That's incorrect. All one concedes by arguing about the effectiveness of torture is that people worth persuading believe -- mistakenly or not -- that utility is a relevant factor. I happen to think that every American who exerts influence on his or her government is a person worth persuading. A mistaken policy like torture is least likely to happen if as large a plurality of citizens as possible think that it's a bad idea, for whatever reason.
In theory this is true. In practice, people who argue opportunistically don't fare well much outside debate tournaments.
In real life, when someone argues that we shouldn't torture, and also that torture doesn't work, and also that torture leads to socialism, their arguments lose force, particularly if they are forced to admit that one of their arguments was wrong. That's because the people you're arguing with care whether torture works, and you don't. They are interested in the factual question of what interrogation techniques produce usable information. You are interested in proving that torture doesn't work as a way of forcing them towards your moral conclusion. They will rightly suspect that your investigation of the factual question is not likely to be of a high quality. And indeed, that is what I find in these arguments: people wildly overstating an at best modest case that torture rarely produces all that much usable intelligence.
Once someone has been through that wringer with you, and you say, okay, well, you're right, I didn't really care whether torture worked, and my arguments weren't very good, but Look! Another argument against torture! . . . well, you've proven that you'll say anything to try to herd them towards your moral conclusion. And also that you're willing to waste phenomenal amounts of time making irrelevant arguments. They will be angry with you, and not particularly inclined to listen to yet another argument.
Acting as if you're persuadable when you're not often seems like an initially attractive way to sucker your ideological opponents into an easy victory. But I've rarely seen it work in practice. Think of the ridiculous debates over breast cancer and abortion, or the rear-guard action against climate-change science. When they conceded, people didn't say, "well, okay, science is hard, it was a mistake, could have happened to anyone." Those arguments severely weakened the credibility of those movements on their issues, and they now have to fight the perception that they are mendacious ideologues who will say anything, no matter how stupid, to win.
This post makes me think of the anti drug programs...
I may be wrong but...do we yet have a clearly defined rule of law that states what is and isn't torture?. I believe in 2005/2006ish it wasn't. Currently, interrogation must abide by the Army Field Manual...but with "loopholes" for the CIA in the case where "enhanced" methods must be used (which tells me that enhanced methods do indeed work).
If we have clear law that states what is and isn't torture then all this banter goes away, no?. I'm pretty sure, though, that the DOJ or members of either side of the isle want their name on a document that could potentially hem them in a corner.
In 2004/2005 it wasn't clear because officials in the administration needed to cover their asses because they knew they had violated the law.
The Geneva Convention is clear law. And we've signed on to that law.
"In 2004/2005 it wasn't clear because officials in the administration needed to cover their asses because they knew they had violated the law."
A) So you agree it wasn't clear?.
B) Both sides of the isle in Congress said at that point that we needed a clearer line in the sand. You say the Geneva Convention covers that, they said differently.
C) Currently, the Army Field Manual essentially follows the rules within the Geneva Conventions (i'm sure some legal type could find some shady areas). BUT, the "loopholes" left in place for the CIA for "enhanced" methods go above and beyond the Field Manual, thus probably do not follow the G.C...or must seek those shady areas....so we are back to square one. Where is that line we do not cross and if we don't know where that line is...we must not have such a clear definition.
zic,
The GC isn't absolutely clear and moreso this is better covered by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. It makes the requirement for something to be torture to inflict "lasting mental anguish" or some such verbiage. The US interprets that to basically mean PTSD or similar ailments.
This was the Bybee memo: we do X practices in SERE trainnig without longterm effects, so these methods don't cause longterm effects and therfore aren't classified as torture.
Yes we do; it is defined under Title 18 of the US Code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
If you read the memos, they are an attempt by US attorneys to apply the law to facts by arguing whether the interrogation methods are covered under this part of the US Code.
If that is in fact the rules then wouldn't the fact that you were captured fit the bill of torture?. That would be severe mental pain to me...and i'm not being a smart ass. If those are the rules then just detaining a combatant or moving them to Bagram would be torture.
I'm not sure we can operate in the real world climate under those rules.
"that the DOJ or members of either side of the isle want their name on a document that could potentially hem them in a corner."
members DON'T want their name on a document. It's early...
By this logic, one should never argue at all; just dig your heals in the ground and say "no," and recall any argument based on reason that's proved to be faulty over and over as justification.
Just forget reason, science, shifting mores.
I'm sorry, Megan. This means there are no grounds for conducting a public debate. One faulty argument does not cancel out another valid argument, and it's shameful that we live in a society that cannot reason beyond that. It's simply a faulty argument that fails to resolve the issue. I suspect it goes to our constant need for binary answers -- yes or no. We seem to have a growing inability to comprehend the world in analog, as a spectrum of possibilities to be sorted and weighed as we work toward consensus. (The political-party stereotypes play well here: the president who can't and won't admit to a mistake vs. the waffling senator who was against the war before he was for the war.)
