Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

torture (of detained terrorists)

Rate this topic


redmartian89

moral or not?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Is torture of terrorists moral?

    • yes, moral
      12
    • no, immoral
      12
    • only moral on known terrorists
      18
    • don't know
      3


Recommended Posts

My objection to torture is that it's practiced in the shadows because it too grotesque to be sanctioned by the same population that are suppose to be the beneficiaries of torture. They are repulsed by the use of torture because of the terrible standard our use of it sets for our enemies to respond in kind on the sons and daughters we send to war.

These same people would have been repulsed by seeing the real time video of the victims leaping purposely from the burning buildings , yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My primary moral objection to the practice of torture is that it contradicts reciprocity.

You'll have to define "reciprocity" I believe it is probably an illegitimate, collectivist term. Probably an anti-concept designed to prevent morally and industrially superior nations from defending themselves.

If what you mean is that when a savage comes at me with a spear I should not shoot him with my gun, then obviously "reciprocity" is self-sacrificial.

If what you are talking about is some sort of "rule" of warfare, then this is not a moral objection, it is a political one. From what you write it seems you have no moral objection to torture. This for instance:

My objection to torture is that it's practiced in the shadows because it too grotesque to be sanctioned by the same population that are suppose to be the beneficiaries of torture.

implies that you would have no objection if we tortured people in public.

The only rule of warfare is that you must do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy. If you are not for doing whatever is necessary, then you are not for self-defense.

My position is that torture would not be necessary if we were willing to soundly, unequivocally and righteously destroy our enemies. If you are for the nuking of Tehran, then we can end this discussion here.

The justification for self-defense depends on a retaliatory use of physical force under objectively defined laws. Where are the laws that define the legitimate practice of torture?

No, you are confusing contexts. Objective law pertains to dealing with criminals who are subject to those laws. You might as well ask "where are the laws that define the legitimate use of bullets, bombs and atomic bombs in war?"

What is the effectiveness of torture in terms of how many are tortured without obtaining intelligence? Do we torture 5 to find the 1 who'll talk?? 10?? 50??

From what I understand only 3 people were ever waterboarded. If you are speaking about playing loud music, flushing a koran or showing cleavage to detainees, then you are not speaking of the "grotesque" practices that offend your sensibilities. So we now have your "100% efficacy", are you satisfied now?

There's plenty of statistical evidence on what bombs and bullets do. For example we know bombs and bullets create collateral damage. How much and how often is collateral damage is created by torture??

Yes collateral damage is inevitable in war, do you have a problem with it? Are you a pacifist? Or are you one of these libertarians who believe that people have the right to live under tyranny and thus we have no right to defend ourselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to define "reciprocity" I believe it is probably an illegitimate, collectivist term. Probably an anti-concept designed to prevent morally and industrially superior nations from defending themselves.

Are you saying that the executives of government A should not enter into agreements (treaties, protocols, etc.) with the executives of government B?

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Marc

"You'll have to define 'reciprocity'..."

The ethic of reciprocity (more familiar as the Golden Rule) has a long history and representations of it are common to most philosophies. Aristotle stated it as, "We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us." As it relates to this topic, torturers invite themselves to be tortured.

"implies that you would have no objection if we tortured people in public..."

No, it implies that those who gather intelligence are bound to operate according to the ethics of the population they serve. Doing whatever is necessary is a tyrants claim. Nuking an entire population to dispose of their political leadership is a madman's claim.

"No, you are confusing contexts..."

The laws that define the legitimate use of bullets, bombs and atomic bombs in war are quite well defined. For example ROE (Rules Of Engagement) cards are issued to military personnel prior to entering any conflict. If torture were as reliable as a bullet it could be objectively defined by law for use, but the only context in which torture is used and defended is in a lifeboat situation where anything goes and nothing is defined objectively.

"From what I understand only 3 people were ever waterboarded..."

