason I call for debate is that we tend only to look at effectiveness, giving only short shrift to the broader moral questions. I don’t have a clear answer, but if we begin by analyzing the UN Convention, we can then ask whether all infliction of pain is immoral, or whether there should be some limits, or whether there should be any limits. Once broader questions are addressed, we can then form policies that guide us in determining what is permissible or impermissible in given cases.

    You can’t say that no infliction of pain is permissible, because confinement can be pretty distressing. Going off of the UN standard quoted (and yes, it bothers me to say that too), we’re considering the infliction of “severe” pain suffering. Waterboarding is the nicest way I’ve ever heard of to interrogate a determined opponent and still get usable information out of him.

    I agree with Barfly’s contention that it’s immoral to prosecute a war to anything less than your full ability. Given that though it is immoral to be any more cruel than necessary. Within those parameters I’m okay with waterboarding.

    Okay, this is what I was looking for. Should severe pain be a consideration, and how to we define it? Simply confining and questioning does not involve severe pain. But solitary confinement, at least after a few days, causes intense emotional pain. Should that be prohibited? In one case set out in the Senate report a man was forced to stand for several hours on his broken ankles. That seems like severe pain. The US Supreme Court has frequently addressed the concept of cruel and unusual punishment, with mixed results. That could provide some guidance on the issue. I’ll have to follow that up.

    • #20
  21. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Mike Rapkoch:Look, the whole point of the OP is to raise the question of whether some higher principles exist above and beyond utility. If the answer is no, then I guess the debate ends.

    I appreciate that question. My answer is that higher principles do exist, but mostly at the political level where the decision to make war is made. Once a soldier is charged with making war, his duty is to do what’s required to ensure the desired outcome for his commander.

    A related consideration is the extreme care U.S. forces take to avoid civilian casualties. That care comes at a cost, sometimes in mission performance and even in our soldiers’ lives. It speaks well of our morality, of course, but is only made possible by our overwhelming superiority of arms and training. If we were in conflict for national survival and our forces taxed to their limits, I believe such caring consideration would be the first thing we’d sacrifice, and rightly so.

    • #21
  22. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Thanks, all, for the civil debate of a decidedly uncomfortable topic. My participation was brought to you by this fine red ale. Good night.

    20150529_224000

    • #22
  23. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Barfly:Thanks, all, for the civil debate of a decidedly uncomfortable topic. My participation was brought to you by this fine red ale. Good night.

    20150529_224000

    Good night.

    • #23
  24. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Percival:Waterboarding is not torture. We do it to our own servicemen as a part of SERE training.

    Yes, but I think this needs to be elaborated on:

    1. Yes, water boarding is inherently different than grizzly methods of torture that are applied elsewhere. There is — as you suggest — a reason we applied this technique as a part of training, rather than others.

      I imagine there are techniques that all of us agree are torture, and others that we all agree are not torture. I think it’s safe to say that — for most of us — water boarding is either just over or just under that line. We should all keep that in mind.

    2. As I understand it, the purpose of SERE was to give trainees a taste to the kind of thing they might endure if captured.  As such, SERE did not subject anyone to the degree of water boarding KMS and the others were. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s something like saying “I don’t see the big deal of getting a beating. I took a punch once.”
    • #24
  25. captainpower Inactive
    captainpower
    @captainpower

    An alternative to the hypothetical ticking bomb scenario:

    In 2002, a child was kidnapped in Germany.

    The perpetrator was caught, but the police didn’t know where the child was or whether the child was still alive.

    The man refused to cooperate, but when threatened with torture he divulged the location of the child nearly immediately.

    The police officer was fired and prosecuted for the mere threat of torture.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html

    This and more was discussed by Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk down) in an article at The Atlantic. His view is that torture should be illegal in all cases, but that we should expect good men to use discretion and risk imprisonment by violating the law and using torture (or EIT) if the scenario arises that calls for it.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/10/the-dark-art-of-interrogation/302791/

    via

    http://pragertopia.com/2015/01/02/dennis-prager-radio-show-20150102-hr-1/

    Prager H1: Dennis talks to Mark Bowden, national correspondent for Atlantic and best-selling author of Black Hawk Down, about the moral and practical repercussions of using “torture” to obtain critical, life-savings information from terrorists. Original date: December 31, 2007

    • #25
  26. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    captainpower:This and more was discussed by Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk down) in an article at The Atlantic. His view is that torture should be illegal in all cases, but that we should expect good men to use discretion and risk imprisonment by violating the law and using torture (or EIT) if the scenario arises that calls for it.

    While I don’t like it for several (somewhat contradictory) reasons, I’ve long thought that’s the least-bad solution.

    • #26
  27. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    I am with Barfly.

    Torture is indeed a moral issue, and should be treated as such. And the *goal* of the torture certainly matters. If you are torturing for kicks, that is bad. If, on the other hand, there is a strong likelihood that torturing a bad someone will save lives, then I have no problem with it at all.

    Here is an extreme but obvious case: a kidnapper has taken a kid. You believe the kid is still alive, and you catch a known associate, a convict in his own right. How on earth would you justify NOT doing what it takes to get information?

    Our country has decided it is nicer to kill people with missile strikes than to take them in and find out what they know. This is surely both worse for achieving our goals, and it is less moral. I would much rather be tortured and released than deprived of my life, and I suspect the vast majority of people feel similarly.

    • #27
  28. David Knights Member
    David Knights
    @DavidKnights

    This always boils down to the definition of torture.

    I do believe that, in the ticking time bomb scenario, even things everyone agrees are torture can be morally justified much as the doctrine of “Just war” exists.

    Whenever you rely on the UN for anything, it is a bad foundation upon which to build anything, including a discussion about torture.  The definitions in the OP cause more problems than they solve.

    I do think that Tom is correct in #24 item 1 above. I happen to think waterboarding is just below the line (not torture) but see how reasonable people can disagree.

    Sleep deprivation is one of the most effective interrogation methods and one with probably the fewest long term mental “scars”, but even with it, you can kill someone thru sleep deprivation.  That said, I think it also falls under the line (not torture).

    • #28
  29. user_494971 Contributor
    user_494971
    @HankRhody

    David Knights:Sleep deprivation is one of the most effective interrogation methods and one with probably the fewest long term mental “scars”, but even with it, you can kill someone thru sleep deprivation. That said, I think it also falls under the line (not torture).

    Depends on how it’s done. Too much sleep deprivation can cause permanent personality changes, which falls under most definitions of torture. This was specifically discussed in the infamous “torture memos”.

    (Three new commenters in a mildly old thread? Must have been promoted.)

    • #29
  30. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    I disagree with the proposition that anything done under the EIT program was torture.  Therefore, I will use the word “torture” in quotes to differentiate it from real torture.  Having said that;

    We shouldn’t “torture” people who will give up information  without it.  We shouldn’t “torture” people who have no information to give.  But for those who have information and won’t give it up otherwise, “torture” away.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.