When it comes to torture, perhaps, we should just take all those who disagree with our positions and torture them until they see the light.
We'll know it's wrong after each of us, pro or con, have experienced it. But given our faulty model for public debate, too many will only think torture wrong when they're on the receiving end of the stick.
She never said not to argue, she just said to do it RIGHT - work on establishing FACTS first before talking about subjective MORALS. If the person you are arguing with believes firmly that "the ends justify the means" in ALL cases, than debating with them WILL be pointless, because as long as they can point to an effectiveness to torture, the costs may be irrelevant to them.
What you do is pick your battles and how you fight them. I first want to UNDERSTAND my opponent's position, and then address the conflicts between our values. That way, even if I don't CONVINCE him, they will be much more amenable to my position and my person afterwards.
Argument just to argue is stupid, and shouldn't be done. Argument to reach a better understanding of a subject and a more informed opinion is important and MUST be done.
This is called debate.
And now, for your pleasure, a comically topical comic.
Much as we may try, we'll never know if an argument stands the light of day until it's been debated.
By Megan's logic, fear of failure predicts no argument will take place.
I'm not suggesting don't don't be prepared, I'm suggesting one argument, found to be faulty, shouldn't diminish another solid argument.
You're misunderstanding her point. She's saying if you want to argue something, don't use an argument that that has a logically invalid premise (i.e., one based on a faulty factual conclusion), because it will weaken the impact of your argument. People will tend to focus on your faulty premise and ignore the rest of your argument.
I think the word Megan was looking for is "credibility."
.
It's not that one (bad) argument invalidates another (good) argument, it's that by making bad arguments, you lose the respect and attention of your interlocutors.
.
From there, even if you're right, you're going to get nowhere.
Well put: the costs of opportunistic arguments is harmful to the social credibility of the arguer. The question that ensues is whether the ORDER of the arguments makes a critical difference in that mass - that torture is immoral FIRST, and then discussing whether or not it works.
Personally, I apply such things to discussions about the death penalty and vegetarianism (I am a curious inquirer rather than an arguer - believe what you will, but have a good reason for it). On of the best arguments for both is economics; the costs for death row, multiple high-profile retrials, and execution is less than that of prison-for-life. (Only afterwards do I point out that in many cases, it seems to be a violation of the eigth amendment.)
Similarly, vegetarianism provides more food for individuals than raising cows for slaughter. (granted, people can't eat grass, and a vegan diet I have nutritional reservations about).
People who start in with the "moral" high-ground in both circumstances have a tough battle - 1) the people you kill are convicted criminals (though not always guilty), or 2) not all methods of slaughter/murder are "cruel" or painful, or 3) the audiance you wish to persuade doesn't inherently believe in an equity between the actor and the "victim" in both cases.
All true but I still think it often makes sense opponents of coercive interrogation to argue that it's ineffective.
Why? Because the other argument -- that it's just plain morally wrong -- is very difficult to make.
I'm not saying that it isn't morally wrong. I'm just saying that it's hard to argue the case well enough to sway opinion.
People don't form moral opinions from well constructed arguments. They form them from gut feeling, so it's not easy to change moral beliefs.
Do you know anyone who has changed position on, say, abortion or the death penalty based solely upon a very strong logical argument from someone on the other side?
The moral argument works over long periods of time -- a la civil rights -- but most people don't want to wait that long, so they go with the logical argument, which works immediately if it's convincing.
Yes. my opinion on the death penalty in the US changed when I researched the subject. While I still believe that conceptually it may be ok, it's implementation in America is hypocrital (8th amendment) and a bad idea economically. Just keep them in jail (except, perhaps, in extreme cases where it serves external social benefit).
Yeah, this sounds really suspicious. It seems more like an attempted neutralization of one of the stronger and more easily supported arguments against torture.
The reason people against torture in principle don't argue from a moral standpoint is because many of them see supporters of torture being sufficiently morally defunct that they are incapable of grasping the moral arguments against torture. So, in an attempt to make a productive appeal to end torture, they go for the "it doesn't work" route. I don't think it's stupid, because how do you convince someone that torture is fundamentally wrong if they have no morals?
Playing the devil's advocate here (which Milton did par excellence); you needn't be morally bankrupt to believe in the use of torture. A person who believes the lives of multiple individuals are more important than the lives of a few, and that torture will save the lives of the many, may advocate torture with a clear moral compass. It's just one that doesn't point to YOUR north.
Similarly, I can believe that someone is worth "less" than someone else - family and friends vs. total strangers. Is that immoral? No. It's a sensible, if selfish, viewpoint.
Let me ask you: You are in charge of a city surrounded by invaders. They ask for a specified individual (or a small group of individuals) to be released into their possession for certain death. failure to do so may endanger the lives of EVERYONE in the city. Is handing him over warranted?
Alternatively, one can be completely AMORAL on the value of human life and simply refuses the use of torture due to apathy or fatalism. To claim moral high-ground exclusively for one side is most often misleading.