From what I understand the current Secretary of Defense says torture isn't necessary, and not 1of 3 practitioners of torture could provide a simple "yes" to the question when asked, "are we less safe by not using torture?" Torture, the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something (definition by Google), yields mixed results according to what information is available, and is certainly nothing close to being nearly 100% efficient at producing results that justify the practice. So no, I'm not satisfied...

"Yes collateral damage is inevitable in war, do you have a problem with it?" - Yes

"Are you a pacifist?" - No

"Or are you one of these libertarians who believe that people have the right to live under tyranny and thus we have no right to defend ourselves?" - WTF?

If the best you can offer is a defense of torture as undefined by objective law to be practiced in lifeboat situations where anything goes in order to do whatever is necessary, we can leave it at that.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Marc

"You'll have to define 'reciprocity'..."

The ethic of reciprocity (more familiar as the Golden Rule) has a long history and representations of it are common to most philosophies. Aristotle stated it as, "We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us." As it relates to this topic, torturers invite themselves to be totured.

By this standard, policemen invite themselves to be put jail for locking up criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this standard, policemen invite themselves to be put jail for locking up criminals.

Certainly they do. Specifically, those who enforce the law are equally subject to the law, as numerous corrupt officers of the law have discovered. Justice requires ethical reciprocity because as Billy Jack stated, "When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law - just a fight for survival."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly they do. Specifically, those who enforce the law are equally subject to the law, as numerous corrupt officers of the law have discovered. Justice requires ethical reciprocity because as Billy Jack stated, "When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law - just a fight for survival."

The act of putting criminals in jail isn't what invites the policemen to be put in jail, it is being a criminal that does so.

The same is true for the officials conducting torture on terrorists. The act of implementing torture on terrorists isn't what invites officials to be tortured. It is being a terrorist that does so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The act of putting criminals in jail isn't what invites the policemen to be put in jail, it is being a criminal that does so.

Ethical expectation is what is being evaluated by ethical reciprocity. If one expects the law to be enforced, one subjects themselves to the enforcement of the law. So yeah, if one behaves like a criminal, one invites themselves to be treated like one, and if one practices torture, one invites the practice of torture on themselves.

The same is true for the officials conducting torture on terrorists. The act of implementing torture on terrorists isn't what invites officials to be tortured. It is being a terrorist that does so.

Not the same unless the practice of torture, unlike the enforcement of objectively defined law, responds to justice. At present criminals and terrorists are treated very differently.

Who determines who a terrorist is? What steps are taken to insure the innocent aren't taken as terrorists and tortured?? What record is kept for objective review that validates the practice of torture???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objection to torture is that it's practiced in the shadows because it too grotesque to be sanctioned by the same population that are suppose to be the beneficiaries of torture. They are repulsed by the use of torture because of the terrible standard our use of it sets for our enemies to respond in kind on the sons and daughters we send to war.

Then you don't have an objection to torture, because the notion that our enemies follow our standards is just arbitrary nonsense.

Ethical expectation is what is being evaluated by ethical reciprocity. If one expects the law to be enforced, one subjects themselves to the enforcement of the law. So yeah, if one behaves like a criminal, one invites themselves to be treated like one, and if one practices torture, one invites the practice of torture on themselves.

That makes no sense. I don't just mean logically. It makes no sense even by the standard of someone who doesn't care about logic, and just thinks by association. It's not even an association, it's just two random things that have zero connection or similarity to each other.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you don't have an objection to torture, because the notion that our enemies follow our standards is just arbitrary nonsense.

That makes no sense. I don't just mean logically. It makes no sense even by the standard of someone who doesn't care about logic, and just thinks by association. It's not even an association, it's just two random things that have zero connection or similarity to each other.

And yet according a statement made by one of the professional torturers, the fact that our own servicemen were subjected to torture was one of the reasons he was OK with practicing it... arbitrary nonsense indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethical expectation is what is being evaluated by ethical reciprocity. If one expects the law to be enforced, one subjects themselves to the enforcement of the law. So yeah, if one behaves like a criminal, one invites themselves to be treated like one, and if one practices torture, one invites the practice of torture on themselves.

