If that happens, we're in a nasty spot. Most people who make this argument do not, in fact, care whether torture works. They would still be every bit as much against it if waterboarding worked perfectly. Yet when they argue about whether torture works, they're conceding that torture's effectiveness is relevant to the question of whether or not we should engage in it. That implicitly means that if torture becomes nearly perfectly effective, they should change their minds--otherwise, it's not a relevant criteria. So if we get that lie detector, they have to explain why we still shouldn't use this very valuable interrogation method--or confess that they're basically opportunists who will say anything that might advance the case. This will make it somewhat harder to convince people to listen to their other, better arguments.
Thus I think it is much safer to keep arguments about torture on solid moral ground: we shouldn't torture because it's wrong.
On the other hand, Jim Manzi offers a different empirical argument. It's anecdotal, but appealling:
Let's assume arguendo that torture works in the tactical sense that I believe has been used so far in this debate; that is, that one can gain useful information reliably in at least some subset of situations through torture that could not otherwise be obtained. Further, assume that we don't care about morality per se, only winning: defeating our enemies militarily, and achieving a materially advantaged life for the citizens of the United States. It seems to me that the real question is whether torture works strategically; that is, is the U.S. better able to achieve these objectives by conducting systematic torture as a matter of policy, or by refusing to do this? Given that human society is complex, it's not clear that tactical efficacy implies strategic efficacy.
When you ask the question this way, one obvious point stands out: we keep beating the torturing nations. The regimes in the modern world that have used systematic torture and directly threatened the survival of the United States - Nazi Germany, WWII-era Japan, and the Soviet Union - have been annihilated, while we are the world's leading nation. The list of other torturing nations governed by regimes that would like to do us serious harm, but lack the capacity for this kind of challenge because they are economically underdeveloped (an interesting observation in itself), are not places that most people reading this blog would ever want to live as a typical resident. They have won no competition worth winning. The classically liberal nations of Western Europe, North America and the Pacific that led the move away from systematic government-sponsored torture are the world's winners.
Now, correlation is not causality. Said differently, we might have done even better in WWII and the Cold War had we also engaged in systematic torture as a matter of policy. Further, one could argue that the world is different now: that because of the nature of our enemies, or because of technological developments or whatever, that torture is now strategically advantageous. But I think the burden of proof is on those who would make these arguments, given that they call for overturning what has been an important element of American identity for so many years and through so many conflicts.
You'd think that a reliable lie detector should enhance all methods of interrogation, not just torture. So it is not at all clear that such an advent is relevant to the debate, after all. If anything, the extreme pain is likely to make such a detector less reliable, given possible 2-nd order effects on whatever variables it is measuring.
Max,
Good point in the sense you used "reliable detector".
Not the case now. One caution.
If the person taking the yet to be developed "reliable detector" does not clearly understand the question, it throws it all off.
This is important because language has nuance and a whole host of shadow zones.
Several presidents have experienced this when their translators were not up to par. Carter repeated his translator's words and said "I lust after the Polish people" ... love was intended but the wrong Polish word was used.
Recently Hillary Clinton gave the Russian dude a red button that did not say "Reset" as she had intended.
Finally, it is cataclysmic ignorance to think these guys in the field know secrets usually reserved for a few at the top.
Can you bear with me a moment and imagine a Pfc. being tortured to elicit nuclear formulas or other classified stuff reserved for a very few?
The gang bangers only know so much.
Torture works if you define success as getting the answers the interrogator wants; it's not clear that it works if you define success at getting complete and accurate answers. Interrogators don't necessarily want complete and accurate answers; for all kinds of human-nature and institutional reasons, they want the answers that vindicate the assumptions they have going in, the answers that will reward them professionally, etc. Because torture is unpleasant, the detainee has a great incentive to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear--that's the heart of the "torture works" argument--but the detainee is likely savvy enough to understand that what the interrogator wants to hear is different from the full unvarnished truth. That's especially true for the most deserving detainees, the ones who are experienced members of terrorist organizations, as opposed to chauffeurs or peasants in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Torture works if you define success as getting the answers the interrogator wants; it's not clear that it works if you define success at getting complete and accurate answers.
*
Completeness is hard to test, but accuracy? I think one of the most obvious things an interrogator should do is extract all the information he can, and check the bits of it we know.
*
This is a problem with all interrogation, though, since enemies who are being interrogated generally have every incentive to lie pretty much no matter what. I mean, they're not stupid enough to tell us the truth just because we send in a good cop after the bad cop, are they? Or are they? I have no experience here -- maybe they really are that gullible.
I'd like to point out that the question is a tad more complicated than stated.
Assuming arguendo that torture works, the question isn't simply should we use it to get info, or not use it because it is morally wrong. Not getting enough info will lead to more innocent lives being lost. If is better to engage in something morally wrong, or in a greater wrong with plausible deniability?
That said, there are other effects here worth considering besides just the short-term. If torture lets us defuse bombs and foil other showy plots, but double the active strength of the enemy because of moral outrage on the part of enemy civilians, does it save or cost us lives? Assessing which is the greater wrong isn't as easy as you suggest.
"When you ask the question this way, one obvious point stands out: we keep beating the torturing nations. The regimes in the modern world that have used systematic torture and directly threatened the survival of the United States - Nazi Germany, WWII-era Japan, and the Soviet Union - have been annihilated, while we are the world's leading nation."
*
This argument sketch seems appealing, I think, only because he's conflating two very different uses of torture. After all, torture in the interrogation context (particularly as torture has been defined down these days) was something we used as late as World War II (roughing up prisoners, kicking them in their private bits, beating them with a rubber hose etc.), and I'd be shocked if we didn't use it pretty regularly throughout the Cold War as well. What distinguishes Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, and the Soviet Union is not torture in the interrogation context, but torture in the everyday context -- slaughtering Chinese civilians in horrible ways for sport; performing horrific experiments on Jews and conducting punitive torture on convicted dissidents; beatings in reeducation camps, disappearing people with secret police, and planned mass starvation, etc. These are rather different situations.
Good point, I suspect I know the answer but does the author of the “empirical argument” really believe that the United States, even under Bush 43, was engaged in “systematic torture” because we allegedly water boarded a few detainees or even if we made it a regular policy to authorize water boarding to get intelligence information from suspected terrorists that would put us on the same moral plane as the Nazis, Soviets, Imperial Japan, etc.?
I thought only Dick Durbin was that stupid.
"he's conflating two very different uses of torture... What distinguishes Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, and the Soviet Union is not torture in the interrogation context, but torture in the everyday context"
Agreed, and I think this distinction is lost not only in Manzi's post but in the larger debate, as well. Both in intensity and in motive, what was engaged in by the post-9/11 U.S. isn't remotely the same as what took place (takes place) inside history's torture regimes.
There's still plenty of room for debate over U.S. actions, but equating those actions with those of "torturing nations" is absurd.
It most certainly *is* the same in intensity as what took place in other torture regmes. It's the same *by design* - we got the ideas for these techniques by studying those used by past regimes to elicit false confessions.
We waterboarded one guy 180 times in a month. We used dozens of techniques in combination for long periods to make people suffer as much as we could without inflicting permanent damage. We did this to people who were held without trial for years at a time. How is that not "remotely the same in intensity" as what happened in past "torturing nations"? As for motive, ours seems to have included getting the prisoners to tell us the link between Iraq and 9/11, when there *was* no such link and this was obvious at the time to most skeptical observers. How is that not remotely similar in motive? It's the exact *same* motive - grab somebody whose location or actions seem suspicious to you based on hearsay evidence and torture them until they tell you how they are connected with a huge alleged conspiracy against you. China did that, Soviet Russia did that, and now we know we did it too.
Because
1) Waterboarding is just psychologically unpleasant, it doesn't actually hurt anyone. A little different than breaking people's legs, or raping their children in front of them.
2) We waterboarded one guy 180 times. That one guy helped kill 3000 Americans. A little different that just picking people up off the street for their political views.
The 800 pound gorilla in the corner of Manzi's room is China.
Also didn’t the Soviet Union play a rather vital role in defeating Nazi Germany during WW II? In which case it’s not simply a case of nations which “don’t torture” beating nations that engage in “systematic torture” but rather nations which sometimes engaged in “roughing up” prisoners beating nations which engaged in “systematic torture” with the assistance of other nations that also engaged in “systematic torture.”
Yes I know, his argument was pretty obviously flawed to anyone who gave it more than a second’s consideration but I thought it important to correct this historical inaccuracy just to illustrate how absurd it really was.
If two torturing nations fight and one wins, it proves nothing either way about its efficacy. You only test the hypothesis when a torturing nation fights a non-torturing one.
Yeah, sure, all other things being equal. Which they never, ever are.
Oh, of course. My point wasn't that you get good data from fights between nations with different attitudes towards torture - your data is incredibly bad, of course. I'm just saying that you get *no* data on the question from fights between nations with the same attitude.
That 800 pound gorilla isn't in the corner. It's on his couch hogging the remote.
The decision not to use torture goes in the same basket as environmentalism and a legal system that can ruminate over the fine points of a case for five years. We do these things because we can afford them. At the societal level they're luxuries.
It depends what the question is. If the police ask "did you kill Joe Smith" and then torture a confession out of the suspect, that's not very helpful - the suspect knows the answer the police want, and it is tough for them to test it empirically, else they would not be asking.
If a CIA guy asks KSM "tell me the address of the AQ safe house in east Karachi", it is a bit different - if KSM lies (ie there's no safe house when they raid it), well then there will be painful consequences for KSM. Sure he might only give you the small safe house in east Karachi and not the bigger one three blocks over, but it is something and it "did work". There are, of course, costs to using it - diplomatic, reputational, moral and even spiritual, if you swing that way.
I think part of the reason why this “empirical argument” doesn’t really persuade either is that it seems to be based on the false assumption that the nations which engaged in “systematic torture” were defeated by nations which abstained from “torture” altogether as opposed to nations whose personnel weren’t above “roughing up” prisoners to get vital information when they needed it. I would even go so far as to say that what the Bush administration was accused of doing, which was hardly “systematic,” was probably more humane that the sorts of things that were done by Allied forces during the period when abstaining from “torture” was supposedly a “an important element of American identity.” Of course part of the issue is probably what was and was not considered “torture” through these “many years and [] many conflicts” has probably changed as well.
Darius Rejali's Torture and Democracy makes pretty plain that we (and the British) engaged in fairly regular coercive interrogation during WWII and continued to do so in subsequent years -- beating prisoners with cudgels, using "stress positions", water and ice treatments, and then a whole stretch, apparently, where we repeatedly shot prisoners up with drugs to see if that made it easier to get information out of them. He has a short article here, in Slate, putting current coercive interrogation tactics in a larger historical context, although he does not include more pertinent examples from our WWII conduct -- you can get some of those from the limited preview of Torture and Democracy on Google Books.
Torture might work sometimes but it always works in destroying individual rights. Destroying individual rights affects a free society and eventually also free markets. Legally - might cannot make right if "free markets" are to work. A big company can buy a small company and can also afford better lawyers - but the judge should remain unbiased. Torture of some but not others is also not a democratic signal to the world. Democracy spreading globally is the most important weapon against terrorists.
This is not so much about us hurting some suspect immorally and some cost-benefit analysis that compares it to other interrogation techniques. If cost-benefit were to be applied it should be "torture vs the destruction of our foundation". Yo - in my opinion it is a small price to pay not to torture. I rather save all certainly than some potentially.
Well said!
If you believe your first sentence, please explain how:
The UK torture of Germans during WW2 worked in destroying British individual rights.
The CIA's use of torture during the Cold War worked in destroying US individual rights.
You seem to think there's an inevitable causality between wartime torturing of one's enemies and the destruction of domestic civil liberties. Please explain the mechanism of this inevitable process. And, in order for you to be correct on this, it must happen in every case. Has it? And, if not, care to revise your view?
Extending your reasoning, many believe the death penalty is a form of torture; certainly, there are documented cases of torture happening when the death penalty is applied. In your inevitable mechanism, has this destroyed our individual rights? Or, put another way, how widespread must the torture be to put into motion this inevitable process of the destruction of individual rights? As someone who grew up in New York, the NYPD tortured far more widely during my childhood than the CIA under Bush. Was this enough to put us on the inevitable path toward the end of individual liberty?
The UK torture of Germans during WW2 worked in destroying British individual rights.
I am not sure Britain defeated Germany with torture? And if only one British citizen has ever been tortured as a result of "they do it too"...
Since I am at it. Let's just say that I know some people from the animal rights movement across the globe. They would not harm a fly and not a human. Even the most radical have "failed" to seriously injure anybody and they do not intend to. I personally would not even come close to risking to hurt a single human. Quite the contrary.
Yet - many are suspected to be "domestic terrorists". I am sure you have heard that term? Secretive US prisons hold "terrorists" including animal rights activists and people who gave to the wrong charity. In this particular case - I believe that the people involved might be dangerous. The question here is still not merely - "what is really torture". Yes - the techniques that the US has applied like water boarding are actually humane compared to pulling teeth etc. The question is "what is dangerous" when we are dealing with "suspected suspects"?
It can quickly hit the wrong people. Quicker than the death penalty. In Austria last year ten activists have been "tortured" (nakedness, sleep deprevation etc) without any evidence of real "suspicion". One of them was Martin Balluch who I consider a personal friend. Martin is a pacifist and is a former colleague of Stephen Hawking at Cambridge University. What happened in Europe last summer - I can assure you - would have been less easy without a Guantanamo Bay.
Here is what Peter Singer of Princeton University wrote in The Guardian about it.
PS: I do not think that it is important for Obama that he should prosecute. He should just reverse "torture" as US policy - for all kinds of reasons.
A 30 year old US citizen has recently been captured by Iranian authorities. She is accused of spying. How far should the Iranian go with her? What repulsive insect should they pick when they confine her? How long should she be naked? How often should she be water-boarded? How often should she be walled? How long without sleep for her? How do we approach Iran on this one?
You didn't answer any of the questions I posed. Did you not understand them? Instead you start off with a strawman statement that is entirely irrelevant. You said that torture 'always works in destroying individual rights.' It's entirely irrelevant as to whether torture helped the British win World War 2; we know, as a documented fact, that the British ran torture camps where Germans were tortured. Just like we know the CIA tortured people during the Cold War. Therefore, both these instances fall under your claim that torture 'always works in destroying individual rights.' So, how did it work in these instances?
You seem to like to make entirely unsupported sweeping claims; this one was particularly laughable:
'What happened in Europe last summer - I can assure you - would have been less easy without a Guantanamo Bay.'
How do you know this to be true? Europe has been torturing people for millennium; do you have any idea what France was doing in Algeria in the sixties? Spain has consistently failed to implement recommendations by the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the UN Committee Against Torture to combat the use of torture in detention, all before Guantanamo. And Austria? It's not like they have a clean history regarding torture. I mean, we really don't have to go far back in history to get to Mauthausen. And in the 90s the Council of Europe issued a report on systemic torture by the Austrian Security Police. What about the Austrian father who imprisoned and tortured his daughters in their cellar for years? Was that somehow made easier by Guantanamo?
But this is all just a tangent. As I said in my prior post, I'm interested in your claim that torture 'always works in destroying individual rights.' I'd be interested if you want to address my prior questions on this topic; if not, have a nice night.
Disclaimer:
Individual rights refer to the rights of individuals, in contrast with group rights.
Maybe we have a language problem?
I believe the first sentence. Here is the mechanism.
In order to be able to commit those sorts of actions against a detainee, the torturer must believe that those actions are justified. The torturer must be capable, or must be made capable, of committing atrocities against other human beings. The torturer's superiors must be capable of allowing it to happen. The superiors' lawyers must be capable of defending it in court, if necessary.
When the conflict in question is completed, these people do not vanish into the ether. They go home. Some number of them become civilian guards, police officers, politicians, civilian lawyers, or even just wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, and parents.
Is it really that much of a stretch to think that - in at least a percentage of these people - some of them will revert to their torturer mentality and methods in times of stress, or even as a matter of course? Remember, these people needed to justify what they were doing in wartime. They treated violence as a means to an end then. It's little different in peacetime.
"How... The CIA's use of torture during the Cold War worked in destroying US individual rights."
Does an indirect cause count? George HW Bush was in charge of the CIA for several years of the Cold War. If he hadn't been, he wouldn't have been President, and (therefore) neither would his son.
Hi Tel,
Thanks for that example when it comes to the executioners. But what I really meant to say with the first sentence was that once you put group rights over individual rights - your are destroying individual rights by definition. Torture is utilitarian, fascists, marxist logic - not that of a free society. This works without "examples" - it works by definition.
That is why the UK and US (after Vietnam) have abolished compulsory military service. It's just not worth to give up your core values for defense and security as also Ayn Rand argues.
Of course - if one, like jennis above, does not know the difference between group and individual rights.. the whole thing does not make sense to him or her. He would change his core values arbitrary to serve some short-term goal?