Americans are odd.
We're perfectly willing to use B52s to carpet bomb our enemies en masse (be they the Taliban, Viet Cong, or before in the days of lower-numbered Bs the Germans of WWII, etc.) ... in the process inflicting "collateral damage" on God knows how many civilians as well, breaking their bodies, burning the skin off them as they still live, etc., etc.
But to actually willfully hurt a known enemy combatant face-to-face to gain a military advantage ... My God! That's immoral!
There are many Americans who believe the use of B52s, drone planes, etc. to drop bombs on innocent people is immoral, Jim Glass.
And when they've spoken their concerns, they've been called weak, anti-american, unpatriotic, and more.
That's also a weakness at the heart of our public debate; whomever finds the loudest name to call others wins.
That's also a weakness at the heart of our public debate; whomever finds the loudest name to call others wins.
I think that would classify as "argument," not debate. ;)
But, Megan, the moral argument against torture is not a slam dunk either. It is not obvious that torturing one person to save 100 innocent lives is wrong. If, on the other hand, we consider effectiveness of torture and effectiveness is in dispute, then we don't know whether or not torture will save lives, at which point the moral argument against torture is easier. Then, we are just trading torture for a potential, immeasurable benefit, and it is easy to say no torture.
You're right that once torture either becomes or is proven to be effective, only the moral argument remains. But the moral argument is hard, and effectiveness of torture is tied to the moral argument because the moral equation depends upon the benefits derived from the torture.
Now, you might dispute my point that the moral argument includes effectiveness; you might argue that torture is always wrong no matter how much of a benefit it derives for us. And perhaps you are suggesting this is the discussion the public should have, but I believe the position I’m attributing to you is both a minority view and wrong.
As an analogy, you might agree that it is always morally wrong to kill innocent people. You might agree that in general, it is not morally wrong to build a suspension bridge. But, people will die in the construction of the bridge. We know that ex ante, yet we decide to build the bridge anyway. We do this because the benefits of the bridge outweigh the costs, which include some construction workers dying in accidents. If the benefits of a bridge can outweigh the deaths involved, why can’t saving some number of lives outweigh torturing a suspect?
Even if we think that torture is much worse than a handful of construction workers dying, isn’t there some point where a benefit can outweigh the horror of torture? Perhaps 1 thousand lives? Perhaps 1 million? Perhaps 1 billion? Perhaps the entire human species? If there is any point where you would draw the line and say OK, in exchange for this we can torture, then the effectiveness of torture becomes entwined with the moral argument because effectiveness determines, in part, the benefit to be derived from torture. Thus, effectiveness is an acceptable line of argument against torture except for the narrow case where you honestly believe that regardless of the number of lives saved, torture is always wrong.
I think it is an argument worth making because the ONLY logical argument in favor of torture is that "it works." If it doesn't result in useful information than can be used to save innocent lives, there is simply no reason to do it other than pure sadism. If I have ten reasons to support my argument, and the other side only has one reason to support his, knocking out his one argument is the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate, even if I believe I would still win even if his one argument holds true. If someone argues "torture results in useful information," I don't think it is a weak response to respond with "torture doesn't result in useful information; and even assuming it does, we shouldn't do it because it's morally abhorrent, it puts American soldiers at risk for similar treatment, and it's a violation of international law."
I think that speculative arguments in this situation are pointless and only distract from what I consider to be three reasonable premises:
1. Waterboarding prisoners is illegal. This has been true for the US and for members of the international community that maintains the minimum standards of human rights. Including any exemptions into the law would lead to an unacceptably high possibility of abuse.
2. Any US citizen or agency that performs waterboarding on prisoners must be held accountable according to US law.
3. If there are mitigating circumstances, then the parties who conducted the procedure plead their case before the law and be subject to its judgment.
Since I accept these three premises I have no interest in hearing speculation concerning the possible mitigating circumstances before they actually happen. If those that performed the waterboarding on prisoners believe that that there was a compelling reason to flaunt US and international law, then they should present and prove their case as it actually occurred and be willing to subject themselves to the penalties.
According to what we've learned this week, a prisoner in US custody was subjected to waterboarding 183 times. Assuming that these reports (and others like them) are correct, then I think that it is reasonable for the parties who approved and carried out this procedure should present their case before a legal review. If they can prove that the circumstances demanded, for each of these instances, that the extra-legal action was the only option under the circumstances, then they should be judged accordingly. If not, then they should be punished.
A few years ago, I read an interesting paper in game theory that illustrated this point; more precisely, it gave a simple theoretical model in which it was rational for participants to pay more attention to people who stuck to one argument. (I believe the arguments in question were why one should be hired for a job, but that's not really essential.) The idea was that a candidate who was quite confident of their main argument would do better by resting entirely on that argument, while those who were less confident did better by giving multiple arguments. The result was that the people judging could infer that a candidate who stuck to one argument was more confident about it.
