torture (of detained terrorists)

[DavidOdden]

In the broadest sense, I'm saying that anarcho-capitalism is the only moral base line assumptions that you can make when it comes to government.

....

However if you still don't understand the principles, I suggest you read my posts again - I don't feel like wasting time repeating myself.

I do understand the position you're advocating, I just wanted to be sure that I correctly identified what you were arguing for.

[mdegges]

If you do recognise that government has the right to use force to protect rights, then I don't see what objection is to compelling a terrorist to cough up the relevant facts, using force if necessary, in order to protect citizens against the initiation of force.

Can you torture in self-defense? No, torture is a deliberate planned action done for sadism or for extracting information. For the latter one it is notoriously unreliable even if we assume that you have strong evidence (which you don't or you wouldn't have to resort to something as crude as torture).

In its denial of the humanness of the person tortured, torture becomes unacceptable. That alone should make it unacceptable. Additionally, multiple evaluations have found it unreliable as a source of information, destructive of reputation of those using it, and demoralizing for the torturers. Jefferson's words stated "all men" not just our friends and citizens are endowed with inalienable rights. [Source]

Lots of good information here, but views remain mixed. I just read an article 'Ayn Rand on Torture' from ARIwatch, which poses an argument against torture (using Ayn Rand's articles) on the basis that it's savage and inhumane. The author concludes that "when you argue about what is 'good' or 'bad' torture, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of torture." I agree that torture is inhumane, but I haven't seen the following addressed: 1) is torture actually a successful method of getting information? what is the proof? 2) what do anti-torture activists propose instead of torture, to get reliable information from enemy combatants? are those methods successful? what is the proof?

Edited October 20, 2012 by mdegges

[triangleman]

Absolutely against it. It serves no function other than allowing our governments to use fabricated threats to enhance their own power and wealth in the exact same manner of Stalin and satiating a barbaric blood lust after the national humiliation of 9/11

[Hairnet]

To torture places one in the same moral status as the Royal Saudi regime, or even Saddam Hussein. We Anglos do not torture out of principle. We place people before a court of law and if found guilt of criminal activity they are formally punished. End of story. That's who we are.

Let's not second guess the Justice System. We may need it for ourselves yet.

Janet

This statement isn't really racist, but is an argument from tradition, and has nationalist overtones. The intellectual achievements of the british are immense, however that does not excuse us from thinking for ourselves. Strangely enough, a major british tradition is that of overturning old traditions with independent thought. So do that instead of claiming that we are some big group with a national identity.

@ OP

I expect our intelligence community and miiltary officers to handle prisoners professionally. This means having a reason for everything you do to them. Cutting on people or electrocuting them is not something that should be done under any normal circumstances (even during wartime). From what I understand skilled interrogators would not even rely on sadistic crap like that because it would not achieve anything.

Prisoners of war only have a few rights though. I am fine with sleep deprivation, controlled starvation, water boarding, threats, bribes, etc that has a reasonable chance of saving American lives.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Hairnet

[Nicky]

1) is torture actually a successful method of getting information? what is the proof?

People don't like pain. To avoid it, they often act against what would otherwise be their self interest or a goal they're pursuing. For instance, people will often stop a physical activity they wanted to perform, because of pain. They will often avoid going to the dentist because it hurts. There are other examples.

Those examples, all by themselves, are proof that SOMETIMES pain works as an incentive. While that does not prove that the widespread use of torture against terror suspects would be effective, it does prove something: from that statement it directly follows that the statement "Pain never works to induce a behavior." is false.

So, without any further research, just on the basis of this one obvious observation, people who claim that "torture cannot work, ever" can be dismissed.

Couple that with the fact that any force is justified against mass murderers, and it also follows that torture should not be completely eliminated as a tool to fight terrorist organizations. The only part of this that takes actual research and intellectual effort to determine is the extent to which torture works compared to other tactics, as well as the extent to which it is dangerous to trust governmental agencies today with the power to torture. Personally, I'm not informed enough to make a definitive judgment, but I am very much open to anti-torture arguments along both those lines. Especially the first. Regarding the second, I think it would still be possible, at least in the case of the American government, to create a system of oversight that would ensure that the power to torture proven terrorists would not be abused. But it would have to be done openly (meaning that Congress and the American people would have to be aware of the practice, and it would have to be prescribed by law, rather than the way it was done under Bush: allowed by virtue of the absence of any laws regarding torture).