My family has risked lives to fell an oppressive communist regime where group rights always came before individual rights. That was no life. In the west - we thought - this does not exists (so much). The West might not be perfect but it always moved in the right direction: abolition of slavery, civil rights, end of compulsory service - in short individual rights over group rights and without hypocrisy (eg we torture only blacks but not whites - we torture only terrorist but not ordinary murderers)
Democracy and indivudal rights is the most important weapon against terrorists and extremists. I was pro-Iraq-war because due to my history I have an aversion against oppressors who torture their people. I never expected that we were merely trying to switch places with Sadam?
Democracy works via the legal process. When you intimidate NGOs and grassroots activists as domestic terrorists and with torture - they split into two camps. The passive one which stops acting democratically and does nothing. This is when social progress slows down domestically. Martin Balluch said after his release that:
Those who remain active tend to become "extremeists" because they have no other choice.
There is a guy on the FBI most-wanted list who has never hurt a human being and does not even intent to. He is an animal rights activists who has destroyed two research labs. Every common robber is more dangerous and yet this guy is next to Osama Bin Laden... because we label him "terrorist". Because we label him "terrorist" he would get what we label "extreme interrogation"? But other real murderers in the US would not... If you were him.. what does this leave you with. He might as well start killing people?
No - putting group rights over individual rights arbitrary is always dangerous for a free society. We are not even at war. Al Queda has hit many other countries as well - not just the US. They are against western culture per it appears. They claim the west is racist, rotten, selfish and hypocritical - let's prove them wrong and hurt them where we can really hurt them. Electing a president with a muslim name who abolishes torture in the US as official policy is a good first step. We really are better then "them" on all levels. It is worth joining and not fighting us.
PS: Please read this related post on the new FBI most wanted list.
The stated policy should always be "Don't use torture."
The actual decision to use torture depends on:
Do you need the information bad enough to use torture (save lives, win a war, etc...)?
IF no THEN don't use torture.
IF yes THEN ask:
Does torture work?
IF no THEN don't use torture.
IF yes THEN ask:
Is torture the only effective means of getting the information?
IF no THEN don't use torture.
IF yes THEN use torture.
It's simple really.
Considering that torture us illegal, isn't the burden on the would-be tortures to prove that it DOES work so they can get the ban lifted?
And when the hell did solvency arguments become invalid? It's not like claiming "torture doesn't work" is somehow mutually exclusive with any line of reasoning. Even if people can get torture to work, there are still plenty of good arguments against it. Solvency, for the moment, is the easiest and most effective case to make.
I think a major problem in this debate is that those against torture assume everyone agrees what torture is.
Except we don't.
For example, the so-called "torture memos" that the left is calling for war crimes charges on currently were carefully delineated legal arguments to specifically *avoid* torturing suspects according to the U.S. rules and possible international treaties that may have been invoked. In other words, the Bush administration was trying to figure out how to *not* torture criminals and yet still *enhance the interrogation.*
Many who think waterboarding is torture---even if it is a debatable point legally---might be surprised to learn that many pushing for prosecutions view threats of torture (without any reality of follow through) as torture. Or they view lying (e.g. "we have your wife in custody and if you don't give up the info, we kill her") is torture. Or even limiting sleep to 6-7 hours and giving only basic food (e.g. 1500-1800 calories) is torture. Or even making the bedrooms dark and isolated from sound as torture.
In other words, we don't know what torture is commonly called. Many view common police interrogations as torture. Many do not. There is no line we have drawn yet socially, and yet here we are arguing about when we can torture when some of us believe a police man shining an interrogation light into our eyes is torture.
Okay, is there anyone who *seriously* thinks that water-boarding is *not* torture?
I think it is obvious: yes, there are many who *seriously* think it is not torture. Unpleasant - yes. A violation of civil liberties - yes.
The problem is that people who get sanctimonious about it fail to make any distinctions between waterboarding and techniques such as maiming, raping, killing family members in front of you, etc...
Rather, they just lump everything under one word.
Torture: "the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason"
Torture is about inflicting pain and suffering on people to get them to say what we want. It's not really arguable that we have done that or that water torture is a form of it. The fact that one can imagine *worse* atrocities than what have so far admitted to doing, doesn't make what we have been doing "not-torture".
there are many who *seriously* think it is not torture
Wow. So, if their spouse or child were water-boarded, they wouldn't be thinking about it as them being tortured? Just wow.
people who get sanctimonious about it fail to make any distinctions between waterboarding and techniques such as maiming
I suspect the sanctimonious among us figure it's a line we should not cross. That there's a lot of space left on the far side to get far worse doesn't really matter. It's sort of the same as someone who robs one bank or robs fifty. The latter is worse, but you've both broken the law.
There are clearly gray areas where you could argue that some kind of treatment either is or is not torture. I don't think the stuff described in those memos, or documented at Abu Girab, or the stuff reported from Bagram, are particularly close to any gray areas, though.
In particular, "waterboarding" is a new term for something previously known as "Spanish water torture," which was famously used by the Japanese during WW2, the Khmer Rouge, and the Spanish Inquisition. There's not really any debate about whether this is torture by any normal meaning of that term.
More broadly, your argument here is kind of silly. Yes, there are gray areas in the definitions of most crimes--negligent homicide vs. just killing someone by accident, fraud vs. sharp dealing, etc. But that doesn't mean we can't enforce laws against those crimes, or readily figure out that (say) Madoff was committing fraud.
However, I'll acknowledge that I'm no expert, and haven't heard all the facts. The right way to decide this is to prosecute the people who seem most responsible for the crimes, and let a jury decide whether they're guilty of torture or not.
But you're arguing your common belief versus a legal definition. Again, you may want to be included in the legal definition of torture, but it is not; the torture memos are very precise on that.
Jim Manzi makes an exceptionally poor argument. After pointing out that correlation is not causation, he then leaps to the completely illogical and unsupported position that those who disagree with him have the burden of proof.
Everything in the first 3.5 paragraphs is irrelevant to the final statement which starts with "I think". He could have dispensed with everything but that sentence. Does he get paid for the volume of words?
Rick
P.S. the question becomes one of magnitude for many:
would you torture someone if that was the only way to get the information out of them in time to save 1 life?
10 lives?
100 lives?
1000 lives?
10,000 lives?
100,000 lives?
1,000,000 lives?
10,000,000 lives?
100,000,000 lives?
1,000,000,000?
All but the most strident idealogue or religious person has their breaking number somewhere in there, and the fact is, we have a high probability of facing the reality one day that many people's "torture threshold" will be crossed with an Al-Queda suspect.
A coordinated gas attack on major Western cities (a la Andrew Sullivan's post)? A succession of dirty nuclear bombs on the West Coast? Suicide bombers coming over the border through Mexico to take out Houston/Dallas/Phoenix/San Diego in simultaneous attacks?
All plausible at this point. What is also plausible is that we may have a suspect in custody shortly before an torture threshold incident whose torture would stop the attacks.
This is why 24 is often called "torture porn." Many people want a Jack Bauer out there---someone willing to go rogue and do the torture that many people deep down feel might be ok if enough lives are saved.
If it's important enough that you're willing to face a jury/an impeachment hearing for violating the law, and expect to win, then the magnitude is high enough.
That's an interesting conundrum, though, Nelson, because you actually adding a personal calculus on top of a societal one.
Joe Schmo interrogator knows if he tortures, it saves 1,000,000 lives.
If he doesn't do it, 1,000,000 die tomorrow. If it comes out that he could have done something and but the government wouldn't let him, the people backlash and authorize torture. Joe is personally ok, and now has the right to torture, but it took 1,000,000 deaths he could have prevented.
If he does torture and save 1,000,000 lives, he gets investigated and prosecuted. Since people don't really personalize a tragedy of 1,000,000 now-hypothetical deaths, the media plays up only that he tortured someone. None of the potential victims speaks for him because they largely do not know that they could have died. Now Joe is professionally and publically smeared (Andrew Sullivan and Glen Greenwald burn him in effigy) but personally vindicated.
Many people might choose option A over B, despite the obvious selfishness of option A.
If it's important enough that you're willing to face a jury/an impeachment hearing for violating the law, and expect to win, then the magnitude is high enough.
A good rule, but it requires the jury nullification to actually work. My understanding is that it is not a given in the present day courtroom :(
it's not so far fetched Max, but it largely depends (sadly) on where the trial would take place. If the case is in SF, he'd get the chair (irony not lost here). If the case is in the 4th circuit, he may very well go free. The red/blue divide on this would be enormous.
Ok, take out the part about expect to win. If you're willing to go to prison, then it's a high enough magnitude.
Ideally if it were really worth it, the president will pardon you. Or if you are the president and authorize torture, then face Congress and let them decide whether or not to impeach you.
But Nelson, in setting up this scenario you're implicitly agreeing that torture is morally justified.
If so, we shouldn't criminalize it when it is. To prosecute something we think shouldn't be is bad logic. We allow for the self-defense agruments against murder, why not a similar "need to torture" defense, where the burden is on you to justify your actions?
This argument bothers me: We should prohibit torture in all events; yet rely on some poor schmuck to "do the right thing" and torture anyway (under the assumption the President would pardon the poor schmuck).
No. A thousand times, no. If Congress, the administration, et al, think there might be some circumstances under which torture might be a viable alternative, the law should permit it under those circumstances. We should not force some CIA agent to "make the tough decisions" that our political leaders refuse to make.
exactly.
It sucks for the CIA agent, but I kind of like this approach. To me, the reason we should prohibit all torture is that even if it's useful and moral in some circumstances, we can be pretty sure that any gov't agency will be too incompetent to know when to use it and when not to. If the decision is on individual CIA agents' heads, maybe there is a suboptimal level of torture, but there's a good chance a CIA agent would put his balls on the line if there was an immenent disaster, and you drastically cut down on the amount of torture that takes place b/c some gov't beauracrat is a moron or has a sadistic streak.
or we get an inexperienced, nervous low level interrogator panicking because 1) his superior is all but telling him to torture and 2) he has no idea whether he is protected and 3) he is the only one on the line for it if it fails.
this is why the torture memos were created.
It's pretty easy to construct scenarios were you may have to kill 10 innocent children to save a billion lives. Should we make certain we have escape clauses for executing innocent children?
You don't craft law based on the most fantastic scenario.
As well, the truth is that we can pretty much guarantee that if we allow torture for any reason, then we'll be allowing it for a whole lot more than a ticking bomb scenario. If somehow someone does defuse the ticking bomb using torture, do you really think they're going to jail?
Sorry, if you're serious about only using torture in extremis, then you don't legally sanction it at all. If someone isn't willing to face the legal consequences of torturing another human being, that's a pretty good indication that the situation is not serious enough to merit torture.
I don't see how you could possibly craft a law to that effect such that it wouldn't be weighed down so heavily by caveats and exceptions only experts on that particular law would know what it means. It might end up being a fine example of good lawyering, but it would be useless as a guide for people who might find themselves in a relevant situation.
would you torture someone if that was the only way to get the information out of them in time to save 1 life?
Lurker: I may well be willing to torture a guilty party if that's "the only way" to get the needed information. But I can't imagine such a scenario, because for it to exist you'd have to know with 100% certainty that your prisoner is indeed guilty, and can indeed be induced to spill the beans if he's made to suffer a sufficiently high degree of pain.
Once you lose that hypothetical certitude -- in other words once you're in the real world -- this absurd argument you've constructed disintegrates.
Well, Jasper, let's say we captured Bin Laden, but also had high intelligence chatter of a major, major, major Al-Queda plot about to go down within the next 3 days. It's so high level it was organized personally by Bin Laden and only his hereforeto unknown trusted circle. Bin Laden was so invested in this plot succeeding that he even avoided telling his number 2s about it, for fear they might spill the beans. You also know there were three major black market purchases in the last 3 days of nuclear-level weapons.
this is not preposterous. Powerful leaders of vicious groups often have a high-level SS type squadron that is insulated from even the general mob they control. The paranoia of such leaders (think Hitler or Stalin) is often extremely high; Rommel, despite being the Nazis best general, was in the dark because Hitler didn't trust him.
And even if this isn't a hypothetical certitude, what about 50% chance of saving 1,000,000 lives? That's 500,000 people.
The hypthetical certitude doesn't really matter. The magnitude of the impact multiplied by the chance of that info beign there does.
Also, do you really think capturing an Al Queda high up with high chatter going on will yield nothing if torture commences?
Lurker: under your scenario we would not know that OBL is guilty of organizing the alleged plot and we would not know that the torture we're contemplating inflicting on another human being will produce information and we would not know that any produced information would be helpful.
Your hypotheticals posit situations that literally are impossible to exist given the nature of reality and the rules of logic.
jasper, yes we would. Osama could admit there is a plot ("in 3 days, infidels, my capture will mean nothing")and then believe himself strong enough to withstand torture (most people overestimate their natural resistance to torture). What is more, considering his hands-on approach, he knows of plots in the organization he funds and controls. Heightened chatter of a plot necessarily implicates him, since it is he who funds and trains plotters (the 9/11 hijackers attended his camps).
Also, as I stated above, there are well-known methods of torture that do extract the information desired, and methods to insure that it is reliable information. The "torture isn't reliable" argument doesn't fly. And an experienced tortured, given an open playing field and 3 days time could be expected to have success.
My situation posited is not logically impossible.
And I ask you again, if DHS knew a major plot was going to go down soon, but couldn't pin point where or exactly when or how, well, the information that is needed is critical---you can't evacuate every Western city---first of all, where would they go?----are you really saying torture of bin Laden wouldn't be a good course of action?
How about ca 3,000?
This isn't a wholly academic discussion in the age of nuclear weapons.
My points have also been made by others, but I'd like to reiterate/rephrase them.
1. The torture discussion must first define torture. As Lurker says people on all sides of the argument have different definitions of torture. So even people who agree that we should never use torture may disagree on what we can do.
2. The secret use of torture to interrogate specific, high-value prisoners who are likely to have valuable information is quite different from the systematic use of torture to terrorize a population.
3. The argument about "we keep beating torturers" is stupid because it assumes two kinds of governments: torturing and non-torturing. In reality, governments are defined in many more ways than this. Also, China. Modern Japan uses "enhanced interrogation methods" in police interrogations and has an absurdly high conviction rate. But they are supposedly a liberal democracy.
4. In general, spies and special operations soldiers are going to do things that ordinary civilians, police, and soldiers won't do. I understand that sometimes they may do things that are otherwise bad in extreme situations. Hopefully we can keep those incidents limited and train these people to have good judgment. For example, asking the CIA to follow the Army interrogation manual (which was written to comply with Geneva requirements for interrogating POWs, not spies or terrorists) is silly.
5. It is counterproductive to apply the Geneva protections that are supposed to apply to compliant states to all states. The whole point of Geneva was to establish rules that would be mutually followed. If everyone gets treated the same, then our enemies have a strong incentive to violate Geneva to help overcome the disparity in power and have no real incentive to comply. If violating Geneva would result in them receiving harsher treatment, then that would be an incentive for them to follow it. (I realize that some of the Geneva protections are universal.)
this is also why I think Obama won't prosecute.
Its easy to call Bush's policies torture in common parlance and have extremists like Greenwald calling for war crimes when the debate is hypothetical.
Yet if this goes to court, we have rules of evidence. We have good faith reliance. We have juries. And we have fine legal teams defending people. We have the exact wordings of the laws supposedly violated.
Right now there is still a backlash against Bush which is coloring most of the "torture" argument. Most of that relies on people only listening to leftists making their arguments and ignoring rightwingers.
Obama is politically safe if he keeps this out of court; he can rely on people calling him magnamious for not prosecuting and yet have Greenwald/Sullivan smear the Bush's, enhancing his own prestige. However, if he tries this in court and loses---a much more likelier scenario than not----, he looks like a fool, and a liar, and gets pummelled by the right and suddenly quizzical media on how "The One" could be wrong.
P.S. I also think the punt to Holder on the higher up prosecution is part of this. Obama doesn't want to seem like he's by passing the AG as chief law enforcement officer; he doesn't want a repeat of the fruitless Gonzalez/fired U.S. Attorneys fiasco and investigation.
Plus Obama needs those lower-level seasoned interrogators working for him; if he throws them under the bus, he not only loses their experience, he gets a bunch of inexperienced/afraid to do anything lower interrogators, which, combined with his weakening of the Al Queda roundup, could lead to disaster later.
The other reason he won't prosecute, and I think the more important one, is the Democrats in Congress knew exactly what was going on. According to the guy who briefed them, none of the Congresspeople in attendance expressed reservations about the techniques they were being shown, with the exception of the two who wondered if said techniques were harsh enough to break anyone. So far we can't put names on that meeting agenda, but if he starts charging people, eventually some Congresspeople, some Democrats, are going to lose their seats.
So the Sullivans and Greenwalds of the world can dream all they want about prosecution. It's not going to happen.