From introspection, I think this is a pretty good reflection of why we have an instinct to distrust people who make multiple contradictory arguments, even though, as other comments have pointed out, from a strict logical point of view one invalid argument shouldn't reflect on the others. In practice, we have a limited amount of attention to give to arguments against us, and someone presenting mutually incompatible arguments signals insecurity, and someone who shifts arguments each time one is refuted signals opportunism or bad faith. The problem isn't that such an arguer is necessarily insecure or opportunistic, only that they run a greater risk of being so, and therefore by engaging with them, we run a greater risk of wasting our time by doing so.
But, in fact, torture doesn't work. And it's immoral. The bloodthirsty jingoists will make twisted, Leninist arguments against either of these tacks, so I don't really see why one should drop either of them.
I still find the following case pretty convincing: if torture works, and is morally justifiable to save many lives, then it was moral for Vietnamese Communist interrogators to torture US pilots in an attempt to gain information that could help defend Vietnamese against US bombing raids. If you are comfortable making an argument that Vietnamese Communist interrogators had a moral obligation to torture John McCain, then go ahead.
I don't think this is a killer argument. We do, in fact, think that in wartime, it is moral to do things to soldiers that are otherwise wrong--normally, I don't think its okay for the Vietnamese to shoot at Ameicans, either, but I don't think the Viet Cong who did so were immoral. Misguided, whatever, but that's a war. I think what the proponents of extreme interrogation might say is a) that what was done to John McCain was by most standards a lot worse than waterboarding and b) it wasn't done to produce information but just for fun/propaganda. I don't think anyone is saying it's okay to use stress positions to get captured Afghans to make videos repudiating Islam.
I agree with you that we're faster to identify torture when its done to us, but I don't think it's impossible to construct a moral system that allows waterboarding suspected terrorists, but not repeatedly breaking John McCain's arms.
Megan - while I agree with your original post, I think you tread into dangerous territory here. The fact that what the Viet Cong did to John McCain was worse doesn't mean that what we've done to Al Qaeda operatives is moral. That distinction needs to stand on it's own.
.
I think you've fallen into exactly the kind of trap that Conor Friedersdorf accused you of.
I didn't say it was, and I am also against the enhanced interrogation techniques or whatever we're calling it. However, there is some dividing line between torture and the merely unpleasant--giving people only old copies of the Donna Reed show to watch would be awful, but not actually torture. Many advocates of extreme techniques say that waterboarding falls on one side of that line--something distasteful, but okay to do if it might save innocent lives. So saying "well, was it okay for the Vietcong to torture John McCain?" isn't very useful, because what was done to John McCain goes well beyond what they're endorsing.
I'm a little confused though about whether you actually believe that what was done to McCain was worse than waterboarding. It wasn't. As far as one can tell from his memoirs, McCain was basically severely beaten on one prolonged and horrible occasion, and he held up for 3 days or more before agreeing to make a tape confessing to war crimes. No one can hold out anything like that long against waterboarding. People crack in a matter of seconds or minutes.
For the rest of his years in confinement, McCain was sometimes put in stress positions or confined in solitary, which also involved extreme temperature situations since it's so damn hot in Hanoi. Nothing we didn't do to KSM or Abu Zubaydah.
I understand you're saying people will make the ARGUMENT that waterboarding isn't as bad as beating, and hence it's not a killer argument. But it should be clear that this argument is wrong.
"I think what the proponents of extreme interrogation might say is a) that what was done to John McCain was by most standards a lot worse than waterboarding and b) it wasn't done to produce information but just for fun/propaganda."
I'm not sure that I agree with the points that you describe, given the current situation.
I suspect that if the Vietcong had waterboarded McCain an average of six times a day over the course of a month, we would now consider that to be one of the most sadistic things that had been done to him.
Also, I'll need to see some additional evidence that what was done to KSM was purely to gain information. I have a hard time believing that any useful intelligence was gleaned from waterboarding sessions #10-#183.
Yeah, then you get into the details -- a lot of Hanoi Hilton prisoners weren't beaten, they were confined to stress positions (sitting on a stool for 3 days, standing propped with your hands against the wall all day) and stuck in solitary confinement for months at a time. McCain himself said the solitary was the worst part of it, worse than the beating. But once you get into the weeds, the point gets less elegant and harder to explain.
The problem is not necessarily making opportunistic arguments, it's doing a poor job of making opportunistic arguments. Saying "But in fact, torture doesn't work" doesn't provide much of an argument. And when you don't provide any more detail, the person hearing such a statement is likely to interpret it as "torture doesn't produce useful information," which they immediately classify as a falsehood and therefore likely judge the person making the argument as untrustworthy either b/c they are being disingenuous or b/c they are are not smart.
If you don't think the moral argument is effective, the argument should be, "as a practical matter, torture does more harm than good to the U.S.'s interests" or something similar, and, if possible, it should be followed up with a reasonably detailed explanation.