This doesn't make any sense. They subject themselves to the law but not arbitrarily and not for those reasons. There are objective standards of being a criminal. So the fact that a police officer puts a murderer in jail doesn't subject him to the same treatment, unless he becomes a murderer.

The same is applied to the people who implement torture on terrorists.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't make any sense. They subject themselves to the law but not arbitrarily and not for those reasons. There are objective standards of being a criminal. So the fact that a police officer puts a murderer in jail doesn't subject him to the same treatment, unless he becomes a murderer.

The same is applied to the people who implement torture on terrorists.

I'm not sure we aren't going around in circles on this, so to clarify, my view is that in order to be consistent with ethical reciprocity (or justice), those who endorse the practice of torture shouldn't object to having it practiced on them.

You are correct in saying there are objective standards for being a criminal; they are defined in a legal code that can be reviewed by the population who benefit from having a legal system. My question to you is, what are the objective standards for being a terrorist? What are the methods used for torture, and where is the statistical record of their efficacy?

When a practitioner of the methods used to gather intelligence says he doesn't believe torture works (video link @ 08:30), why do you continue to endorse the practice. Where is your evidence that he is wrong and you are right??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what does this mean? You wouldn't want to be tortured so you don't torture? That is a moral standard?

Yes, it's that simple. Here's a link to a source that describes ethical reciprocity fairly well if you're interested: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ethic_of_reciprocity.html

Again, that is my primary objection, it is not my only objection...

"There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims." ~ ARL, Moral Judgement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we aren't going around in circles on this, so to clarify, my view is that in order to be consistent with ethical reciprocity (or justice), those who endorse the practice of torture shouldn't object to having it practiced on them.

Well, I suspect that they wouldn’t object to it, nor would they have to worry about it because they aren’t a terrorist.

You are correct in saying there are objective standards for being a criminal; they are defined in a legal code that can be reviewed by the population who benefit from having a legal system. My question to you is, what are the objective standards for being a terrorist? What are the methods used for torture, and where is the statistical record of their efficacy?

I can agree with you that there needs to be an objective standard for being a terrorist. Someone who leads or participates in an armed group that kills civilians or commit acts of terror as a means of political intimidation is a terrorist. I think torture should be used very seldom and only when it is certain the person in custody is a terrorist. An example would be if the US captured Anwar al-Awlaki and certified that it was him.

I am not here arguing for torture as the best method to obtain information, I am arguing that it is moral.

Yes, it's that simple. Here's a link to a source that describes ethical reciprocity fairly well if you're interested: http://www.princeton...eciprocity.html

Again, that is my primary objection, it is not my only objection...

"There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims." ~ ARL, Moral Judgement

That is a ridiculous, pacifist quote. The terrorists are not victims, just as murderers that are put in jail are not victims. Torturing is not a method of murder - it is a method of saving lives.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA's 'Clandestine Unit,' has become pretty popular with the release of his new book in 2012. I watched his interview on 60 minutes and he did an ok job, basically restating what was said in the cspan video that snerd posted. He reiterates that the courier wasn't given up by any of the detainees, but that they still got a lot of other useful information (what exactly? He doesn't specify). If I recall, the way the CIA got Bin Laden's courier was by intercepting a message that one detainee sent to another. Seems like that was the most crucial bit of information they got, and it wasn't produced using 'advanced interrogation techniques' of any kind. Here is a summary and (negative) review of the 60 minutes interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what does this mean? You wouldn't want to be tortured so you don't torture? That is a moral standard?

Yes, it's that simple.

Where does it end? Don't kill if you don't want to be killed? Don't send people to jail if you don't want to go to jail? Don't eat if you don't want to be eaten? Don't ask someone to leave your house if you don't want to be asked to leave your house?

Surely, you see how silly it is to just apply moral reciprocity as "don't X if you don't want to be X-ed", to any X you feel like. I mean, sure,with some X-es, it HAPPENS TO make sense, SOMETIMES.

i.e. Don't jail thieves if you don't want to be jailed for theft. Or don't torture terrorists if you don't want to be tortured for being a terrorist.