[mdegges]

...from that statement it directly follows that the statement "Pain never works to induce a behavior." is false.

The question is, does pain produce the correct information? Or, a question that can actually be answered quantitatively is, how often has it produced the correct information? "...It's a compelling argument, until you start to look at the assumptions that you have to make to accept it. This argument assumes that you have the right person in custody, it assumes that this person actually has the information you need, it assumes that there isn't a better way of getting hold of the evidence, and above all it assumes that torture is an effective way of getting that information." [1]

[Nicky]

The question is, does pain produce the correct information?

Pain doesn't produce anything, except incentive for the subject to do whatever stops the pain (or, more realistically, the uncomfortable conditions, like loud music and lights that cause sleep deprivation ). When the information being asked for can be verified (for instance "where is your stash of bomb making material?"), then the subject only has two options: tell the truth or endure the pain. So, in that case, the pain is clearly an incentive to tell the truth.

When the information isn't immediately verifiable, then it takes some skill to create an incentive for the subject to tell the truth. Simply asking him the one question you want answered, and torturing him until he answers it, would be idiotic. A more effective strategy would be to devise a series of questions, most of them with an answer known to the interrogator, while at the same time making sure the subject is sleep deprived and dazed enough to not be able to figure out which ones are the trick questions. Add to that various techniques for detecting lies, and a skilled interrogator should be able to get the truth out of most of his subjects, and, more importantly, know whether he did get the truth or not in the overwhelming majority of the cases.

I suspect that is a method American interrogators have perfected to an art form by now. Of course, they aren't using "torture" in the sense the American government defines the term, but what they are using is still meant to cause discomfort and humiliation, just like physical torture. It works the same way and for the same reason.

This argument assumes that you have the right person in custody

Well yeah. If you don't have the right person in custody, then I'm definitely against torturing him. In that case, my advice would be to let him go.

This argument assumes that you have the right person in custody, it assumes that this person actually has the information you need, it assumes that there isn't a better way of getting hold of the evidence

Yes, the argument for torturing someone does assume that the subject is a terrorist who knows some information about his accomplices (i.e. the location of his cell, safehouse, equipment, target), and that there isn't a better way to get that information out of him.

As for how effective torture is, that depends on the circumstances. I don't know what circumstances intelligence agents tend to face, so I have no idea how effective it is on average, or how effective it is usually. But, like I explained above, one statement is pretty trivial to prove: "Sometimes, torture works.".

and above all it assumes that torture is an effective way of getting that information.

I would think your best bet of getting a terrorist to talk would be, by far, the credible threat of something bad happening to him. I seriously doubt that trying to talk sense into him, or to convert him, or to buy his cooperation with money, would work very often.

And that about exhausts all options. So the only question is, which bad thing would work, and which wouldn't?

Would the threat of sending him to a regular prison, where he's gonna watch TV and hang out with his friends all day for the next 20 years, work? I doubt it.

Would the threat of death work? No, because that's not a credible threat. It takes the US government decades to execute even the worst offenders. Besides, most of them don't mind dying.

That leaves some kind of discomfort, psychological or physical. Then there are three options: 1. causing little enough discomfort that it doesn't amount to torture - and expect the results that match the effort; 2. define the term torture around what we're doing, to make ourselves feel good (which, frankly, is what's going on); 3. acknowledge that torture is justified, and use it pretty much teh same way American investigators have been using it: keep it mostly psychological or at least subtle, to spare the sensitive stomach of the critics - i.e. sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc.

[Devil's Advocate]

Is torture a moral way to get information out of a terrorist?

No, because it violates moral reciprocity.

Is it moral for use only on known terrorists, or is it moral also on suspected terrorists as well?

It's neither moral or effective in any case.

-edit-

Here's an interesting perspective on the efficacy of torture > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303_2.html

In consideration of the morality of torture, ask yourself what standard of behavior it establishes between yourself and your adversaries, and why torture isn't promoted as a virtue. On the presumption that one is using torture to gather information, one must first reconcile the issue of justifying torture to extract ambiguous information. The observation that torture may yield some useful information certainly doesn't justify it being used to extract bad information, or information one can only verify after the act of gathering it.