And the wearker you're opportunistic argument is, the nmore hesitant you should be to use it. If it's not much more persuasive than you're real argument, I'm guessing you'd do better to stick to the real argument.
Honestly, I am comfortable making that argument. In their shoes, in their position, it was the best thing for their priorities and it was an attempt at saving the lives of their people. That it wasn't OUR priority doesn't make it any less moral or inconsistent.
Note that I don't think that they have an OBLIGATION to have done it. I simply believe it was morally consistant within their priorities, and cannot, therefore, label them as immoral.
There are many people like me, I infer, who care more about preventing innocents from getting bombed than they do about captured terrorists. The argument that torture isn't the most effective way to get information, and that there are better alternatives, is hugely relevant. The goal is to save lives so moral arguments against torture are irrelevant. The only arguments that matter are logical ones.
I should qualify what I just said:
Moral arguments against torture are valid when the debate is whether we should do it as retribution or just for fun.
Logical arguments against torture are valid when the debate is whether or not we should do it to save lives.
Well - I always assumed that the real discussion is about "what is torture" and not "can torture be useful". We are not discussing if rape is pleasurable to some but whether it is ethical wrong or right. The cost-benefit analysis is not just technique vs technique but also ethics vs ethics and social implications. Officially - we think about torture as Rush Limbaug doesa about dog fights - there is no discussing the other side when it comes to slavery, torture, abuse, rape, etc. We can discuss the punishment... but we do not have to go back to: do all humans feel pain and what does this mean ethically?
The US has signed a document titled:
United Nations Convention Against Torture
It states the following:
It would in fact the worst regression possible - having to start a discussion from scratch regarding the ethical aspects of torture. What's on next week - is there a cost-benefit to slavery?
I am especially surprised to see so many people who claim to be pro-individual rights suddenly defend the benefits of torture. You can twist it as you want - torture is the group over the individual.
I think documents like these hurt those arguing against "torture", b/c they define torture in a way that makes it clear that we "torture" people everyday. I'm guessing very few people would really want to hold the gov't (both military and police) up to this standard. To me (someone who hasn't paid much attention to the actual "enhanced interrogation techniques"/torture used), reading something like this makes it more likely that I would believe an argument that the "torture" outrage is really crazy bleeding hearts that are getting bent out of shape over techniquest that lots of people would not consider torture.
I wouldn't underestimate the number of people in the population that are curious about the issue, but still manage to be apathetic enough to not track down actual facts so they can make an informed judgment on whether what took place was torture.
There is a big difference between something like rape and murder happening every day and it being official US policy. Yes, US and European police officers torture people - I know that. But at least it is illegal and could, in theory, be prosecuted and it often is.
Rape happens every day and in some countries domestic rape is legal and happens several times a day. Is this a good basis for a discussion regarding the legality of rape in the US. What if we can prove that there are say more men than women in the US and that hence the majority would benefit from rape. I mean, rape would "work" for them men? Or - men could at least somehow blackmail women into sex so that we do not have to call it "rape".
Or - compulsory military service. It is not "certain" if enough people would volunteer for their country - so we force them to. It is only to protect an even larger group of Americans. No. When did we throw out all our understanding of the value of individual rights?
I made a mistatement there. I said that it hurts people arguing against torture/enhanced interrogation techniques. What I should have said was that it hurts people who are arguing that "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute "torture." By that definition, almost any police interrogation probably crosses the line into torture. It's ridiculously hard (impossible?) to draft a definition of torture that allows reasonable interrogation techniques without allowing a good lawyer to put together an argument that allows interrogation techniques that should probably cross the line.
My (poorly made) point was that bringing a definition like this into the discussion makes relatively uninformed people (like me) question whether the "enhanced interrogation" techniques really should be considered torture. This wasn't meant to be a critique of your point, only a comment on the fact that the "official" definition of torture doesn't really help in persuading people that the enhanced interrogation should be considered torture.
Accidently deleted a paragraph out of that argument. I need to take a break until I can post something coherent, but one last try:
The United Nations Convention Against Torture prohibits everyday interrogation techniques that I'm guessing the vast majority of Americans would not consider tourture. So bringing that definition into the argument of whether the enhanced interrogation techniques are torture doesn't help persuade anybody that's on the fence. Instead, for the people that haven't researched exactly what went on, it makes them more likely to think that people are referring to the U.S.'s enhanced interrogation techniques as torture b/c they are using a definition of torture that is overbroad.
And I do recognize the difficulty of defining torture (especially since it's already hard to agree on when the line is crossed), I'm just pointing out that the UN definition is of no help, at least as far as persuading anybody remotely close to being on the fence, or eveb getting those that aren't on the fence to recognize that the opposition has a reasonabl/valid position.
Johnson,
Again - we all know that the police can be tough and sometimes torture. Again - the difference to what just happened is that it is not "legal".