I must disagree with this statement:
" Yet when they argue about whether torture works, they're conceding that torture's effectiveness is relevant to the question of whether or not we should engage in it"
I don't see that as necessarily so. The argument is given by, well, people like me, because the argument about the morality of torture is basically laughed-off by torture advocates. So, we try another tack to try and persuade them that even though we are convinced that these acts are morally reprehensible and should be universally banned, we also don't believe that there were witches in Salem.
The problem isn't if torture "works". Of course it works in the sense that someone with a piece of information will hand it over under torture. The problem is, how does the torturer know when to stop? How do you know when they've given up all their valuable information? The tortured names someone; so do you now torture them too? 'Cause if KSM fingered you than you must deserve a little torture, right?
I find the discussions of "defining torture" very disturbing. The bottom line, to me, is this: If you are a well-paid, well-educated, well-heeled lawyer, working in secret in some government office, writing secret memos parsing the definition of torture, than you are one of life lowest forms.
nmuson, this is what lawyers do: try to find out where the law ends and illegality begins.
its why prosecuting them is also morally wrong. They did a job to encourage legality, not illegality.
nmunson, you're really arguing about different "torture" and non-torture techniques.
Personally, I believe torture works. People will break if not given food/sleep or if pain is ratched up. Plus the techniques of effective torture are actually secretly well known.
A basic interrogation technique:
Demand 3 pieces of information, but already have the ability to verify 2 of them. It is only the 3rd you really want. The suspect doesn't know which one you don't know. When he gives up the 3, verify the other 2. If those 2 check out, the 3rd is good to go.
Fishing for more works the same way: ask him for 3 things, 2 you know. If he knows 2, he must know 3 in this scenario.
Lurker, thanks for the response.
I believe that what constitutes torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, etc. is not something that any 1 country gets to think too hard about. We understand that certain human activities to be beyond the norms of what is acceptable. That's why our country, The United States, frequently and vociferously and rightly decries such behavior from other countries. That's gone now, if you ever cared. We can't say s**t to anyone anymore, can we?
For all of your silly scenarios that not only justify but in fact insist upon torture, it's all about fear: Your fear. The torturer is the most pathetic character, terrified but in complete control. The subjugation and possible destruction of another human no more than a bureaucrat covering his a**, making it look like he did all he could. You cannot morally use your fear as a justification for any of these acts. It just doesn't matter how many times you wet your trousers thinking about all the scary things in the world -- you don't get to make that guy stand in a stress position naked for hours. Sorry.
And your scenarios are completely outlandish, really. "Ability to verify 2 of them"? That's not a serious thing to say, its the kind of things middle school boys fascinate over. Tortured people start talking and won't stop until you stop torturing them. What's true and what's not? And is this the only guy being tortured? Doubt it.
What you want is revenge. What you want is the bad guys dead. Its not a grown-up way to look at the world.
nmuson, that is a lot of straw men there.
You're basically arguing a no-torture policy across the board on moral grounds.
But please, don't say things like this: "And your scenarios are completely outlandish, really. "Ability to verify 2 of them"? That's not a serious thing to say, its the kind of things middle school boys fascinate over. "
That, dear nmuson, is interrogation 101. For example, Suspect is thought to be part of a plot to rob a bank. You have searched his place and found the map of the bank, his gun, a written plan of what he will do in the robbery, and who is Suspect's getaway driver. What you want to know is: who is the 3rd accomplice?
So you drag Suspect into room and tell him you know about his plot, but need to know the plan, the driver's name, and his 3rd accomplice's name. So you grill him on those questions. If he starts lying about the plan or the driver's name, you tell him you know he's lying, turn up the heat, etc. When he starts feeding you the other info, you know when he pops off about the other accomplice's name, its truthful.
It's what you know versus what they think you know. Playing dumb to see how truthful you are.
"What you want is revenge. What you want is the bad guys dead. Its not a grown-up way to look at the world."
----please, this liberal nonsense. I don't want them tortured if the information can come through other channels. Capital punishment? I go back and forth on that myself, but quite frankly, in this context the two are not comparable. One is for information, the other is for revenge justice. And Capital punishment isn't immature, just for the record.
If you already have the ability to verify the 2 bits of information, you already have the ability to unwittingly leak that information to the person you're torturing or threatening with torture - a recipe for confirmation bias. It's theoretically possible to avoid that if you made it more like a double-blind experiment in which the people asking the questions had no idea what information we already had or were looking for, but that's unlikely to happen in real life.
But it's actually worse than that because it's quite possible - even likely - that the person you're questioning only knows the two "verifiable" facts you know and doesn't know the third unverifiable one you don't. So verifying the two things you know doesn't tell you whether the third thing you don't know is true.
No matter how effective torture is at eliciting true information, there is bound to be a false-positive rate; you will elicit some false information as well. The more torture you do, the more false leads you will waste time and effort following up on. The proper metric for judging can't be "do you get information?", it has to be more along the lines of "how reliable and timely is the overall body of information you get from your sources, compared to what it would be if you used friendlier techniques?" Given lots of people available to question, you might well be better off not torturing *even if* torture elicited more and faster information than friendlier methods, because more information doesn't necessarily mean *better* information and acting on bad info is costlier than doing nothing.
(_24_ gets around this problem by constructing the plot in such a way that there's only one available lead for Jack to follow at any given time. And also by making Jack infallible.)
Glen, what I'm describing is a very basic technique taught to all interrogators--police, psychologist, etc. No torture need be involved.
So yes, now we're onto the "how effective is it?" argument, which, for us here, is more advanced than we know. But certainly this is why the techniques do work, its just a question of *shudder* efficiency.
That's a very lazy way out of thinking about the issue.
Could not those lawyers be driven by a well-meaning desire to protect their fellow citizens? Do you remember the panic after 9/11 and someone was mailing anthrax letters? Could this not have impacted their reasoning?
And if you believe such a people are one of life's lowest life forms, should they be prosecuted for this? And, if so, under what statute?
Thanks Jennis
Well-meaning doesn't cut it. We're not talking about some petty crime here, or a crime of passion, or even a battlefield action. We are talking about a state-run, systematic operation to define-down torture and inflict those acts upon many different individuals repeatedly and over time. Some were guilty, some were not, and some are dead.
What part of that sounds "well-meaning" to you? The only thing worse than the torturer himself are characters like Bybee.
Do you spend the rest of the year defending the rich lawyers who play with the rules to keep criminals out of jail?
the part that sounds well-meaning where they reasonably thought thousands of people's lives were at risk.
"Some were guilty, some were not, and some are dead."
---which is why they wanted to be careful about not doing the illegal act.
NMuson, are you really against due process for an accused criminal and mention it in the same breath as a lawyer trying to find the legal line for torture and *not* step over it?
Lurker, you seem to be fond of the phrase "straw man". However you have not given me a single example of what you are talking about. What is the straw-man I am setting-up and knocking-down? I call your "straw-man" bluff.
The phrase That, dear nmuson, is interrogation 101. Exactly. It is freshman level stuff. Sterile but informative studies in human behavior. No resemblance to the real world at all.
lmao rofl. No, nmuson, that is exactly how you would operate a basic form of interrogation. there are others, but torture lends it self best to this scenario, since you are painfully extracting the information from someone.
p.s. i don't say starw man here. See at the bottom, where I give you your example.
here's some straw man:
"For all of your silly scenarios that not only justify but in fact insist upon torture, it's all about fear: Your fear."
---if you define fear as also worry over many thousands of deaths, yes. If you just mean the torturer is always cowardly, then no.
"The torturer is the most pathetic character, terrified but in complete control."
---another straw man; never created this creature, totally made up in your mind. Does he wear a cardinal's robe, by any chance?
I think there's another reason why we get into the "does torture work" discussion: torture advocates continually bring up the ticking-bomb scenario to suggest that it is immoral NOT to torture someone when, by inflicting evil on one person, you could save the lives of many.
It is extremely important to establish that this scenario is a ludicrous fantasy which never occurs in the real world. And, secondly, that while torture has some limited effectiveness as an information-checking tool, it is ONLY useful when used SYSTEMATICALLY, rather than in one limited short-term situation, and when it is used to verify information which can also be gathered through other means.
For example, and I'm sure I will end up repeating this many times, the North Vietnamese interrogators from whom we took so many of our torture methods never used torture just to go out on fishing expeditions. They knew that their captives would most likely lie or make up stuff the interrogators wanted to hear. So they used torture systematically on most or all of the prisoners they brought in to verify information which they already had, mainly through their extensive spy networks in South Vietnam and at US Air Force bases in Thailand.
Air Force Col. Ted Guy, for example, relates spending his first day under "enhanced interrogation" at the Hanoi Hilton making up false names for the pilots in his squadron at Cam Ranh Air Base, misstating the number of planes, and so forth. After he was done, the interrogator left the room and returned with a folder. He proceeded to read off the correct names of the other pilots in Guy's squadron. Then a guard beat the hell out of Guy for a while, and then they went back to the interrogation, as Guy tried to figure out what kinds of believable lies he could get away with.
This kind of torture probably is a useful aid in fact-checking one's intelligence. But it cannot be employed in extraordinary circumstances to obtain that one crucial unknown piece of information that will allow you to save lives. It has to be used systematically on everyone, and what it provides is increased reliability of information you can also get in some other way. Is it worth it? Well, arguably, by torturing our servicemen, the North Vietnamese "saved lives" -- the lives of some of their own soldiers and civilians, whom they perhaps could better protect from US bombing raids. But I would suggest that if your logic leads you to the conclusion that Communist interrogators were right to torture captive US servicemen, you are following a line of argument that should and will be rejected by Americans who understand the moral foundations on which their country is based.
Furthermore, the North Vietnamese themselves ultimately came to the conclusion that torture wasn't worth it, and stopped. Why? Because inevitably, news of the torture got out -- when they released some American POWs, which they did both to score propaganda points and as a reward to POWs in order to induce cooperation, those POWs told the world their comrades were being tortured. And that was a terrible blow to North Vietnam's efforts to win hearts and minds abroad, which was ultimately the crucial battlefield on which the war was being fought. Favorable public opinion in the US was far more important to Hanoi than any information that could be beaten out of a captive pilot, because only American public opinion could ultimately get the US Army out of Vietnam. The Nixon administration launched a PR offensive around POW torture in spring and summer 1969. After September 1969, Hanoi basically stopped torturing American POWs for information.
We are in the same position Hanoi was in: favorable Muslim public opinion is vastly more important in our efforts to fight Al-Qaeda than any information we could waterboard out of Al-Zubaydah, mixed in with all the lies and nonsense he spewed in his desperation. Torture has very limited effectiveness as an interrogation tool, mainly for fact-checking. But the damage we do to ourselves by deploying it in a systematic fashion, as the Bush administration in fact did (witness the memos), far outweighs any possible usefulness it could have.
That implicitly means that if torture becomes nearly perfectly effective, they should change their minds--otherwise, it's not a relevant criteria.
It means no such thing, Megan.
It's not a contradiction to posit that:
A) Torture is immoral (and therefore quite rightly illegal) and
B) By the way torture doesn't work, either.
Now, if it were proven that "B" is incorrect, one would logically still reply "well, doesn't matter anyway, because torture is immoral."
Torture's opponents use arguments about (lack of) efficaciousness to bolster their position. If they're proven wrong on this score they simple lose this bit of bolstering.
As it happens, of course, they're correct: torture doesn't "work" in the sense that it does more harm than good when it comes to gathering intelligence (exactly nobody is claiming it's always impossible to extract a factually accurate piece of information using torture).
Whatever people intend, what they say is: "Torture doesn't work." Maybe followed up with "People will tell you anything they think you want to hear if you torture them.
What people don't say is: "Torture is not as effective as people think it is."
Nor: "Torture doesn't provide big enough improvements over other interrogation techniques to justify its additional costs."
The reason this matters is (1) what is said seems disengenous and intended to mislead and (2) it takes the focus off the real argument, which is (or should be): (a) what is torture and (b) is it ever ok to torture.
Whatever people intend, what they say is: "Torture doesn't work.
Er, no, "they" (whoever "they" is) don't say this. Or, more precisely, sometimes they use this construction. And sometimes they go into greater detail. But the point is, both "torture works" and "torture doesn't work" are vague, overly general banalities. I mean, common sense informs us that it's not impossible to extract a factually accurate, potentially useful piece of intelligence via the infliction of pain. Moreover, common sense tells us that torture almost always does "work" if one's goal is making another person suffer. Or if one's goal is sexual gratification (and one is a sadist). In other words, just what is meant by "works" here? If it means "keeps us safer" then, no, torture doesn't work.
Now, if our goal is extracting useful intelligence, we must analyze the policy in its totality. And when we do this, we find that a policy of torture does not pass cost/benefit analysis. I'm sorry if big words like "cost" and "benefit" and "analysis" don't pass muster with the tea bag crowd.
So, yes, at the end of the day torture is immoral. It also happens to be a policy that doesn't work.
Now we see what Jasper is: a childish lefty insulter who switches arguments at random.
Jasper, I already stated (as tea party supporter, you hippie coward) that there is a cost benefit analysis. Chances of being right times number of victims of terrorist act.
Cost/benefit doesn't escape the Tea Party crowd. That's why we protested massive redistribution of wealth to Obama's cronies--because the cost of that to the country (lengthening the recession, not shortening it) was not worth the benefit (short term gains by his hack supporters).
"In other words, just what is meant by "works" here? If it means "keeps us safer" then, no, torture doesn't work."
---um, moron, if it extracts useful information to prevent massive deaths, it is.
That reply was very grown up. The "tea baggers" (congratulations on your original and creative vocabulary and on contributing to a stimulating debate there and also on the undeniably clear logic that proves that "tea baggers" are all on the same side of the torture/enhanced interrogation issue) are the ones that are clearly engaging in a cost benefit analysis. Not many (any?)of them are arguing we should torture people b/c it's fun. The people on the other side of the issue may or may not be engaging in a cost benefit analysis. Some of them clearly are, but there are plenty whose argument is "torture is icky," which is fine and intellectually honest. It's valid (to me at least) to think that some things are always wrong and can never be justified, even if most people are not absolutists on many, if any things.
What's not intellectually honest is when people make a point that you don't like, to make a derogatory reference to your preferred whipping boy (or group) and then insult their intelligence.
Maybe you could have responded to the comment that people taking part in a public debate should be trying to convince other people of the merits of their position, or at least trying to explain their position, and saying "torture doesn't work" is counterproductive as it's vague and apparently only a secondary argument. But on the other hand, then you would have had to pass up a chance to take a pot shot at people you don't agree with and that you think are beneath you. I can see how that would be a difficult decision.
I note that every one of our enemies has readily tortured our soldiers without incurring international approbation for doing so. Only the US is excoriated for behavior found in almost every international conflict.
...
The American way for getting information from suspected criminals is to provide immediate access to a lawyer if they want one and otherwise to stop at intimidation, deceit and incarceration.
The American way of getting information from POWs is/used to be to stop at name, rank, and serial number.
The American way of getting information from enemy combatants is not well-defined, if there still is such a category as enemy combatant.
At what point between these standards and torture do we stop? Does torture begin just beyond shackling and hooding? If not, what constitutes torture? I hope we can do better than "I know it when Amnesty International tells me about it". It's clear from the reaction to waterboarding that we don't accept "permanent damage" as the limit. Physical pain? Mental pain? Fatigue or hunger? If all those are out, is there anything left?
I note that every one of our enemies has readily tortured our soldiers without incurring international approbation for doing so.
Larry: what are you talking about? A number of "our enemies" (ie German and Japanese security forces) didn't merely suffer approbation for torture, they were in fact executed.
But anyway, the realization that the US tends to come in for more criticism than many other parties with respect to war crimes makes having a strong American policy forbidding such behavior more, not less, critical, because of the harmful implications for US interests flowing from such negative attention.
Yeah, this is a completely crazy thing for Larry to say. Every US adversary that has tortured US soldiers -- the Nazis, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis -- has incurred tremendous international approbation for doing so, and in many cases the instigators of the torture were tried as war criminals.
Executions for POW mistreatment? Please add a cite. But let's posit that such happened after WWII. Even so, executions certainly did not serve to "encourager les autres", because torture didn't get used any less in later wars. The instrumental argument that if we do it, our enemies will be more likely to do so is absurd. They have never needed that excuse.
I agree that we've seen bad PR from interrogations. But our PR is always horrible, except when we genuflect, and not to the world's ideals - which only apply to us, anyway - but to the world's scumbags. We support Israel after all, and civilians die no matter how precisely we target al Qaeda from the sky. The world is happy to beat us up. Our scruples impact noone else's behavior.
Of course there are other differences between the US and our enemies. As we now know, detainee treatment was agonized over all the way to the White House, and the controversial techniques were carefully limited both in extent and degree. And of course, we convicted rogue jailers, and have engaged in massive self-criticism even while the relevant wars continue. Has anyone else done so?
The moral reason not to torture is that force is only moral when necessary to prevent a greater harm, and even then only the minimum force necessary. We're happy to kill these guys in battle. When the information they hold is more dangerous than the gun they were carrying, it is moral to take it by force.