But the way you're applying it, it's just silly.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to define "reciprocity" I believe it is probably an illegitimate, collectivist term. Probably an anti-concept designed to prevent morally and industrially superior nations from defending themselves.

I have no idea what you are asking or how it relates to what I've written. Care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA's 'Clandestine Unit,' has become pretty popular with the release of his new book in 2012. I watched his interview on 60 minutes and he did an ok job, basically restating what was said in the cspan video that snerd posted. He reiterates that the courier wasn't given up by any of the detainees, but that they still got a lot of other useful information (what exactly? He doesn't specify). If I recall, the way the CIA got Bin Laden's courier was by intercepting a message that one detainee sent to another. Seems like that was the most crucial bit of information they got, and it wasn't produced using 'advanced interrogation techniques' of any kind. Here is a summary and (negative) review of the 60 minutes interview.

There's a lot of good information that's been posted, and hopefully those who advocate torture will review some of it. I recall in the cspan video that confirmation of the courier was obtained by listening in on detainee conversations when they believed they were having private conversations. Also, regarding the 'advanced interrogation techniques', apparently no information was actually gathered because no questions were asked that the interrogators didn't already know the answers to. When Jose Rodriguez says he doesn't believe torture works, you'd think some of its supporters would take that into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodriguez said that they used 'enhanced interrogation techniques' to break detainees (ie: to make them realize they weren't in control and make them pliable). He wrote in his book that, "The objective is to let him know there’s a new sheriff in town."

PS: In both vids and all the interviews I've read, Rodriguez rejects the idea that what the CIA did was 'torture,' and he rejects the idea that what they did do was valueless.

"Over the summer of 2002, when we knew we had to do something different to get information out of Abu Zubaydah, who had been captured a few months earlier, we worked with our lawyers to make sure that we came up with techniques that were within the law. These techniques were vetted with the Department of Justice and the White House—with the policy people and the leadership people at the White House. Then, on August 1, 2002, we received a binding legal opinion in writing from the Justice Department that said waterboarding and nine other techniques we wanted to implement were not torture. We then went to the White House and asked the N.S.C. to give us policy approval to proceed, and for the President to direct us to proceed. And they did. A month later, when the Congress came back to town, we briefed the leadership of the House and Senate committees on intelligence, both Democrats and Republicans. They had no objection."

"...But our waterboarding technique was different. It came from a U.S. program called S.E.R.E., a military training program, and under that program, tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen have been waterboarded."

"This is the same office that provided Obama with legal opinions on the use of Predator [drones] to target Americans. We at the C.I.A. did not have the luxury of shopping around for a legal opinion. We went to the Justice Department asked them, Is this legal? Can we do this? And they came back to us two months later and said, Yes it is. So we went with the opinion that we received. Had they said that we couldn’t do it, we would not have done it."

"Certainly, we felt that we had the legal backing, but we had no moral qualms about doing this, because it was very carefully administered and very carefully done."

"The three terrorists who were waterboarded, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, provided extraordinary amounts of very valuable intelligence after they became compliant. Abu Zubaydah, the first to be waterboarded, urged us to waterboard all of his colleagues because the experience would give them, in his view, religious justification for coöperating with us. We never put a bug in a box with Abu Zubaydah or anyone else—but if we had—that and the other techniques we were authorized to use were justified because they helped prevent another 9/11."

-NewYorker Interview

The information provided at the bottom of that interview is the most interesting. Apparently the final report by (IG?) denies almost everything Rodriguez said. "OIG’s review of the videotapes revealed that the waterboard technique employed at [REDACTED] was different from the technique as described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training." "Measuring the effectiveness of EITs, however, is a more subjective process and not without some concern."

Is this just a case of the government going back on its word after people started looking into the treatment of detainees? I don't remember anyone caring until those videos were leaked. Then everyone was like, 'Wait a second- how did we get that information? The CIA is doing what??'

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...