A 30 year old American woman was recently captured by Iranian authorities and is being charged with spying. Say they do the following to her:
They strip her naked
They put her in a small box with an ugly insect
They do not allow her to sleep
They water-board her
They "wall" her
If I hear you right - you are saying that this is legitimate policy and not torture? Ok. Tell me - what if an Iranian brainiac starts arguing that pulling teeth and fingernails "works" even better and compared to slowly killing her family infront of her it is still humane? It seems that as long as we can find some even worse pain - it is not torture?
If you were walled and stripped naked by an US police officer - would you walk home feeling that he merely did his job. Good that you pay him your tax money?
And I would agree with your surprise that many people who claim to be pro-individual rights defend the benefits of torture. It's not that I don't understand believing in the benefits of torture when done right in the right circumstances, I don't understand people who claim to be pro-individual rights thinking that any gov't agency would actually be able to do torture right in the right circumstances.
Hugo, (I can't respond to your post for some reason)
I'm apparently not making my point very clear. I'm not arguing anything about what is and what is not okay. I'm arguing that the UN definition of torture is so broad that (I think) most americans would think it borderlines on ridiculous, b/c it prohibits interrogation techniques that (I think) most people would agree are fine. Therefore using it to support an argument that the U.S.'s "enhanced interrogation" techniques do in fact constitute torture is not helpful, and possibly counterproductive, b/c the people you are trying to persuade will almost certainly consider the definition to be ridiculous.
That's my last try, if I didn't get my point across there, I just need some sleep.
I missed your post. And I hear you... but I am still not certain what you mean? We are discussing the following to be concrete: no sleep, being slammed against walls, near-drowning, restricted movement while confined with a repulsive insect etc.
You write: I'm arguing that the UN definition of torture is so broad that (I think) most americans would think it borderlines on ridiculous, b/c it prohibits interrogation techniques that (I think) most people would agree are fine.
I am not certain if most americans think that, at least if it happened to them, all this would be ridiculously fine? But maybe you really mean to say something else..
Tell - which part of the United Nations Convention Against Torture is ridiculous?
Johnson_85, police interrogations in the US don't inflict "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" except for some mental pain which is "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions", and thus does not constitute torture. If anyone thinks police interrogations routinely include methods which would be classified as torture under these rules, they are wrong. It is not torture to say "if you answer our questions, we'll see if we can get you a more lenient sentence; if you don't you'll face murder-one." Or even "if you don't answer our questions we'll go hard on your sister, who we know is facing a prostitution rap in Ward 3." Those are the kinds of threats police routinely use in interrogations, and they're not torture because they simply reflect the enforcement of legal sanctions in the case of conviction. When you start thinking about police techniques occasionally used that are not related to enforcement of legal sanctions -- things like locking up nerdy accused pedophiles in the same cell with hardened criminals to elicit a confession, say, in the expectation they'll be beaten by their cellmates -- what you'll quickly realize is that these kinds of things really should be illegal and it would be just fine to call them torture. I challenge you to find a single technique routinely and justifiably used by police in the US that the Convention would define as torture.
At a deeper level, to reject a treaty establishing a legal right because there are some circumstances where the right seems over-broad reflects a misunderstanding of the law. There are no absolute rights: the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee a right to felons on parole to carry automatic weapons into a hospital operating room; the 1st Amendment does not protect a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. We have laws, regulations and courts to determine where the fundamental rights laid down in constitutions and treaties are applicable and where they're not. It would be ridiculous to say that because no one has a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, the government should be able to bar the New York Times from criticizing the President. It's similarly ridiculous to say that because police need to be able to threaten criminals with more severe punishment and this may cause "mental suffering", we should allow the government to strap accused terrorists down to boards and choke them with water 6 times a day until their personalities disintegrate.
The fact is that no one has ever brought a case under the Convention Against Torture that did not reflect activities which any reasonable person would consider torture. The borderline cases have been situations like left-wing nuns held in Guatemalan prisons being gang-raped by off-duty policemen: if they weren't necessarily acting in an official capacity, does it still constitute "torture", allowing a case to be brought before the ICT (since obviously the national courts refused to prosecute their policemen)? The court ruled that it was torture because the systematic nature of the rapes implied government intentionality to use sexual abuse as a form of coercion, and therefore they had standing to make it an international case. But nobody's going to say "See, look how vague the Convention Against Torture is! Now they're even calling it torture when you rape a few nuns!"
These articles essentially categorize almost all forms of the death penalty as torture, then. An interesting consequence.
I'm not discussing whether torture is hypocritical or a violation of law, I am pointing out that morality is not a single system.
Morality is dynamic, and having a different set of values does not make one person "immoral" on a universal level. This is particularly jarring for me when I look at the middle-east conflict and see both sides feeling justified and apparent 'moral consistancy.' This isn't to say I don't have an opinion on the matter (I do, and a strong one at that), but that arguing based on moral grounds is inherently false - the other person BY DEFINITION does not possess your set of priorities, and trying to forces yours upon him is like transplantation into a biological system - it will provoke an antibody response and ultimately reject it unless significant care and preparation has been taken to understand the ground state and attitudes of the individual in question.