I speak here only of morality, and ignore issues of practicality and instrumentality, which may make the conversation moot. Torture is worse than useless in extracting confessions of past behavior. In that circumstance it only and always misleads. The only scenarios I can see are variations on the ticking bomb. Now that the bombs can be nuclear, they have more resonance. Fortunately, even under the hated Bush, they were very rare.
When the information they hold is more dangerous than the gun they were carrying, it is moral to take it by force.
Larry: How do we determine that they are indeed "carrying" information we need? How do we indeed determine such information is "dangerous?" How do we know they won't give us erroneous information in order to stop the torture? How do we know any information we get will be actionable? How do we know that humane treatment won't work better? Etc, etc. The point is, there's a difference between morally justifiable killing in self-defense (which is what war entails) and torture. The former is morally justifiable because there's no alternative. The latter is not.
Replying to your second response...
I agree that we never have perfect knowledge about what a detainee does or does not know. That uncertainty must be part of the calculus that informs interrogations. It's a balancing test. Ends, means, and the certainty of the links between them must be carefully considered. Coping with uncertainty is part of life.
Is Megan trolling Greenwald again???
It's far more likely Greenwald is advertising his blog under pseudonyms again.
I note that every one of our enemies has readily tortured our soldiers without incurring international approbation for doing so. Only the US is excoriated for behavior found in almost every international conflict.
Because, they don't pretend otherwise. If you invade other countries with the purpose of bringing democracy, make it your mission statement to bring democracy and act like you stand for human rights then you will be criticized more harshly for violating your stated values. Aren't we supposed to be the "good guys" and them the "bad guys"?
Actually, they think they're liberating people, too. At least that's what they say.
Ah, Jennis, now you are on to something!
They thought they were liberating too.
And yet we still say that they tortured, and that it was wrong.
Even though they, the Japanese or whoever, were pretty convinced, in fact 100% certain, that what they were doing was well-meaning for their citizens.
Just something to chew over.
once again, nmuson, you assume that your definition of torture is everyone else's.
When did we ever invade a country for the purpose of bringing democracy? I'm pretty sure that was never the only reason, or even the top reason.
Hmmm, strange how no one mentioned Britain's systemic use of torture against IRA suspects in the 70s and 80s. Among other things, the lads from Her Majesty's forces fixed electrodes to the testicles of suspects and turned on the electricity. (Look it up, it happened.) It is true that they had to deal with a nasty enemy that did horrible things but was the torture ultimately effective? That war lasted nearly 30 years.
Yes, but BostonKevin, like most, you mistake the goal. Anyone who's seen In The Name of the Father knows the goal in many cases was to get confessions out of people. The goal here is to get information out of people so that people will not die in terrorist attacks.
And are you saying the British should have the let the IRA keep blowing shit up and killing more people?
The disturbing thing about the British experience with torture against IRA suspects is that it suggests that torture can be incorporated systematically by a democratic country that doesn't give up many of the other aspects of its liberal democratic society. But then one already knew this -- South Africa remained a liberal democracy for whites while torturing systematically under apartheid, Israel tortures captive adversaries while engaged in a constant tug-of-war between security services and Supreme Court efforts (only partially effective) to stop them, etc. Incidentally, did anyone in Britain ever get tried for violating the Convention Against Torture? Curious.
Great post, Megan. You've just reminded me why I keep coming here.
All those who are talking about worse forms of torture committed by the Allies in WW2 should providence evidence for these smears. The Allies were a lot of countries, and I don't think you should gratuitously insult the extremely high standards of honour upheld by the U.S.A, Britain or France commanders. I'm not a citizen or either of these countries, and I assure you this is a widely admired page of 20th Century History, at least in my home country. Their example shows that human beings can successfully resist their most barbaric impulses in conditions far worse than those of today's "War on Terror". U.S. leaders should draw the obvious lesson from the examples of their own countrymen of 60 years ago.
As they should learn form the example of Germany, which in the 20's was considered the pinnacle of western civilization in many fields, and how fast this country descended into the crimes and savagery we all know.
As for the people who are saying something like "why shouldn't we torture if they do it?", the decision not to torture is not meant to be some sort of quid pro quo. It's a moral decision, end of story.
I agree with what some posters said that - there should be a public debate on what constitutes torture. That said, I don't think it can be seriously argued that waterboarding or walling do not constitute torture. And it's incredible how some congressmen are making fun of prolonged sleep deprivation, when this has been described by former prisoners as one of the most subjectively painful experiences endured in captivity.
I have a general comment to make which finds Megan's argument deficient, but appreciates Nimed's perspective on the U.S and would like to make it here. I would add to his perspective by citing an example from a SEAL in VN. Sometimes when they were approaching a point of the Communists that they were attacking they would come across a disemboweled older woman. The Communists would do this anticipating attack because the impulse of the Americans would be to help the women thus creating an alert and a diversion from their attack.
In any event, the Laws of War which include but are not wholly the rules about prisoners need to be considered. According to these Laws, if one combatant side breaks a law, then the other side can break the law in a compensatory fashion as a demonstration that the breaking of the Laws would not be tolerated. This is the argument that 'allowed,' I think unfortunately, the firebombing of Tokyo or the bombing of Dresden. With Al-Quaida's attack Sept 11, you had a major breach, the killing of 3000 civilians in NY, of the Laws of War. The rough treatment, torture within the bounds of training exercises of our own troops, added the American utilitarian objective to the treatment according to the Laws of War to those who had by their continuing presence in Al-Quaida agreed to the earlier violation of the Law of War against attacking civilian targets without military value.
jasper, yes we would. Osama could admit there is a plot
Lurker: and we would know his admission is truthful because....?
Look, you're tying yourself up in knots here. Torture basically means meting out cruel punishment without due process. (yes, I realize you don't want to toture because it's "punishment" but rather because you allege it's "useful." But the point is it is indeed punishment -- of the most horrible, painful sort, to its recipient).
Anyway, it's not moral/ethical to punish someone before that person is found "guilty." And indeed the authors of our constitution had a sufficiently negative opinion of torture to ban its use even against guilty, duly convicted criminals. You apparently feel its use is justified even against people merely suspected of plotting a crime.
Perhaps you can tweak your hypotheticals and get back to me.
Um, Jasper, you're tying yourself up in knots here by deliberately sticking your head in the sand and going "nuh-huh, you can't be 100%!."
By your argument, we could never know that any intelligence we hear is true, therefore any interrogation is unjustified because it necessarily makes him uncomfortable.
Like I said, given that we knew: 1) Osama promised a plot; 2) extremely High level chatter; 3) sold nuclear warheads, the plot chances are 99%. I'll even add one more wrinkle: 4) we've already captured a low level al-queda who has given verified information who assissted with the plot early on but was cut loose and not told the details of where and when and how the strikes would be.
"Torture basically means meting out cruel punishment without due process."----The point I made earlier is that everyone is defining torture differently here. That's not my or many other persons definition either. Mine would be extreme physicial and mental duress designed to extract intelligence information---torture, after all, can be put into due process---just make it legal. Your definition basically covers a cop shining a bright light into someone's eyes while questioning them.
"Anyway, it's not moral/ethical to punish someone before that person is found "guilty."---again, we are differeing on definitions. My goal of torture is not to punish, but to extract information that is
highly probable to reside within the tortured. If these people gave up the info without torture, then no torture should be justified.
"You apparently feel its use is justified even against people merely suspected of plotting a crime."---Straw man, but I can see you're just retreating, like so many on the left do, to vaguely unproven constitutional assertions that have no basis in history. This isn't about garnering a confession (which would be inadmissible), but garnering information to save lives--which is goal. The goal is vital from my point of view. Plus the tortured's goals are vitally important. Plotting to rob a bank isn't worth torture; plotting to blow up the bank at lunchtime, though....
Jasper, you refuse to do the math on this. I say again: if torturing someone has a X% chance of saving Y people, most people have a threshold calculationpoint where they go, "yeah, ok, go ahead, torture." For many, a known terror plot with vital unknowns would justify torture if the number of people killed is high enough (X% multiplied by Y potential kills).
You may be the idealist/religious 1% who never thinks it is justified, but you must realize most don't. And quite frankly, you seem to be deliberately trying to nitpick when the 2 points are larger:
1) What should be torture?
2) What is the threshold for torture's righteousness?
Lurker, in your response to jaspar you said:
"Straw man, but I can see you're just retreating, like so many on the left do, to vaguely unproven constitutional assertions that have no basis in history."
From where I am standing, your only retreat is a series of preposterous scenarios. The world you have created that allows for torture is so minuscule with such tightly defined rules -- "no basis in history"? You're baked.
I realize you think there is some crime-solving element to torture, not that you're planning on prosecuting anyone. But I think there is quite an enormous basis in history for torturing innocent people to obtain false confessions.
Or do you think those ladies in Salem were actually witches?
nmuson, you are officially off the reservation on that one.
"The world you have created that allows for torture is so minuscule with such tightly defined rules"
---I have not created a world "allows for torture is so minuscule." I have created this world, where people argue over how many lives must be saved to allow for torture.
"But I think there is quite an enormous basis in history for torturing innocent people to obtain false confessions."
---which is not happening here. once again, straw man. We're arguing about tortue-as-information-gatherer, not-torture-overcoming-5th-A.
Lurker:
My goal of torture is not to punish, but to extract information that is highly probable.
Right. And I'm saying such a course of action is immoral, because there's no observable self-defense justification involved, because you do not know the prisoner possesses this information, or that any information he possesses will be useful, or that your torture methods will even work. We justify killing in some instances because we deem the person doing the killing (in self-defense) has no alternative. But torturing a prisoner can never be justified because we always have the alternative of simply talking to them. Or trying to gain their confidence. Or simply giving up on him and concentrating on different prisoners. Human lives, in short, are not objects we can use as tools in whichever fashion we like.
By your argument, we could never know that any intelligence we hear is true, therefore any interrogation is unjustified because it necessarily makes him uncomfortable.
Don't be absurd. We can obviously verify intelligence findings "we hear" after we, er, verify them. My point is a pro-torture stance requires a willingness to inflict cruel punishment before you know whether or not the intelligence you hope to glean is valid. You're forced to play judge, jury and executioner (er, change that last one to "torturer" although as I'm sure you'll be aware torture does sometimes result in death) all at the same time. Although in your case it doesn't sound like we'd have to force you.
For many, a known terror plot with vital unknowns would justify torture if the number of people killed is high enough (X% multiplied by Y potential kills).
Well those "many" would be advocating a policy that contravenes US law. We "idealistic liberals" cling to the notion that there are apparently useful, even vital reasons for promoting and defending the rule of law.
Jasper, you refuse to do the math on this. I say again: if torturing someone has a X% chance of saving Y people, most people have a threshold calculationpoint where they go, "yeah, ok, go ahead, torture."
I have no idea what "math" I'm "refusing to do." But in any event I'm not "most people" and I suspect the pro-torture people are not in the majority, so "most" is very likely not the correct adjective. Let's put it this way, if they are "most" they curiously missed an opportunity to vote into power the pro torture party last November.
Jasper, now we're on the moral playing field, not an "it won't work" won. Fine. But many people will look at the morality much differently if adhering to our morality means innocent lives are lost.
"But torturing a prisoner can never be justified because we always have the alternative of simply talking to them."
---quite simply, no, if you judge (as many do in this circumstance) that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Or, more pointedly, the causing the severe but temporary pain of one man who plans on killing thousands is worth it in saving the lives of those thousands.
As I stated you have an absolutist mentality about this: no, no, never. But most people are not. I'm sure many of those who did torture and got no
"But torturing a prisoner can never be justified because we always have the alternative of simply talking to them.'
---my goodness, that is wrong. Some people will not yield to talk. You may think they just need to hear your silver tongue arguments, but that naiviety is belied by the thousands of gangsters in prison who have refused to rat on their associates, and still others who only did so after years in prison wore them down. And no, before you start, they shouldn't be tortured, because they are not planning terrorist plots.
The point of authorizing torture is when talk isn't working and time is short and lives are on the line.
"Human lives, in short, are not objects we can use as tools in whichever fashion we like. "
--Never said that. But a lot of people are going to think you did just that if you don't torture and thousands do die in a 9/11 or worse disaster.
"We "idealistic liberals" cling to the notion that there are apparently useful, even vital reasons for promoting and defending the rule of law."
---You get oxygen up on that high horse? You keep avoiding this question: if torturing a suspect saved 1,000,000 lives, would you justify it? Of course you'll give me some run around like "no 100% accuracy" but spare me that: can you justify 1,000,000 dead innocents by saying you won't torture one man?
"Well those "many" would be advocating a policy that contravenes US law."
---Debatable. I say it doesn't, and the torture memos make this argument as well---that is their point.
One cost of torture you're ignoring is that it also has an X% chance of *killing* Y people, because when we extract false information under torture and believe it, it ties up our resources in a wild goose chase that makes us *less* likely to defuse your movie-plot threat. Not to mention that while chasing the false leads *we* will kill people needlessly.
Your model seems to be one in which we have very few people to question, no other leads, all the people we are questioning are committed to never tell us anything useful unless it's beaten out of them, all the people we are questioning are guilty, all the people we are questioning know information that would be useful to stopping the movie-plot threat, and all additional information extracted by torture is valid. Relax any of those assumptions and the math falls apart.
My model is that we have many people to question but most of them don't know anything useful so most of the info we'll get by torturing them will be false. You have to think of this like you would evaluate a medical treatment: Many medical tests that are over 90% accurate aren't worth doing because the base rate of the condition being tested for is too low for the information the test provides to be useful - false positives dominate the positive results you get, leading to dangerous and expensive unnecessary followup procedures. Similarly, torture that was 90% or even 95% effective probably still wouldn't be useful given that the base rate - the chance of any particular person you've caught having the exact info you need - is so small.
I did not want to say it in context but.. "teh nazis did it too?" There are some real psychos runnin' roun' here?
Jasper, being a dick:
"My point is a pro-torture stance requires a willingness to inflict cruel punishment before you know whether or not the intelligence you hope to glean is valid."
---Um, like I said, there are methods to note high probability of accuracy of tortured information. So you are wrong about that.
"You're forced to play judge, jury and executioner all at the same time."
----No, you are forced to play interrogator, except with a larger playbook of techniques, but also more potential for harm. And, like I said, you presuppose everyone agrees with your definition of torture.
Um, like I said, there are methods to note high probability of accuracy of tortured information. So you are wrong about that.
Um, you haven't produced a cite demonstrating the existence of said "methods" but even if they exist a "high probability" is not the same as 100% certitude. Anything less than that and you're inflicting brutality on a suspect.
No, you are forced to play interrogator, except with a larger playbook of techniques, but also more potential for harm.
On the contrary. Unless you know with 100% metaphysical certitude that your captive is guilty of participating in the suspected plot, you are indeed acting as a judge and jury (and torturer) because you're meting out a brutal punishment on a suspect. (you have heard of "innocent until proven guilty" right?).
Of course you'll give me some run around like "no 100% accuracy" but spare me that: can you justify 1,000,000 dead innocents by saying you won't torture one man?
It's not "some run around" -- it's at the heart of our disagreement. You apparently believe it's permissible to inflict brutality on someone suspected of involvement in a plot, or in possession of information that will save lives. But unless we know this with 100% certitude, that's exactly what we're doing: torturing a suspect.
"Um, you haven't produced a cite demonstrating the existence of said "methods" but even if they exist a "high probability" is not the same as 100% certitude. Anything less than that and you're inflicting brutality on a suspect."
---In the hopes of saving thousands. Hey, its a tradeoff I don't want, but a tradeoff I think we have to make.
your argument about "punishment' is laughable, since basically anything that makes a suspect uncomfortable is punishment. an Interrogator's job is to glean information froma suspect, sometimes by making them squirm; we are arguing about how much and by what methods they can make them squirm, and when.
Yes, and the argument is: what are we going to make illegal torture and what is legal? We already have forms many call legal torture: solitary confinement, threatening family, etc. The question is, where do we draw the line?
And yes, it is some run around. Your argument makes light of the life that would be lost in favor of non-invasive interrogation. So if there's a 99% chance someone knows the info that will save 1,000,000 people, will you take the torture? You say know, even though you kill 990,000 people each time. Most of us would take non-lethal pain on a suspect rather than lose those lives. Sorry, that's reality.
Jasper, being incorrect:
"I have no idea what "math" I'm "refusing to do." But in any event I'm not "most people" and I suspect the pro-torture people are not in the majority, so "most" is very likely not the correct adjective."
----Nope. Like I said, if you put people the question of given a 100% chance that torture (but not death or permanent disability) of one man would prevent 1,000,000 deaths from a bomb explosion, would you agree to authorize torture, I guarantee you more than 75% of Americans would say torture.
"Let's put it this way, if they are "most" they curiously missed an opportunity to vote into power the pro torture party last November."
---wow. just wow. attributing the 2008 election solely to the Guantanemo----which many democrats signed off on, doncha know?---is the most shortsighted view of 2008 I've heard yet.
also, if that were true, no one would talk about 24 beign torture porn.