Isaac,
I know what you mean... We cannot argue that it is not moral for balcks to be slaves - we have to prove some economic value. Are men allow blacks ed to rape women or not? Do not come along with ethics please - show me da money, right?
I am not going to utter what, in my honest opinion, is implied by putting ethics and practically on the same level.. or even worse, practicallity over ethics.
I am simply shocked by this discussion. Don't get me wrong - I do not have a problem, in theory, with discussing the benefits of say slavery. But it would be a fun exercise only because the context would be something fun like: "what the hell were they (not) thinking and feeling hundreds of years ago". If the context were serious and official US policy - that would be disappointing to say the least. I would not know where to start. The A,B,C maybe?
"You can twist it as you want - torture is the group over the individual."
Yes - but so is imprisonment, and we seem to have accepted that as okay and even necessary. Would you advocate eliminating imprisonment on the same grounds?
There may be persuasive arguments against the techniques used by U.S. interrogators, but "group over the individual" isn't one of them.
No. Imprisonment has nothing to do with it. You can be imprisioned based on group rights like the Nazis did with the Jews. Or you can be imprisoned, despite trying to cure hundreds, only because you killed one. Based on individual rights. Etc.
"group over the individual" isn't an argument for you because you want to compare practicality vs practicality. Technique vs technique. Not ethics vs practicality and not technique vs social implications and costs. Some of us are talking about differences in degree and some in type.
I am more than happy to compare the effectiveness of torture techniques. But when it comes to "what should the law and official policy be"... I personally need to include social implications and ethics and and and.. as I said before - I'm more than happy to compare the different forms of slavery and oppression and to do a cost-benefit among them... but I do not think that slavery should be official policy and the law. Now - you might claim again - that is not an argument against slavery per se because what if there were enormous benefits to me...
I have the least problem with people who claim that certain techniques are not torture. I would merely ask them to imagine that it happens to somebody close to them. But I'm somewhat scared of those who try to defend torture per se. I am far upset by those who try to argue against torture based on "it does not work". I am further surprised by whom Megan picked to single out...
forgot the essential "less"... last part should read:
"But I'm somewhat scared of those who try to defend torture per se. I am far less upset by those who try to argue against torture based on "it does not work". I am further surprised by whom Megan picked to single out..."
Imprisonment does have something to do with your "group rights over individual rights argument." That conflates the "torture is wrong" argument with a due process argument.
We often take away an individual's rights for the betterment of the whole, but we try to provide due process. Your argument of "group rights over individual rights" is that allowing torture of *suspectes* is allowing their rights to be deprived without due process (i.e., a proper trial).
Johnson. I see imprisonment is a punishment after and not before prosecution. Again - you can be imprisioned based on group rights like the Nazis did with the Jews. Or you can be imprisoned, despite trying to cure hundreds, only because you killed one. Based on individual rights. Both use imprisonment as a punishment but the case for being guilty is made on different grounds. Tell me how a free society "often takes away an individual's rights for the betterment of the whole..." at least when it comes to so called "negative rights".
The above definition is nice, utopian and unrealistic. Anything harsher than saying "pretty please with sugar on top" could be construed as torture.
If interrogation methods produce _any_ discomfort, there are those who would argue that they are extreme. Prisoners in the US have successfully sued over things like loss of TV priveleges, not getting a second cookie after dinner, etc...
I would love to know where we go from here. Lets say waterboarding and such are off limits. What do we do with captured enemy combattants when we interrogate them? After we ask them nicely to give up their plans and accomplices, and they refuse, what do we do?
The problem with the line of argument that goes "Torture is wicked, and besides, it doesn't work" is actually more subtle: it rests on a categorical error.
Let's decompile the argument:
1. "Torture is wicked" is a deontological argument: it says that torture should not be used because it is INHERENTLY wrong.
2. "Torture doesn't work", on the other hand, is a consequentialist argument: it says that torture should not be used because, um, it's not a useful tool.
The weakness of adding the second argument to the first is that--logically--if torture were proven to be effective, the consequentialist argument would fall. This would then push you back onto the deontological position, that torture was /felo de se/. So in effect, the consequentialist argument merely suggests that you think the deontological argument either isn't very strong, isn't very persuasive, or both.
Wow, David.
Somebody offers a sound and good ethical argument in favor of argument X and then adds a second, practical but less sound one, to the list. Result for you? X does not make sense and is not persuasive? No. You are not persuasive unless you are a.. I don't now.. a relativistic nihilistic linguist? In which case I apologize.
I am neither a relativist nor a nihilist: quite the opposite. Nor am I interested in ad hominem arguments, as you seem to be.