Well for all of you concocting situations where only torture can save the world, how about a different situation.
Would you also agree to torture after the crime has been committed? Let's take an extreme case: someone nabbed immediately following the act, indicted, tried and convicted. Should he or she now be tortured to reveal the names of his/her confederates?
Gene, this is precisely the situation that actually must be decided: when do we authorize torture?
I think most people would say no here. The torture meme has come out in light of suicidal, non-governmental religious fantatics; previously, its hard for us to imagine Americans seeing a time when torture was necessary.
Plus, this deals crimes, not the legalistic but still valid non-enemy combatants argument. Non-American citizens trying to kill Americans while planning it abroad is a specific category. The category you describe---U.S. citizens already in the U.S.---is covered by the Constitution.
I'm curious, Lurker. Presumably on your view SS torture of captive US airmen during WWII could have prevented many German civilian deaths by revealing operational details of upcoming US air raids on German cities. They might not have known with certainty whether a captured airman, particularly an officer, had such information, but certainly he MIGHT have had it, and it would have been irresponsible not to try and find out. So didn't the SS officers have a moral responsibility to torture captured US airmen?
Well, Matt, you're conflating two separate issues: POWS and non-enemy combatants, which are clearly in flux here. With POWs, the U.S. is bound by its own codes and international treaties; with Al-Queda, not so. And these 2 situations are in contrast with Americans in America committing everyday crimes. I think the confusion arises among us because we see so much Law & ORder and generally have no contact with the UCMJ/etc. that we assume that anything outside fo Miranda is automatically wrong.
Which is why we've got so much confusion right now.
So the Germans in WWII presumably would have bound to their Geneva or pre-Geneva treaties of POW treatment and own military justice ideas; and, whether we like to think it or not, the Nazis had a code of law they did follow (hence throwin Jews in camps was immoral, but not illegal, under Nazi law).
Assuming complying with their treaties was something they did, they could not have done it morally, since morally speaking, the U.S. was constrained by the same treaty not to attack unarmed cities---although we can argue Dresden violated that.
No. Enemy non-combatants, like all other humans on Earth, are covered under the Convention Against Torture, which is US law. (Your Geneva Conventions argument is wrong, but I'll leave it aside since it's not necessary here.) So there is no "conflation" here: it would be just as ILLEGAL for the US to torture anyone as it was for the Nazis to torture POWs. But you are arguing that it is MORAL under some circumstances to torture people. My question is: don't any such arguments hold up just as well for Nazi SS officers trying to protect the civilians in their cities from US bombing raids?
For another angle, let's take it to North Vietnam. The US had not declared war on North Vietnam, and Hanoi argued that therefore captured US airmen were "air pirates", not POWs, and were not protected by the Geneva Conventions. You may disagree, but Hanoi certainly had an arguable legal case, arguable enough that a North Vietnamese interrogator would have been convinced that there was no LEGAL impediment to torturing captured US airmen. In that situation, didn't Communist interrogators have a moral obligation to torture downed US airmen for information that could help protect North Vietnamese civilians from US bombing raids? 1600 civilians in Hanoi died in the Christmas bombings. If a downed B-52 airman had information about how long the US planned to continue the raids, and that allowed North Vietnam to redirect some air defense assets to Hanoi, leading to the shooting down of just one extra B-52, and thus saved the lives of just 50 civilians -- what right would a North Vietnamese interrogator have not to torture a downed US pilots, knowing he might be causing the deaths of 50 civilians, mainly women and children?
Lurker:
Jasper, now we're on the moral playing field, not an "it won't work" won
I've consistently held the position that torture is both immoral and inefficacious as a policy, and if you peruse my comments on this thread you'll find I've made that quite clear.
Or, more pointedly, the causing the severe but temporary pain of one man who plans on killing thousands is worth it in saving the lives of those thousands.
I might agree with you, if we know with metaphysical certitude that the suspect indeed plans what you allege, and that the plan will succeed in killing thousands if not stopped, and that the torture methods will indeed produce intelligence, and that said intelligence will prove accurate and actionable.
As I stated you have an absolutist mentality about this: no, no, never
Yes, I'm an "absolutist" on torture just like I am on rape, or embezzlement, or murder.
Some people will not yield to talk.
True. And "some people" may be innocent. Or may not possess any information useful in saving lives. Oh, wait a minute, I almost, forgot, if we suspect them of something then it's all systems go: bring out the electrodes!
if torturing a suspect saved 1,000,000 lives, would you justify it?
I think I would, yes. So, when we possess a crystal ball that informs us with metaphysical certitude that t he conditions I mentioned previously are in place, let me know. Because otherwise we're committing an act of brutal immorality against a (not yet proven guilty) suspect.
But a lot of people are going to think you did just that if you don't torture and thousands do die in a 9/11 or worse disaster.
Believe it or not I'll manage to sleep at night knowing "a lot of people" get their ideas about anti-terrorism strategies from watching "24," and so are likely to disagree with me.
Debatable. I say it doesn't, and the torture memos make this argument as well---that is their point.
The illegality of torture under US law not remotely debatable -- you don't know what you're talking about:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981
The only thing that's being debated is the desirability/feasibility of prosecutions.
Jasper, you are quite stuck in your little left wing echo chamber, aren't you?
Quoting Amnesty international to support your opinion on U.S. law? Here's a newsflash: they are not the Supreme Court. Quite frankly, you do not know what you are talking about. The legality of the techniques used at Guantanemo and what is torture under U.S law is debatable, which is exactly why the Bush administartion and the OLC were treading carefully---to avoid contravening U.S. law. Simply because you think it should be illegal doesn't mean it was. In fact, the memos are pretty defensible that it wasn't. Which is why Obama would be stupid to prosecute.
"The only thing that's being debated is the desirability/feasibility of prosecutions."
---absolutely false. If the prosecution is unfeasible, that means (gasp) that the prosecutors wouldn't get a conviction. Which would mean it wasn't against the law. QED.
"inefficacious as a policy"
---where I don't see is how you get to this point. As Megan and I have pointed out, torture when done in a certain manner produces the correct intelligence. If you're going down some "well, now we're just creating more terrorists," that's debatable, considering a no-torture policy led to suicide hijackers.
"if we know with metaphysical certitude that the suspect indeed plans what you allege, and that the plan will succeed in killing thousands if not stopped, and that the torture methods will indeed produce intelligence, and that said intelligence will prove accurate and actionable."
---great. now, we're on to something. You agree torture is justified in a circumstance. What about if we only had a 99.9% certitude of saving 1,000,000 lives by torturing one man?
"Yes, I'm an "absolutist" on torture just like I am on rape, or embezzlement, or murder.'---actually, you're not, considering that you agree that self-defense is a justifable excuse for murder. Unless that was another commentator.
"Believe it or not I'll manage to sleep at night knowing "a lot of people" get their ideas about anti-terrorism strategies from watching "24," and so are likely to disagree with me."
----really? the CIA just declassified a memo claiming that torturing a guy initialled KSM saved a plot in Los Angelos.
I'll ask it again, Lurker. Do you think SS officers had a moral duty to torture captured US airmen during WWII in order to gain information that could help them save the lives of thousands of German civilians targeted by US air raids?
answered up there. Assuming the German officers obeyed the Geneva or pre-geneva conventions on war, and assuming those barred torture, and assuming the Americans were not violating them, then yes, the Germans were morally barred from torture.
Lurker:
Quoting Amnesty international to support your opinion on U.S. law? Here's a newsflash: they are not the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court legalizes torture in the US, let us know.
If the prosecution is unfeasible, that means (gasp) that the prosecutors wouldn't get a conviction. Which would mean it wasn't against the law.
No, it simply means there exist several reasons the government may deem prosecuting Bush officials isn't feasible, including politics and lack of evidence. For the record I believe some Bush officials eventually will face charges, but even if they don't, torture most certainly will remain against US law.
torture when done in a certain manner produces the correct intelligence.
Again, absolutely nobody is saying it's impossible to produce a piece of factually accurate intelligence via the use of torture. What I and others are claiming is that its use as a policy is inefficacious. In other words, we're claiming such a policy's benefits are outweighed by its costs. And we're correct.
What about if we only had a 99.9% certitude of saving 1,000,000 lives by torturing one man?
I would vote against torture, because it's unethical to inflict an act of brutal punishment on a suspect.
actually, you're not, considering that you agree that self-defense is a justifable excuse for murder.
Um, no, when we take a life in an unavoidable act of self-defense it's not "murder."
...the CIA just declassified a memo claiming that torturing a guy initialled KSM saved a plot in Los Angelos.
Key word here is "claming."
Jasper, you're just plain wrong.
When the Supreme Court declares what happened at Guantanemo illegal, you let me know.
"No, it simply means there exist several reasons the government may deem prosecuting Bush officials isn't feasible, including politics and lack of evidence."
----lol. No, it means what Bush authorized was legal. Which the memos make a very strong case for, casting clear reasonable doubt on the issue. If I were Obama, I would tell that moron Holder to not emabrass me with some failed trials.
"torture most certainly will remain against US law."
---Yes, but you assume, once again, that your definition of illegal torture is the definition under U.S. law.
"What I and others are claiming is that its use as a policy is inefficacious. In other words, we're claiming such a policy's benefits are outweighed by its costs."
---There are some people alive in Los Angelas today who wouldn't because of this policy. What costs, specifically, are you talking about?
"I would vote against torture, because it's unethical to inflict an act of brutal punishment on a suspect."
---and your an absolutist, we get that. Most people aren't, or at least, they would argue a small evil justifies preventing a larger. People have a numerical breaking point. Or a personal one---what if a family member were to die in a terrorist plot that occurred because someone wasn't allowed to torture? Not wishing it on you, btw, just to point out how emotionally charged this gets.
"Um, no, when we take a life in an unavoidable act of self-defense it's not "murder."
----no, it is murder, just justifable. That's why self-D is considered a justification excuse---you must prove you did it in self-defense after being proven to be a murderer. And in that case, how are 100% sure the person was really going to kill you. Many would argue torture is more justifable because you save more lives.
"Key word here is "claming."
---now everything they say is wrong?
It seems we have the absolutists here.
The absolutists believe torture is never justified in reality, because we can never be absolutely sure the suspect ahs the info we want. So if capture bin Laden, with very high chatter and evidence Al Queda stole nuclear or bio weapons in large amounts, we cannot torture him, even if it means sacrificing millions.
Again, check my reply above. Torture is illegal under the Convention Against Torture, regardless of whether it's on a POW or enemy combatant. So it would be illegal for either US interrogators or SS interrogators. But you propose that, illegal or not, torture is MORAL in order to save civilian lives. Again, wasn't it just as morally obligatory for the SS to torture downed US airmen to try and save the lives of civilians in German cities?
"Enemy non-combatants, like all other humans on Earth, are covered under the Convention Against Torture, which is US law."
---fair enough. The U.S. has ratified it, and has its own law about torture
"So there is no "conflation" here: it would be just as ILLEGAL for the US to torture anyone as it was for the Nazis to torture POWs."
---considering the Nazi argument is pre-this treaty (1984), that doesn't apply. The Nazis were under different rules of war at the time, so there illegality would have been based upon the laws of their time, not the Convention against Torture.
"But you are arguing that it is MORAL under some circumstances to torture people. "
---yes, but we keep arguing about torture without saying what it is. You and Jasper, I assume, think everything at Guantanemo is illegal torture. But Jasper's defnition thsui far is wildly broad and covers everything up to a police interrogation with a bright lamp.
Look, torture is defined so loosely by the CAT that it isn't there anymore: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
---so, again, are these measures "lawful sanctions?" The torture memos were about deciding that.
"My question is: don't any such arguments hold up just as well for Nazi SS officers trying to protect the civilians in their cities from US bombing raids?"
---but matt the hypothetical doesn't fit. Like Jasper and I have been arguing, everyone has a different point where torture is ok'd. What percentage did the Nazis reasonably know a civilian would be killed, and what how sure were they that a US Soldier had that info?
Before Dresden, what were the percentage chances that a reasonable SS officer knew that torturing one guy would save Y civilian lives? Did the Nazis know Dresden was coming? What was there reasonable knowledge that a paratrooper thrown behind enemy lines would know about a high level bombing raid?
That's like arguing torturing the maid for Osama's # 10 guy would yield ultra-important intel on the next Al-Queda attack. How sure are you? How many lives could it save? It's wouldn't be logical to think the maid waas holding out on you, or that torturing her would be best; she probably isn't that smart, terrified out of her wits, and wasn't around to hear any plans.
F"or another angle, let's take it to North Vietnam. The US had not declared war on North Vietnam, and Hanoi argued that therefore captured US airmen were "air pirates", not POWs, and were not protected by the Geneva Conventions. You may disagree, but Hanoi certainly had an arguable legal case,"
----not really. Soldiers carrying out orders under their nation's flag are considered POWs, whether or not there is declared war.
"In that situation, didn't Communist interrogators have a moral obligation to torture downed US airmen for information that could help protect North Vietnamese civilians from US bombing raids? 1600 civilians in Hanoi died in the Christmas bombings. If a downed B-52 airman had information about how long the US planned to continue the raids, and that allowed North Vietnam to redirect some air defense assets to Hanoi, leading to the shooting down of just one extra B-52, and thus saved the lives of just 50 civilians -- what right would a North Vietnamese interrogator have not to torture a downed US pilots, knowing he might be causing the deaths of 50 civilians, mainly women and children?"
--again, let's assume reasonableness here. how likely is it a pilot might know about some future raid? probably higher than the paratrooper in your previous hypothetical, but not much; pilots fly on a need-to-know basis. How likely did hanoi know that citizens would die? It's a bit more complex. If they had a 1% chance of gleaning that info to save 1600 lives, is it worth it? This is what we debate. But Hanoi, in that circumstance, was being purely disingenuous and lying. It was war, they knew it, so this example is colorable either.
---matt, again, the question is degree: what were the reasonable percentage chances torturing one person would save Y lives?
So you think that, provided that there was a reasonable chance that torturing a downed US airman would provide information leading to the saving of many Vietnamese lives, the answer is yes: North Vietnamese interrogators had a moral obligation to torture downed US airmen?
of course, we forget that the North Vietnamese deliberately put civilians and mock-civlians in military places they knew raids were coming, in order to garner sympathy from the international press and demoralize troops by infalming the always-america-hating U.S. left.
And who, incidentally, do you believe has the right to determine the "reasonable percentage chances"? If the North Vietnamese interrogators believed that the information they could obtain by torturing downed US airmen would likely save many Vietnamese lives, did they then have a moral obligation to torture the airmen?
Yes, but I don't think that existed for 3 reasons:
1) the precentages were very low (below 1%) that the pilot knew anything valuable.
2)not vietnamese lives; non-military lives. military targets by military attack are not subject to torture.
3) north vietnamese deliberately sacrificed civilian lives most times for propaganda purposes.
so the justifcation does not fly here.
That is a falsehood, and, interestingly, a falsehood which to my knowledge no one has even told before you. North Vietnam almost completely evacuated Hanoi of non-essential personnel, including women and children, from 1965-66 on. This is universally acknowledged and was cited by USAF bombing advocates as a reason why raids on Hanoi were unlikely to cause many civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein either encouraged or did nothing to discourage the location of military sites in civilian areas; in North Vietnam the opposite was the case. Not all of the US's former enemies were alike.
"And who, incidentally, do you believe has the right to determine the "reasonable percentage chances"? If the North Vietnamese interrogators believed that the information they could obtain by torturing downed US airmen would likely save many Vietnamese lives, did they then have a moral obligation to torture the airmen?"
---you see, this is the moral dilemma we are arguing about (aside from "what is torture"). What is reasonable? What is "likely"? Who decides? Who judges their decision? Like I said, your hypothetical ignores the North's use of civilian deaths on purpose.
The US Airmen weren't in the position you say they were in. No reasonable North Vietnamese chief thought torturing woudl do that. They tortured for the propaganda of having them trotted out like obedient dogs. McCain was tortured for propaganda, not information.
so in other words, you're saying the USAF bombed to avoid civilian deaths, and accidentally caused some they didn't want?
Now you've presented a different dilemma, since alqueda is deliberately causing civilian deaths.
look Matt, this is actually an interesting discussion, can we continue tomorrow? This what I'm getting at, when is torture justified? When can we do it? But your examples do not paralell Al-Queda, for the reasons I've pointed out.
1) the precentages were very low (below 1%) that the pilot knew anything valuable.