The fact of the matter is, you don't even know which side of the torture issue I'm on, inasmuch as my post doesn't take a side: it's merely an attempt to calmly sort out the arguments--to blow the foam off the beer.
Let's try this another way: suppose for a moment that we could find a foolproof method of making torture effective (say we invent Megan's brain scanner). Now, the instrumental argument--"torture doesn't work"--falls away. Does that change your view of whether torture is acceptable? Of course not. So why make the argument in the first place? All you convey to your listeners is that you think your core deontological argument--that torture is wicked and should never be used--is either weak or unpersuasive.
it's merely an attempt to calmly sort out the arguments--to blow the foam off the beer.
Well - why did you not then sort out the mess on "the other side" too? I mean - it is a tad strange to argue that torture does work but to ignore ethics and social implications and you have not taken position on this. Neither has Meagan by the way. I am sorry David but it seems, I am not saying that is what you think because indeed you have not taken position, it seems that you think that the anti-torture crowed must make their case first and not the pro-torture one? Guilty until proven innocent? If that were so - I do do not have to tell you what it would imply? I am sorry for claiming that you might be a linguist etc and I hope that you will further forgive me for hoping that you are not a judge.
On a side note - I really liked what Ronald Reagan had to say when he helped getting the UN Declaration on Torture drafted and signed. Back then we were facing really powerful enemies with real and not imagined nukes.
PS: Socrates was right. Men is a rationalizing animal and not a rational one.
The problem with the first argument is the lessor of two evils dilemma. This also happens to be the case where torture is most often justified.
Yes torture is wrong, but so is not protecting those you're sworn to protect. In this dilemma, the moral case against torture is comparatively weak. It is clear that the second argument is the stronger argument. For if torturing is not the most effective way to protect people, then the most effective way should be used instead. That not torturing people is also more ethical is a bonus.
Nelson. If this were so - it would still not make David's logic any more comprehenisble. I could have turned it around like: Somebody offers a sound and good practical argument in favor of argument X and then adds a second, ethical but less sound one, to the list.
I swear to god - David would have argued just the same. I do not think he can also prioritize between ethics and practicallity. It seems to be all words, points and math to him but no meaning. Again - I apologize if he turns out to be a relativistic nihilistic linguist
Regarding those you are sworn in to protect... of course we should experiment, like the Nazis did with Jewish children, on some US children in order to finally find cures for diseases that many more children die off... Of course - when it comes to those we have sworn to protect - compulsory military service makes sense. As I said - we have thrown our individual rights for group rights in this discussion. After this "torture" discussion - I am not sure how many American even know about individual vs group rights and what has made the US so special for so long.
But coming back to David's amazing post... wow, just, wow!
You can be flippant if you want. When you're the one that has to make the decision to cut an alleged terrorist's fingers off (unambiguously torture) or letting a dirty bomb take out downtown San Fransisco, you're in a moral dilemma. There is no perfect answer and, assuming Hell exists, you can end up there by making either choice. The decision becomes much easier when an ethical option is offered that is effectively equal to or better than torture for gaining information. LA is saved and the alleged terrorist keeps his fingers.
Er LA, SF, you get the idea. Too bad there is no edit feature.
Dear Nelson,
Yes - there will be a dilemma. But again - there is a difference between doing something and it being official US policy with wider social implications. From my point of view - official US policy should be that we do not torture. I do not have a problem with some US officer breaking the law in some situations.
I value the life of animals for example. I am a vegan. If somebody where to kill an animal next to me for taste (and not via some remotely hidden concentration camp) - which is perfectly legal - I would instinctively try to stop him with all my... life. I would, in the worst case, break the law. That does not mean that I think that "hurting or even killing humans" should be generally legal. I believe that we should, all, not be allowed to kill and torture.
I totally agree with you here, even though we may have reached the same conclusion by different paths.
I further believe that the argument regarding the effectiveness of torture compared to other methods can help me decide whether or not I should break this particular law in extreme circumstances. All things being equal, I'd prefer an ethical option that is more effective.
Agreed Neslon. To be on the save side - when I say that official policy should be that we do not torture - I do not mean it like Bush meant it. I mean that no politicians or judge orders torture. Not officially and not in secret. Not full- and not semi-torture. If somebody wants to torture a suicide bomber who might or might not be able to kill billions... That is up to the individuals who then breaks the law. Civil disobedience cannot happen from the top. Defending that is insane and literally shakes our foundation.
When stuff like that comes from the top - all kinds of shit is programmed to happen. For example - right next to Osama Bin Laden on the FBI's most wanted list we now have a "domestic terrorist". An animal rights activists who has destroyed some labs where animals were harmed. He might be dangerous but he has never killed a human and does not intend to do so. OJ has killed more humans than him but this guy is right next to Osama Bin Laden.
Some of his friends and family might know where he is... If torture or "extreme" methods worked better than non-torture or "normal" methods on terrorist and if it were OFFICIAL policy to apply "extreme" methods... good luck. I'm moving east...