Says you, in order to get out of an uncomfortable situation. They shot down B-52 pilots who had been in planning rooms at Udonaburi Air Force Base in Thailand, who would have known how many targets they were seeing on maps and whether raids on Hanoi seemed likely to continue for another 2 days or another 2 weeks. That could have helped air defense planners make decisions about, for example, relocating SAMs from Quang Binh up to Hanoi. They shoot down another 1 or 2 B-52s, they could save anywhere from 10 to 100 civilian lives. Or let's take the German example. B-29 squadron leaders would be quite likely to be aware of information about what German cities had been discussed as possible targets. What if the Germans had been aware that the Allies planned to target the seemingly militarily useless city of Dresden? How many thousands of civilian lives might have been saved? In both situations you have a much greater likelihood of getting useful information than you would from the capture of an alleged terrorist who you suspect is allegedly involved in an alleged plot to allegedly kill people somewhere but which might not even exist. In this case you are certain that these are high-ranking members of an organization which is definitely planning to carry out actions that will definitely kill thousands of your civilians.
You can't construct an argument for the moral legitimacy of torture in any circumstance that would not also apply to the Nazis and Communists who in fact did torture US servicemen in the hopes of saving German and Vietnamese lives. If the information we got by torturing Abu-Zubaydah about supposed plots was at all useful, think how much more useful was the information the SS and North Vietnamese got about actual US warmaking activities. If it's morally legitimate for us, it was morally legitimate for them too.
You say know, even though you kill 990,000 people each time. Most of us would take non-lethal pain on a suspect rather than lose those lives. Sorry, that's reality.
Sorry, it's not reality, it's your Jack Bauer fantasy. Torture is illegal under US law, so to have a remote chance of ever coming to fruition your scenario requires changing the law. Good luck with that.
"Sorry, it's not reality"
---would love to see a poll on that. Like I said, if you asked Americans is torture justified if there is a 99% certainty it will save 1,000,000 lives, 75% would say yes.
"Torture is illegal under US law, so to have a remote chance of ever coming to fruition your scenario requires changing the law."
--except what happened at Guantanemo was not torture. You have no proof but your own hope it was. You are wrong, like I said, that was the whol point of the memos. To. keep.it.legal.
You know, the ticking time bomb scenario fits a very general pattern: It is *always* possible to come up with some extraordinary horrible scenario in which any power of government you like will save the day.
For example, should the incumbent president have the power to have elections canceled when he doesn't like his chances of re-election? Now, some democracy extremist liberals say no, but imagine the situation where he knows that his opponent is a madman who will surely plunge the world into nuclear war. By denying the president the power to cancel elections, we would end up with that madman in power, and the nukes would fly within days.
Or, should the president have the power to shut down irritating publications or broadcast stations? Some free-speech extremists say no, but what if those publications and stations are spreading destabilizing hate-filled ideas, and may soon lead to rioting and chaos?
Now, both of these scenarios actually could happen, just as some version of the ticking time bomb scenario could happen. But the overwhelming majority of ways that those powers could be used aren't for these scenarios. Give the president the power to cancel elections to save the country, and within the next 20 years, we'll have someone declare himself president for life. Give the president the power to shut down newspapers and radio stations that offend him, and he's far more likely to use it to help his party win elections than he is to save the country from widespread rioting and chaos.
And similarly, as we've seen in the torture cases that have been shown, the people who were tortured were often being tortured months or years after they'd been captured, when any "ticking time bomb" kind of knowledge they'd ever had was long since gone. Many of the people who have apparently been tortured look for all the world like very low men on the totem pole, who probably never had any high-value information. Many look to have been just random guys picked up by accident, tortured until their captors realized they had people who knew nothing, and then let go. That paints a very different picture from the one that comes from the ticking time-bomb scenario.
I agree, albatross, & think one of your points should be emphasized even more -- we already have some number of documented cases of how our government interrogates people, not just the cases relating to this memo specifically, but across the broad range of Bush torture policies. This stopped being a theoretical argument about ticking time bomb fantasies a long time ago.
In Bagram, the US military continued to apply "enhanced interrogation techniques" to a detainee named Dilawar even after they were convinced he knew nothing. He died from his injuries. What intelligence justification was there to that?
In Syria, we continued to press the Syrians to "interrogate" (& who genuinely believes the US government didn't know that meant "torture?") Maher Arar long after the Canadian government acknowledged their "intelligence" on him was mistaken & after the Syrians insisted Arar knew nothing. What intelligence justification was there to that?
The Bush administration has made specific claims about the effectiveness of its torture policies, and many of those claims have been shown to be false (e.g., claiming KSM's 2003 capture thwarted an LA Tower plot that was thwarted in 2002). Even the administration, however, has not made a concrete claim about a ticking time bomb scenario working for them. Instead, they have argued that they got information about al Qaeda's structure. That probably is valuable information, but it's not the stuff of ticking time bombs, & it's precisely what professional interrogators argue could have been extracted by other means. Given the Bush administration's problems with hype & deceit, who believes that they would have kept silent about a ticking time bomb success if there had been anything remotely like that they could claim?
What we know, both from our documented behavior & from world history, is that most torture regimes start out using a national security justification for their behavior. Then they use an internal security justification, & before you know it, there's no pretense of a justification. Governments torture because they can get away with it. The question before America is to what extent are we going to let our government get away with it?
The Bush administration did acknowledge one moral boundary that trumped its concern for national security. It found homosexuality immoral & it discharged gay men & women from the military, even when they had valuable & difficult-to-replace language skills & cultural knowledge that might have given us better intelligence.
When you are considering criminality, the avowed intentions of perpetrators is not a primary consideration -- actions are. Regardless of what the Bush administration says was its justification, it left behind a pattern of behaviors & actions. & that pattern doesn't invariably suggest that gathering lifesaving intelligence was exclusively what was happening.
except what happened at Guantanemo was not torture.
Huh? What are you talking about? Do you now claim that waterboarding is not a method of torture?
Like I said, if you asked Americans is torture justified if there is a 99% certainty it will save 1,000,000 lives, 75% would say yes.
Maybe. Maybe not. Relevance?
"Relevance?"
---to show Americans are not in your idealogical wheelhouse. They do not categorically say "no torture." its an equation. If I dropped the number and I told Americans there was a 75% chance of saving 1,000,000 people via torturing one man, I still say 75% are for it.
and yes, I agree with the torture memo argument that it was not severe pain and suffering, but an acute episode, under the law.
When the Supreme Court declares what happened at Guantanemo illegal, you let me know.
The torture method called "waterboarding" is clearly a violation of US law; there's no need for a SC ruling to clarify this.
If I were Obama, I would tell that moron Holder to not emabrass me with some failed trials.
Well, "that moron" the president of the United States has already stated he's open to prosecuting Bush officials for breaking US law against torture, so we'll see.
Yes, but you assume, once again, that your definition of illegal torture is the definition under U.S. law.
This has nothing to do with my definition but rather the relevant language in US and international law.
There are some people alive in Los Angelas today who wouldn't because of this policy.
No. There aren't. This flim-flam story has been thoroughly debunked.
What costs, specifically, are you talking about?
Lowered morale. Loss of prestige. High probability of being given false intelligence. Lack of cooperation from foreign governments on security issues. Intensification of anti-US sentiments. Increased popularity of our terrorist enemies. Increased likelihood of mistreatment of captured Americans.
That's why self-D is considered a justification excuse---you must prove you did it in self-defense after being proven to be a murderer.
Er, no. If you're "proven" (do you mean "convicted"?) of murder, it's too late to talk about self defense -- you're now in prison. If the government does not charge you for a death from the getgo because it's obvious you acted in self-defense, then it's justifiable homicide -- you had no choice. But you always have a choice of eschewing torture of a suspect. And after convicting a suspect, torture wouldn't serve any conceivable purpose (in addition to violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment). So, there are occasions (unavoidable self-defense) when taking a life can be justified, and when it is not "murder." Torture offers no such occasional justification.
now everything they say is wrong
Tim Noah demolished the absurd story about the LA tower in Slate the other day; Thiessen's claims are risible:
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/
Sigh: "The torture method called "waterboarding" is clearly a violation of US law; there's no need for a SC ruling to clarify this."
--wrong. this is exactly why the torture memos were written. Because the issue was in doubt.
"Well, "that moron" the president of the United States has already stated he's open to prosecuting Bush officials for breaking US law against torture, so we'll see."
---he's afraid of pissing off the left, who are so blind with BDS, they think waterboarding is "clearly" torture. Obama punted to holder to avoid a USA/Gonzalez fiasco let it quietly die.
"Er, no. If you're "proven" (do you mean "convicted"?) of murder, it's too late to talk about self defense -- you're now in prison. If the government does not charge you for a death from the getgo because it's obvious you acted in self-defense, then it's justifiable homicide -- you had no choice."
---lmao rofl. you clearly know *nothing* about how the law works. here, little boy, is how it goes: You first must be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) by the government in its prosecution that you killed. Often, in a self-defense case, this is not hard, since a person claiming self defense will often stipulate to murdering the victim.
After the government rests (but the trial goes on), the defense mounts the defense of self-defense--hence the name---where it must prove (depending on the jurisdiction, usually preponderance of the evidence) that you acted in self-defense. The government tries to undercut your case and show it was not self-defense on your part, but at that point, it has proven you a murderer, now you are trying to prove your murder was justifable. This is how "self-defense" works in law, little boy.
"But you always have a choice of eschewing torture of a suspect. And after convicting a suspect, torture wouldn't serve any conceivable purpose (in addition to violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment)."
---except to gain information on terrorist plots. But hey, 1,000,000 dead people aren't worth it to you.
"So, there are occasions (unavoidable self-defense) when taking a life can be justified, and when it is not "murder."
---plainly wrong. Self-defense means "I did the murderer, but I had to for extenuating circumstances." Crim law 101.
"Torture offers no such occasional justification."
---except to gain valuable information to save lives.
"Tim Noah demolished the absurd story about the LA tower in Slate the other day;"
--slate magazine thinks wikipedia is a reliable source. sorry, the LA story is valid, little boy.
good night, wittle liberal. sleep safe, under that bomb free sky brought to you by the cia.
I live in Hanoi. So if you believe that intelligence services are the ones that ensure that we live under "bomb free skies", it's not the US's CIA that's ensuring my safety, but the Communist Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security and People's Army. Are you saying I should be thankful to the interrogators of the Communist People's Army of Vietnam who tortured John McCain and Col. Ted Guy, thus ensuring that I can now enjoy "bomb free skies"?
Are you under the misapprehension that schoolyard taunts give your arguments more weight? Or convince anyone worth convincing of anything?
Lurker,
I think you may be misusing "murder." It's hard to say b/c different states can define it differently, but I'm pretty sure under common law, murder requires *unlawful* killing, something like "unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought." So there has to be *unlawful* and *malice* before it's "murder." Homicide I think is only a statutory, not common law, term. So you can have a justified homicide that is not a crime. Unless you are in a state that has redifined murder through statute, I don't think "justified murder" is a proper legal term.
Doesn't help Jasper's argument. If there can be a statutory or common law exception to killing another person, there can be a statutory or common law exception to torture, let alone "enhanced interrogation techniquest."
I still think the best argument against torture is that whether it would pass a cost/benefit or "lesser evil" test or whatever, nothing in the history of our gov't (or any other gov't) gives me confidence that they would use it in the "correct" circumstances. There's absolutely a point that most Americans (virtually all if they're honest) would sign off on torture. The issue is that a lot (hopefully most) don't trust any gov't agency to be good at determining when it's justified.
Doesn't help Jasper's argument. If there can be a statutory or common law exception to killing another person, there can be a statutory or common law exception to torture
Huh? I'm certainly not arguing the government cannot enact a law legalizing torture, so I have no idea what bearing you think this has on my arguments against torture. What I would argue is that were the government to take such an action, the government would be legalizing something that in all cases is immoral. This is in contrast to homicide, which in some cases is not immoral.
Johnson, you're right, it depends on the state. However, it is right to say self-defense is murder---just excused murder.
Malice aforethought is really written out of the law, because the standard really is "if, for one second before you pulled the trigger, you thought to kill him, that is enough malice aforethough."
And,s trictly speaking, my definition is correct: you need to be proven of murder before you can raise self-defense, although they happen in the midst of the same trial. The key is without your defense, you're a murderer; it is only your defense that changes it from murder to justifable homicide (and yes, I have heard of places it is called "justifiable murder").
But that's really just a bunch of legal fictions. We wouldn't call someone acting in self-defense a murderer, because the common definition of murder (everyday, non-legal) is not self-defense. But the law does.
This is why this debate is so confusing for most: we're argung about what we *feel* is torture versus what the law says it is.
Jasper once again fails to grasp that his moral equivocationson torture versus self-defense are not shared by many people.
this is exactly why the torture memos were written. Because the issue was in doubt.
Oh I get it. If I can get a government lawyer to write a memo entitling me to the contents of your bank account, it's not theft. Is that it?
you clearly know *nothing* about how the law works. here, little boy, is how it goes: You first must be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) by the government in its prosecution that you killed.
Um, F. Lee, I thought we were discussing cases when the government does not prosecute, because the situation clearly demonstrates the killer acted in self-defense. At least that's what I was discussing.
except to gain information on terrorist plots. But hey, 1,000,000 dead people aren't worth it to you.
"Gaining information" does not justify immoral acts, nor does the mere "possibility" of saving lives (as opposed to a metaphysical certitude, which we can never possess).
plainly wrong. Self-defense means "I did the murderer, but I had to for extenuating circumstances.
Huh? Where are you studying the law, at an online university? Murder in our legal system is unlawful killing, with intent. We weren't discussing murder. Or (again) at least I wasn't.
except to gain valuable information to save lives.
Again, no. Killing in self-defense is justified when there's no alternative. There do exist alternatives to torture. Of course, even this line of reasoning presupposes torture is an effective policy to save lives. Which would be an incorrect supposition.
slate magazine thinks wikipedia is a reliable source. sorry, the LA story is valid, little boy.
Huh? Do you actually have a substantive criticism of Noah's demolition of the absurd LA Tower story? No? Didn't think so.
""Gaining information" does not justify immoral acts, nor does the mere "possibility" of saving lives (as opposed to a metaphysical certitude, which we can never possess)."
----once again, you're an absolutist, but most people are not. I think a reasonable estimate of a 50% of gaining useful information froma terrorist to stop a plot to kill 1,000,000 civilians justifies torture. Many people would agree. I'm glad you have such a strong morality; I just hope it isn't tested on this playing field one day.
"Killing in self-defense is justified when there's no alternative."
---Sigh. There is alternative to every situation---just that many of them are futile. You could sit there and be killed. You could attempt to talk the killer down. You could try to hide. Of course, the point of a self-defense argument is that a reasonable person believes the only way to save a life is to kill the attacker---that other options are futile. Here is the same situation: someone reasonably believes that the only way to save 1,000,000 lives is to put the terrorist in extreme pain temporarily---because your magical made up options are futile.
"There do exist alternatives to torture."
---and most are futile in the situations we've presented. The ticking time bomb scenarios are plausible, as is your talking to them/finding some magical other information that only exists in your mind futile options.
"Of course, even this line of reasoning presupposes torture is an effective policy to save lives. Which would be an incorrect supposition."
---just because you keep stating it and ignoring all arguments to the contrary does mean its true.
"Oh I get it. If I can get a government lawyer to write a memo entitling me to the contents of your bank account, it's not theft. Is that it?"
---Glib arguments get you no where. Does the government have a legal argument? Is it based on precedent/code definitions/case law/legal analysis? No, not every memo is valid, but a logical argument as strongly made as the memos make is certainly very strong evidence against there being any wrongdoing here.
"I thought we were discussing cases when the government does not prosecute, because the situation clearly demonstrates the killer acted in self-defense.'
---Sigh. I'll let you weasel out of that one, but really, just admit when you're wrong about something, ok?
"Huh? Where are you studying the law, at an online university? Murder in our legal system is unlawful killing, with intent. We weren't discussing murder. Or (again) at least I wasn't."
---self-defense is technically murder, just justified/excused. The key is this: without your defense of self-defense, you would be convicted of murder; the state has already proven unlawful killing with malice aforethought. You're just stating that you are covered under an exemption to the law.
"Huh? Do you actually have a substantive criticism of Noah's demolition of the absurd LA Tower story? No? Didn't think so."
---Noah's article basically tries to show that when KSM was arrested, the plot was over. However, that isn't what it says; it sttates that when KSM was arrested, the plot was thought to be abandoned at that point by the conspirators.
Manzi answered his own argument at the start of the third paragraph and, realising he was in trouble, reversed the burden of proof and ran away.
The only argument against torture is the one your parents used so much: "just because". Any other argument about wrongness leads to further problems contrasting the various horrid things we do to each other. Personally, I'd rather be waterboarded than shot or have my leg blown off by a mine. And I'd happily torture a person who kidnapped one of my kids if I thought I might get him or her back that way.
In a nutshell, torture is ok because pedro, in a waterboarding vs. leg blown off scenario, prefers option number 1.
I'm sure he's not this stupid. He's just trying to make the ticking timebomb scenario look realistic by contrast or something.
Here's another deep and insightful thought - human beings already do awful things to each other anyway! Certainly some of those things are worse than some tortures. Therefore there's no point in discussing any of this.
Good grief...
Out of curiousity, if waterboarding isn't torture, was it also not torture when done by the Spanish Inquisition? How about when it was done by the Khmer Rouge? Or the Japanese military (leading to executions for war crimes, as it turns out)? Or the North Vietnamese?
Was it the writing of those memos by political appointees that made it not torture?
Exactly, albatross.
What makes the defenders of torture in this thread so irritating is their inability to recognize that, if they had heard of the release of these memos in another country, or if it was known that captured American troops were subject to these practices, there would be no "let's debate this" attitude. Just swift, loud, hypocritical condemnation.
Out of curiosity, if waterboarding is torture, what isn't? Are stress positions torture? Cold rooms (and if so, how cold)? Bad food? Bare breasts? Where, exactly, do you draw the line and what makes your line better than anyone else's?
Maybe you can clarify your argument.
Are you arguing that, since there is no absolutely clear line between harsh treatment and torture, that we should simply give up on defining (and thus, prosecuting) torture? Because this line of argument would work exactly as well, if we were talking about boiling people in oil.
Or are you arguing that I'm simply putting the line in the wrong place, and Spanish water torture is merely harsh treatment? I'm sure you can come up with a definition that would make that true, and that's more-or-less what the guys who drafted those memos tried to do. But that sort of game-playing with the definition doesn't track at all with what most every normal human being would consider torture, and as I understand it, very likely doesn't track with either US or international law. It also doesn't track with what any of us would think, were it an American being subjected to the same treatment, as was done to US soldiers by the North Vietnamese, the North Koreans, and the Japanese.
Albatross, what we're saying is that illegal torture is defined in law, which the memos argued about. You're outraged because you think waterboarding should be considered part of the definition, but the memos make very good arguments that it isn't.
You may want the definition in there, but you can't put it in ex post facto. Your best bet is to have it inserted now to prevent it in the future, because if the winds shift and another president comes in (or Obama changes his mind after an attack) then you can't stop it.
I wasn't really making an argument. I really was curious where you'd draw the line. But I think your statement about "game-playing" with the definition is pretty silly. From a legal perspective, somewhere in there you've got to draw the line. The biggest problem I can see in this whole discussion is nobody can adequately define torture. We all know pulling out someone's fingernails falls into the "is torture" column, and bad food doesn't. Somewhere in between there things go from "I'm making you uncomfortable" to "I'm torturing you". But we're not drawing the line in the same place.
The legal definitions I've seen include lots of words like "extreme" and "moderate", which are useful in everyday speech and entirely worthless in the text of a law unless they are also defined. You may as well replace the entire thing with "it's torture if the judge says it is".
Personally I define torture from the intent. If I left you in a cold room because the heater is broken and it's the only place I have to put you, it may qualify as mistreatment but it's not torture. If I left you in a cold room because I think it'll make you so uncomfortable you'll tell me what I want to know, in my mind that is torture. But I haven't seen a legal definition crafted that way.
Personally I define torture from the intent. If I left you in a cold room because the heater is broken and it's the only place I have to put you, it may qualify as mistreatment but it's not torture. If I left you in a cold room because I think it'll make you so uncomfortable you'll tell me what I want to know, in my mind that is torture. But I haven't seen a legal definition crafted that way.
tsotha, that happens to be EXACTLY the way the legal definition IS crafted in the Convention Against Torture. Torture is the infliction of pain or suffering in order to coerce the subject into doing something or in order to elicit information. It is precisely the intent that makes it torture. Hitting someone on the head by accident isn't torture; hitting someone on the head because they insulted your mother is assault; hitting someone on the head to coerce them to tell you where they buried the jewels is torture. So you're exactly right here.
One issue I don't see addressed is just what IS the purpose of torture? The ostensible reason -- provided by its apologists -- is the gathering of life-saving information. But what in its application should make us accept that is its actual goal?
If the purpose of torture was intelligence gathering, we would expect that if the government discovered it had started torturing someone due to a mistake, the government would immediately stop. We don't know what happened in all such cases, but consider what happened to Maher Arar -- the Canadian government told the US they had made a mistake in suggesting he might know something long before the US directed that Arar be released. The Syrians (not exactly bleeding hearts) also told the US they did not believe Arar really had information much earlier than we consented to his release.
If the purpose of torture was intelligence gathering, we would expect that only skilled interrogators would be used to extract information. Instead, we see that the CIA, which had no experience in interrogation, was the preferred agency for applying torture because the FBI (which did have extensive experience) wouldn't use torture. This implies torture was an end itself, not a means to an end.
The most likely purpose of torture (as used by our government as well as most others) is to project power -- it's a way of saying "America will do whatever it wants -- don't think any considerations of conscience or law will hold us back." For all his love of secrecy, Cheney made a point of bragging to the world in 2001 that we would go the "dark side." We tortured people for the same reason we went to war pre-emptively, without being attacked. It's a way of saying "Suck on this."
As a result, Manzi's argument is quite interesting -- no one felt the USSR operated under any humanitarian constraints. No one felt Saddam Hussein would hold back. In the short run, terrorizing large populations is helpful to retaining power. In the long run, not so much.
As we look at the damage the Bush Administration has done to our military & economy, we have to ask ourselves whether we can really continue to pull this off.
Instead, we see that the CIA, which had no experience in interrogation, was the preferred agency for applying torture because the FBI (which did have extensive experience) wouldn't use torture. This implies torture was an end itself, not a means to an end.
No, actually it doesn't imply anything of the sort. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Neither the FBI or CIA had experience with things like stress positions and waterboarding. I keep seeing this argument - "the people who know how to do interrogations say talking works better". Really? How could they possibly know? Normally when someone says "I'm an expert and I say A works better than B" but has only ever tried A it makes me think he's an idiot.
If we really did get better information from CIA subject KSM than from FBI subject Zubaydah, what does that imply? I would really like to see the rest of those documents.
We most certainly have *not* beaten all of the regimes that torture. Both Vietnam and Korea are witness to that.
This, alone, completely undermines Jim's argument.
The only reason that we don't torture enemy combatants is the hope that they will refrain from torturing our own people. This is the heart of the Geneva Convention. It is for selfish, not humanitarian, reasons.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda (and Hamas, etc.) obviously have not signed any of these "rules of war," and have shown themselves all too willing to commit atrocities. In fact, atrocity is their prefered method of "combat." Bus bombings, hijackings, IED's, etc. The "atrocity begets atrocity" argument simply doesn't apply here, since atrocity is all these people do.
There is no practical reason to not subject prisoners from this "army" to whatever is required to garner information, if that information demonstrably prevents further attacks. To not do so, in fact, is akin to being an accomplice to the attacks. "You had the ability to keep this from happening, and yet you did not?" Who's first to tell the next group of people who have to jump from the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper that "at least we didn't put water up some terrorists nose. Now don't you feel morally superior?"
Work For Whom?
The Cheney Defense is "It works for me".
You know, most people who make these kinds of assertions will try to back them up with some quotes or maybe a link or two to a reputable news source. When did Cheney ever say "I support torture because it works for me"? In fact, when did he ever say "I support torture"? In fact, didn't Cheney actually say "we don't torture"?
I don't know why everyone is arguing over whether or not "torture" works in a hypothetical sense. We know it worked in these cases. The three high value prisoners who were tortured gave information that was critical to stopping attacks on the US (and maybe others). So it DID work.
I put torture in quotes because what they did was waterboard and from what I've read, the waterboarding that we do is different from the "water torture." In fact, there are different types of and levels of "waterboarding" so even that term is not very precise.
As far as the prosecuting the lawyers who wrote the memos, what crime are they guilty of? I know that the Left like to say that they were deliberately defining torture down so that it could be used to interrogate prisoners but do they have any evidence for this other than that they disagree with the conclusions? Are there secret emails or memos where the authors discussed how to justify illegal actions through fraudulent legal analysis?
As far as I know, it's not a crime to have a wrong or unpopular legal opinion. Nor is it a crime to write a legal analysis that is ultimately found to be wrong by the courts. Nor should it be.
So what would we charge the lawyers with, exactly?
I still think it's absurd to divide countries into "torture" and "non-torture" regimes. Why not divide countries into left-side-driving and right-side-driving and determine which ones usually win wars? Or how about voluntary military versus conscripted military? Haven't conscripted militaries won most big wars? Should we therefore start up the draft again? Or maybe comparing regimes on such specific measures and then using wars won as some kind of metric is silly.
The three high value prisoners who were tortured gave information that was critical to stopping attacks on the US (and maybe others).
Cite for that, EI?
Here's a cite that the director of the FBI does not believe what you claim "we know."
Given that the CIA was in charge of the interrogations, what does the director of the FBI know?
Here's an easy way to get to the bottom of it - let's get the unedited version of the memo...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html
Megan, the reason people who want a blanket ban on torture won't give up the "torture doesn't work" argument is that's the only way they can answer the "ticking bomb" scenario.
Let me pose a scenario: A terrorist has managed to smuggle an old Soviet 40 megaton ICBM warhead into Manhattan with a timer set to go off in two days. Now, granted, this is probably the only way we'll ever be rid of the Mets, but assuming you have this guy in custody, and you know he planted the warhead, what possible moral or legal argument besides "torture doesn't work" could you make for not breaking out the thumbscrews? Is there any rational calculation that balances not torturing someone against the incineration of ten million people?
The ticking time bomb scenario is just an absurdly fantastical situation to justify torture. It has never nor will ever happen. But if something like that were to happen, we could take Jack Bauer and have him lead Jonah, Bob, Mack and Charles (from the Unit) and problem solved. See, I used fantastical characters to defeat your fantastical situation. No need to torture. I win.
I see. It will never happen because...? Let me take a stab at that. It will never happen because it's too horrific for you to contemplate. It must be really nice to live a life in which bad things happen because you really, really don't want them to!
Sigh. That should be "...bad things don't happen..."
How do we know there is a 40-k bomb in our country without knowing where it is? How can we have such accurate foreknowledge without knowing the details?
And how do we know that any of the people that we have know anything about that particular bomb including where it is? Did we just happen to catch the right person we need with all of the information? What luck.
And how do we know he's not just making it up because he wants stuff to stop? And how do we know which lead is real? KSM admitted openly that he just made stuff up.
And if he did know and wanted to blow shit up, why not just wait it out?
The funny part is that if he knows any details about the plans for the bomb, he will know that all he has to do is wait things out, give up fake shit and he knows that the bomb will go off. Unless the situation isn't that immediate. Well... if that's the case, then we don't need to torture do we?
That's why it's fantastical.
Oh, I agree the scenario is contrived. But I also think there are a lot of more real-life scenarios where the call is kind of iffy. How about someone kidnaps an innocent child and buries her in a box with an eye to extorting money from her family. You catch the kidnapper, he won't say where she is, and she's running out of air?
This is a crime I've seen in the paper more than once (except the perp cooperated, fortunately). Of course it's a lot easier to say "it's only one life, we shouldn't trade our principles for one life". Particularly if it's not your daughter. But there's a really big range between one and ten million with some pretty believable scenarios.
In the Torture Enthusiast's Handbook, presumably in that long chapter on ticking time bomb scenarios, does the text ever mull over the possibility that a true-believer terrorist - someone whose twisted reasoning delights in the death of innocents as well as his own - that this committed terrorist will simply lie for a couple of days to achieve his goals? I mean c'mon Torture Boys, someone this imbued with the hate and blood lust, willing to die himself, is going to figure out that a few false answers will eat up the clock.
Or are you just cooking up these time bomb scenarios to justify what you want to do anyway?
PS - By the way, tsotha, the FBI handled the initial interrogations of Zubaydah. You could read about that in the Atlantic's very own blog portal - check under 'Voices / Sullivan'. Alternatively, you could go follow the link there to an op-ed in today's NYT by one of the FBI interrogators. Still question whether the FBI Director had any reason to know anything?
I do not believe your average terrorist, even a true believer, could hold out for two days.
As to the FBI director, I'm far more concerned about Rosie O'Donnell lookalike KSM's interrogation, which is the primary focus of this discussion, since he was the one we got the best information from. Perhaps not coincidentally his interrogation was handled by the CIA.
How do you know what we got from him?
Bush et al. said "we don't torture." It's come out now that they do. But now you want to believe their other press releases?
It's amazing the amount of faith people have in men who have been shown to lie continuously and blatantly about just the things we are talking about. What would it take for you to accept that these guys were just covering their asses with post hoc justifications?
Yes, Bush said "we don't torture". Because he doesn't agree waterboarding is torture. Personally, I think it is, but it's not hard to find people who don't.
What would it take? That's easy. Obama was happy to release, unredacted, all the documents regarding what was done to extract information, but the documents relating to the effectiveness of the interrogations were either heavily redacted or unreleased. Let's have all the relevant documents, unredacted. I mean, don't you get the sense Obama is only releasing the parts that support his argument?
There should be a blanket ban. If the above situation, which I will admit is more realistic, occurs then all the kidnapper has to do is wait. You can beat him if you want. But the reality is that he knows that person will die regardless. It falls roughly into the same category as the guy I described who just wants to blow stuff up.
If a person feels that torture is the only way to get info, please have at it, knowing full well that in the end you will have to account for it. Beat him, waterboard him. Have at it. But he will have to know that at a minimum he is guilty of a crime.
That's sort of the position the CIA officers are in right now, isn't it? They have no idea whether or not the rules might change in the future to make what they're doing now illegal. My guess is they'll just stop interrogating people altogether. Of course there will be a price to pay for that, but it's not clear the right people will get blamed in the end.
If one needs to invent an apocalyptic scenario in order to justify an action, it seems to me that the action in question is very likely to be morally reprehensible and should be prohibited. Just for kicks, think of the most immoral, barbaric act possible and then try to come up with a storyline that would justify it. If successful, then you must believe that there should be a legal exemption - according to the above line of reasoning.
Also, if this is the only valid scenario where this action should be allowed, why on earth would you want to insert this exemption into our legal code? My observation (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any power given to government will eventually be abused, and that government usually seeks to expand upon the power that is given to it.
Who said anything about inserting exemptions into the legal code? This is what I want: I want people who support a blanket ban on torture to admit there's a downside to said ban and not try to weasel out of it by asserting something that's manifestly untrue. I think we both know what's coded in law will be entirely irrelevant should that apocalyptic scenario ever actually unfold.
Why do I need to admit to anything? If we both agree that there should be no legal exemptions to the ban on torture, then I don't see the point of the discussion. Torture is illegal, and there should be penalties for those that engage in it.
Well, you don't have to admit to anything. I will maintain you're being a weasel if you try to say there's no price to a blanket torture ban because "torture doesn't work", but I'll understand if you don't consider that a huge penalty.
Good. Then we agree - Torture is illegal, we don't have to invent scenarios to justify it, and I'll concede the weasel point to you. Glad we could settle this.
9/11 didn't have to be invented, it actually happened.
Yes, I seem to recall seeing it firsthand. But it does not fit into the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, does it? The problem was not that we had intelligence that a lack of sanctioned torture techniques prevented us from acting upon. The problem was that we either had no intelligence, or intelligence that we chose to ignore. How would torture have solved those issues?
Of course torture works. Humans are just programmed that way. Most people will eventually reach a state where they are "broken" and from that point they are cooperative.
Said differently, we might have done even better in WWII and the Cold War had we also engaged in systematic torture as a matter of policy.
Huh? Why does he think we didn't?
Heck, torture is still fairly common in civilian police forces.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe torture is "fairly common" in civilian police forces. The cops I know personally are terrified of stepping over the line and giving the judge a reason to throw out all his evidence.
Sleep deprivation and other psychological torture is quite common. For physical coercion, the general rule is "Never hit a guy unless you know he's guilty."
Of course, all that is before trial. Once in prison, abuse is even more common.
"Never hit a guy unless you know he's guilty"? That makes no sense. If you hit a guy who's guilty you've given him a "get out of jail free" card if anyone ever finds out.
If they're guilty they generally don't complain about a little roughing up. The system has enormous leverage against them once they confess.
TallDave, this is exactly the problem with the current debate. We're all arguing over our personal beliefs on what torture is. You say "psychological torture:" is common; I don't think threatening a guy or his family if you're really not going to do anything to be torture. And interrogating a guy for a long period overnight is not torture in my book.
Everyone is arguing abotu the wrong thing. the key is what the law defined torture as at the time of the waterboarding. The memos make a good case it wasn't torture then. You may want it to be torture, but that means amending the law and adding the definition you want so there is no debate.
The only defensible purpose of torture is if it gets information that saves lives--enough lives to justify the wrong of torturing a person. (And whether it's a "necessary" wrong, it's still a wrong--there is something inherently sadistic about torturing a person who is at your mercy, even if that person is evil to the core. At heart, you have them in your power and you're choosing to inflict severe pain) So in determining whether to allow torture in any circumstance, we have to establish the following:
1) Who gets tortured? Anyone with information that will save lives, or only horrible people who have information that will save lives? (Can we torture a terrorists young child who may have such information?)
2) How certain do we have to be that the torture candidate has the information we need, or that this person is deserving of torture? (Can we torture only those who have blood on their hands, or could even some low level Taliban foot soldier--or chauffeur, or camp cook--be tortured?)
3) Based on our answers above, how sure do we have to be that the torture will save lives before we authorize it? Do we err on the side of torturing, if there's only a fair chance of saving lives? How many lives must be saved to justify the risk of torturing an innocent person or a person who has no useful info?
4) Based on our answers above, what degree of torture is acceptable for such information gathering? Sleep deprivation is a magnitude of difference from thumbscrews, but are we looking for effectiveness or lack of permanent damage?
When allowing torture, all of the above have to be fleshed out, and of course government's usual tendency for mistakes has to be taken into account. When phrased as "if you can pull off a dude's fingernails and save thousands of people from an attack then yes go ahead and do it" that sets it up as an easy decision--but such things are almost never knowable.
I don't pretend to have an easy answer to this--obviously some scenarios can be created where torture can be the morally correct call. But the fact that Congress weaseled out of debating this at the earlier part of the decade when this should have been fully discussed, and this was basically handed over to the Bush Administration which seems to have given a green light to the whole thing, is depressing and should dash the hopes of any idealist who believes our legislative branch is made up of anything less than worthless sheep.
...is depressing and should dash the hopes of any idealist who believes our legislative branch is made up of anything less than worthless sheep.
Boy you really are an idealist!
tsotha and TallDave:
You both are asserting that torture works. Now, I'm going to oppose it either way, but I'm curious what you base your assertions on.
My understanding of the argument here is that once someone is being tortured, they're very likely to say whatever they think will stop the pain. They are probably not thinking ahead to a week from now, when you come back to torture them again to punish them for telling you a lie, especially after you've been doing horrible things to them for weeks or months. So the problem here isn't that you will never get good information, but that you won't reliably get good information. In particular, when you pick up either someone innocent or someone who is a low-level guy with little useful knowledge, they're likely to tell you all kinds of irrelevant stuff, or even make stuff up, to get the pain to stop.
My understanding is that this happened with KSM, and probably with some other detainees--after awhile, they were making up plots, because that's what they thought the CIA guys wanted to hear, and so what was likely to get the pain to stop. This led to all kinds of oddball false alarms, and presumably to really destructive stuff--I have no doubt that after enough torture demanding the names of your associates in Al Qaida, you start just naming everyone you know who you don't love.
That means it's not enough to show a small number of cases where torture got good information. The question is whether it will get better information overall than some other techniques.
Somewhere in there, you also care about other costs. For example, I gather that some countries will never be willing to transfer a prisoner to us if we are known to torture. Our harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo was a sore spot in relations between us and a lot of countries who had citizens there, including allies like the UK and Australia.
Like I said, I don't know how that all balances out, and I don't really care all that much. I will oppose torture regardless, for the same reasons I oppose slavery and genocide. (Both of those are demonstrably effective. Slavery has a several-millenia track record of getting salt mined, boat oars pulled, johns f--ked, and cotton picked. Genocide is indeed quite effective at ridding you of your ancetral enemies.) But if you're planning to do something that most civilized human beings think marks you out as a monster, you might want to make sure it actually does work, overall.
Couple things. First, there's no point in torturing someone if you can't verify the results. If you're looking for the answer to questions like "what kinds of targets does your group intend to hit?" you are gonna get lied to. Waste of time. Where it's likely to work is when you can verify what the guy is telling you. If you want to know where they've stashed a captive, or what bank account they've been using you're getting information you can verify pretty quickly. Yes, he'll say anything to get the pain to stop, but he also doesn't want it to start again.
You are not going to be able to collate statistical evidence on the effectiveness of this technique or that technique, and if "experts" on torture really exists they're not likely to contributing to the discussion. Every situation is different, and people who torture other people aren't going to be proud of it afterwards, even if they felt they had to do it. It's true I can't prove someone who gave up information under torture wouldn't have given it up under some other form of interrogation. It's also true that you can't prove he would have.
Don't take anything I've written as advocacy of torture as a policy. I agree there are other costs, though I think the "cost to our reputation" is wildly overstated. My main beef is with people who try to wiggle out of the ticking time bomb scenario by saying torture doesn't work at all. I think it's a good idea to have a policy against torture, but there's definitely a price and it's not as clear cut as some people would like it to be.
Albatross,
"hey're very likely to say whatever they think will stop the pain."
---if your goal is a confession, then you're right, torture won't work. But the goal isn't a confession, it is information---information that must be verified.
What is more, as I explained way up on the post, there is a method of interrogation to make sure tortured information you receive is valid: ask a suspect 3 things, but already know 2 of them. If he lies about the other 2, you can't trust the real information you want. If he doesn't lie, you got him. A very good way to do this is to want something seemingly less important than what you know.
This is a standard interrogation tactic, and police who do not torture use it as well. It works when the suspect is singing like a canary, which is exactly what torture facilitates.
If anything is worse than torture, it is letting others do the dirty work by continuing policies of rendition.
If the following were true:
1) We developed a method of torture that definitely produces information that we know to be reliable;
2) We could verify beyond any doubt prior to starting torture that the tortured is someone who has information we need; and
3) We could be certain that the information we are trying to get would save lives or otherwise outweigh the wrong of committing torture
then few could argue that there are not clear cut moral imperatives to torture in such circumstances. It's very difficult to say no to torture when we can be certain that not torturing will mean many innocent people being killed, for example. Where we have problems is that the three conditions above are almost never established with certainty--though the counterargument is that what do we do when we're "fairly certain" that torture might bring mostly reliable information, and that the information is "very likely" to save lives. Should we still say "never" to torture? No easy answer there, and free societies always have to weigh such things.
Manzi's suggestion, however, that "not torturing" is somehow the key to our success over unfree societies is suspect though--there are many things that caused us to win WWII far beyond simply not torturing Germans and Japanese prisoners (not to say we didn't do some of that, as well). Maybe our massive industrial resources and the sacrifices of another massive (but totalitarian) country had something to do with it. As for the success of free societies, perhaps it's the economic freedom more than the lack of torture that explains the triumph of free market democracies. Not that this is an argument FOR torture, but there are better arguments against torture than Manzi has made here.
For Matt Steinglass:
Neither of your hypotheticals holds up because both involved wartime actions against POWs, and Americans weren't known to be targeting civilians. Because there was no intelligence to suggest otherwise in either Noth Vietnam or Nazi Germany, no torture was justifed.
Al-Queda isn't a nation at war with us. And is known to be targeting civilians. Two things that change this situation for me.
Al Qaeda isn't a nation at war with us. Agreed. Well neither are the Mexican drugs cartels. They target civilians. If there is an American working with the cartels can these techniques then be used on him?
What about the militias, like the one from MI that blew up the OKC Federal Building (remember Nichols and McVeigh)? They were targeting civilians. Can we use these techniques on them?
Or how about just normal gangs? Drive bys target innocent people. Can we use these techniques on them?
Lurker, I simply do not understand what you are talking about. Let's take the moral angle first, the legal angle second. What possible difference does it make on a moral level whether or not the person you have captured, and whom you believe has actionable information about enemy plans that will kill large numbers of your own civilians, is a uniformed member of an enemy security service or not? Say you capture an Al-Qaeda guy who's also an officer in the Pakistani Army. Or a member of Hezbollah who's also in the Syrian Army. Does that make it immoral to torture him for information? Whereas it would be moral to torture him as long as he wasn't in the army? Or if he weren't wearing a uniform?
And what possible legal difference does it make? Torture is barred by the Convention Against Torture, period. It doesn't matter whether the person you're torturing is an enemy soldier, a terrorist, or a nun you suspect sympathizes with Communists. It is illegal to torture them. Enemy soldiers are also legally entitled to some ADDITIONAL considerations by the Geneva Conventions, though not the ones you appear to think; but they don't get extra-special protection against torture. It's illegal to torture anyone, and it's not ultraplusdouble illegal to torture soldiers. It's just illegal.
And what do you mean by "wasn't known to be targeting civilians"? The US was bombing Vietnamese and German cities, killing large numbers of civilians. It was the responsibility of defense forces to protect their own civilians. Who cares whether the aircraft pilots, gosh golly gee, really wished their bombs didn't kill civilians? The CIA produced estimates for the number of civilians likely to be killed during Rolling Thunder that ran into the tens of thousands. Those civilian deaths were entirely predictable consequences of US bombing. North Vietnamese intelligence officers were duty bound to do whatever they could to gain intelligence that might help reduce those casualties. What possible difference could the subjective emotions or intentions of American planners have made to them, even if they could possibly have known them? And in the case of Germany (and Japan), the notion that the US "wasn't known to be targeting civilians" is simply ludicrous. The US deliberately incinerated dozens of German and Japanese cities. Cities, it is widely recognized, contain civilians. Some of those bombing raids killed over 100,000 civilians in a single night. Oops! Sorry, didn't mean it. And again 3 days later: Whoopsie! There go another 100,000. But it's not deliberate!
You cannot argue that torture of American enemies by the CIA is justified to protect American lives, without arguing that torture of American servicemen by the Viet Cong or SS was justified to protect Vietnamese and German lives.
"You cannot argue that torture of American enemies by the CIA is justified to protect American lives, without arguing that torture of American servicemen by the Viet Cong or SS was justified to protect Vietnamese and German lives."
Matt, are argument stems from war v. terrorism. It's a moral split, I know, but since we're arguing morality, everyone has their own divide. Some people (like the despicable Jasper) refuse to acknowledge their own equivocations and the strong arguments of their opponents.
I don't. Yes, I do see how there is a moral argument for torture in your circumstances, but wartime has its rules, and one rule is avoidance of civilian casualties. The North Vietnamese used civilians to confuse the rules of war to make Americans appear bad in propaganda (something shitheads]whores like Jane Fonda loved all too well to help with). Plus genuine military targets hidden in cities of civilians are fair game.
War also has the start and the end, the surrender of hostilities, and goals: conquest, democracy, etc.
Terrorism is about non-nations deliberately attacking civilians at random to force social changes; war is about nations attacking military targets to secure political aquiescence. If the goal of your war is to kill civilians, you have become a terrorist.
Are my lines clear? No. it's a moral line I draw, but I (unlike Jasper) can admit your argument has strength. Here's one: In both the German and North Vietnam circumstances, the bombings planned would had been avoided if the Germans/North vietnamese had called for a truce. For terrorists, there largely is no "truce" they will take.
I'm sorry, but for me, war v. terrorism are different things, though I readily admit this is a moral argument for me, and your argument has strength. Throughout history, I would note, formalized battle was considered starkly different than acts of assassination or terror. We can't forget that, for most people in history, to not meet on a field of war, and instead target women, children, and non-warriors was considered an act of cowardice and signs of barbarism. So this idea I have isn't something out of thin air; it goes back to the great Empires of China, Rome, Persia, etc.
I found this article by Mark Bowden extremely informative.
The Dark Art of Interrogation
Maybe outlawing what many consider "torture", while requiring judges to allow a defense of necessity - along with public financing of the interrogator's legal team (or a specific team employed by DOJ to defend such people) - may be what we need.
It will then be very clear where the line is drawn. Anyone who goes over the line will then have to justify their actions.
I would also go so far as to specify a section of jury instructions that a judge must read to the jury.
Jasper once again fails to grasp that his moral equivocationson torture versus self-defense are not shared by many people.
What the heck is a "moral equivocationson." Dude, they've come up with this new invention. It's called a spell check. Google it.
No, not every memo is valid, but a logical argument as strongly made as the memos make is certainly very strong evidence against there being any wrongdoing here.
Utterly risible. The memos were written by people working for those who wanted their actions justified. Not exactly "evidence" I would call "objective."
I think a reasonable estimate of a 50% of gaining useful information froma terrorist to stop a plot to kill 1,000,000 civilians justifies torture.
What the heck does an "estimate of a 50% of a gaining useful information froma terrorist" even mean? You've already demonstrated you're a moral cretin. Now you're demonstrating you're a cretin, period.
I'll let you weasel out of that one, but really, just admit when you're wrong about something, ok?
You'll do no such thing, because I'm not "weaseling" out of anything. The topic of justifiable homicide was raised by me to make the point that a self-defense case exists for this type of killing that never exists for torture. I was not referring to cases where a prosecution for murder is undertaken by the government. If you've got contrary evidence on this thread, produce it. If not I'm calling you out here for either arguing in bad faith, or not knowing what you're talking about, or simply being a liar. Or perhaps all three.
self-defense is technically murder, just justified/excused.
No. Self defense is self defense. Do you perhaps mean "killing in self-defense" is "technically murder?" You're barely even able to make coherent arguments using grammatically correct English. Anyway, F. Lee, I want a cite showing "killing in self-defense" is "technically murder" if that's in fact what you mean.
without your defense of self-defense, you would be convicted of murder
How would one be "convicted of murder" if one is not charged?
Noah's article basically tries to show that when KSM was arrested, the plot was over. However, that isn't what it says;
At this point you're just babbling, but I repeat my request: do you have any substantive argument against the Noah piece (you know, as in, links to or cites of trenchant, effective counterarguments to what Noah is claiming). I just googled, FWIW, to see if anybody had taken him on, and didn't find a thing. Which reinforces in my mind the validity of Noah's findings that the LA story as reported in WaPo was nonsense: torture did not save the lives of any Angelenos.
alright you scum sucking mentally deficient troll, I've tried being civil with you and tried being teasingly sarcastic, but you live in fucking la-la-can't-hear-you land, so here's your medicine, bitch:
"What the heck is a "moral equivocationson." Dude, they've come up with this new invention. It's called a spell check. Google it."
---You're fucking with spelling on an internet message board, Jasper-bitch? You're pretend obtuseness underlines your trollishness. You made a moral equivocation: killing to save your own life is an excuse for murder, but torturing to save 1,000,000 is not an excuse. I merely pointed out many would not share you equivocation, but you decided to play "I don't know what that means."
It means you're stupid, little shit.
"Utterly risible. The memos were written by people working for those who wanted their actions justified. Not exactly "evidence" I would call "objective."
----wrong again, Olbermann shithead. They were written to find the line---to see what was legal and what was not. You are wrong.
"What the heck does an "estimate of a 50% of a gaining useful information froma terrorist" even mean? "
---Using the same odds law enforcement gets when it decides whether to arrest a suspect, enter a house on smelling marijuana, etc. It's a calculated, experience-based risk assessment. We live in this world now, where law enforcement are allowed to follow educated guesses in pursuit of possible fucking information, based on past experience. What it means is, given in the past similar suspects have, 50% of the time given up similar information, there is a 50% chance now he knows it. Which is how almost every law enforcement decision is made: playing known odds from the past against unknown.
"I was not referring to cases where a prosecution for murder is undertaken by the government. "
---no, bitch boy, you were, you just invented this context to weasel, because you are fucking troll with no aility to even admit fault or the strength of your opponents argument. If you are never tried for murder, you never get to use self-defense. If the prosecution chooses to let you go uncharged because it wholeheartedly agrees you were in self-defense, you are technically (in the eyes of the law, shithead) an innocent man.
"How would one be "convicted of murder" if one is not charged?"
--QED, bitch boy. If you are not charged, you never raise self-defense in court. Ergo, shithead, you are (in the eyes of the law) an innocent man. You lose.
"Anyway, F. Lee, I want a cite showing "killing in self-defense" is "technically murder" if that's in fact what you mean."
----Well since I went to law school online according to you, would it really matter? You would just rant and rave that my cite isn't worthy of your moral argument. Quite frankly, cuntrag, you know nothing about the legal codes operating in the U.S. right now, nor how justification/excuse work in the criminal law. Plus, when shown the light, you run back into the cave. I'm done explaining Crim Law 101 to you, you are wrong. To argue the point of self-defense requires you first to have been proven a murderer in your trial. The Self-Defense defense is a justification/excuse for your murder, an exception to the rule that "all murderers get punished." Now get bent.
"At this point you're just babbling"
---ah, what a bitch boy. Ignoring his opponents argument as "babble." Greenwald, suck my dick.
"I just googled, FWIW, to see if anybody had taken him on, and didn't find a thing. "
---because, shithead, Noah's argument is about serious as proving Bush is a fascist. It's pure fantasy by a writer from disreputable magazine.
Now listen up shithead: I, and everyone else debating this are through talking to you, you obtuse ignorant ideological nutbag. Scoot back to the shitheads at DailyKos if you want to live in the echo chamber where anyone who presents a moral problem with not torturing is a fascist moral cretin. Just remember this, bitch boy, before the door hits you on the way out: you lose.
The John Yoo memos are equivalent to the Nazi papers authorizing the opening of the death camps! Bush = Hitler! See how easy that was?
By all means, lets investigate and prosecute. And not just those no longer serving in government. Put Pelosi and Reid and a whole bunch of other congressmen and civil servants under oath and take testimony in open hearings. Lets see if we can put Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld behind bars. Think how good we'll all feel.
Hell, its not like we have other problems requiring our attention.
Screw that. If they knew something about it and didn't stop it, conspiracy charges against them too.
Let's clean up our government.