The fact is, torture isn't about information... it's about vengeance, and makes those who practice it vigilantes. A just and rational approach to gathering information doesn't require maiming or killing the source of it to obtain uncertain results.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Nicky]

I'd like to submit the movie Zero Dark Thirty as evidence. The makers had privileged access to insider information and government personnel, and the movie makes a couple of striking claims regarding the subject of the US detainee interrogation program:

1. It is claimed, in rather dramatic fashion, that the detainee interrogation program was by far the main source of information regarding terror groups and specific terrorist plans. It is suggested (directly) that this program has been entirely shuttered after 2008. It is implied that this was due to President Obama's decision to stop the torture and rough treatment of enemy combatants.

2. It is claimed that there was a single link to the house UBL was living in: a courier through which Bin Laden was communicating with the rest of his network. It is also claimed that the existence of this high level courier was both discovered and confirmed through only one means: the interrogation (and often torture) of captured terrorists, both by the CIA directly and by the intelligence services of US allied nations, in secret prisons around the world.

[Devil's Advocate]

Obama deserves credit for ending the dubious practice of extreme rendition. If he ends the war on drugs I may become a democrat.

[Nicky]

Obama deserves credit for ending the dubious practice of extreme rendition. If he ends the war on drugs I may become a democrat.

If what the movie claims is true, then you may become the victim of a terrorist attack, instead. And it's called extraordinary rendition.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

If what the movie claims is true, then you may become the victim of a terrorist attack, instead. And it's called extraordinary rendition.

If/thens that lead to maybes are rationalizations in lieu of more persuasive arguments. And it's also called irregular rendition, but torture by any other name is just as reprehensible.

[Tsiklon]

What I've always wondered is why many of those who approve the use of torture to extract information from enemy combatants and terrorists think that it's wrong to use torture as a punishment against domestic criminals who have committed heinous, violent crimes.

[ruveyn1]

What I've always wondered is why many of those who approve the use of torture to extract information from enemy combatants and terrorists think that it's wrong to use torture as a punishment against domestic criminals who have committed heinous, violent crimes.

The torture is not punishment. It is a way of extracting information. In the United States there is a constitutional law against cruel and unusual punishment. In a word, it is illegal for the government to use torture as a punishment for crimes. We can kill capital offenders but we cannot turn them on a spit and roast them over a fire.

ruveyn1

[Nicky]

If/thens that lead to maybes are rationalizations in lieu of more persuasive arguments.

You just made that up, didn't you?

[Devil's Advocate]

I'd like to submit the movie Zero Dark Thirty as evidence. The makers had privileged access to insider information and government personnel, and the movie makes a couple of striking claims regarding the subject of the US detainee interrogation program:

1. It is claimed, in rather dramatic fashion, that the detainee interrogation program was by far the main source of information regarding terror groups and specific terrorist plans. It is suggested (directly) that this program has been entirely shuttered after 2008. It is implied that this was due to President Obama's decision to stop the torture and rough treatment of enemy combatants.

2. It is claimed that there was a single link to the house UBL was living in: a courier through which Bin Laden was communicating with the rest of his network. It is also claimed that the existence of this high level courier was both discovered and confirmed through only one means: the interrogation (and often torture) of captured terrorists, both by the CIA directly and by the intelligence services of US allied nations, in secret prisons around the world.

In today's Meet the Press interview (2/3/13), Leon Panetta was asked specifically about the use of torture in the gathering of intelligence that led to the location and capture of Bin Laden. He responded by describing the use of torture was consistent with the methods used at that time, and small compared to the overall methods used to gather intelligence. He added that he believed the capture of Bin Laden could have been accomplished without any use of torture.

note: his statement dismissing the use of torture followed the end of this video clip.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[softwareNerd]

He added that he believed the capture of Bin Laden could have been accomplished without any use of torture.

For the viewpoint of the guys who were running the CIA at the time, check out this C-SPAN video.

[ruveyn1]

The problem with torture is that one may only get the answers one wants to hear, as opposed to the truth of the matter.

ruveyn1

[Devil's Advocate]

For the viewpoint of the guys who were running the CIA at the time, check out this C-SPAN video.

Thanks for adding this link, although I was disappointed that the question asked (about 51min), "Are we less safe today since the program (torture) was curtailed?", went unanswered. There was also a point when one of the panelists mentioned receiving a 15 minute supportive evaluation of the ethics and morality of the program, but failed to reveal any of that argument. I was left understanding that the practitioners of torture at that time believed it worked, but that it was justified primarily because it wasn't illegal. That a brutality like torture occasionally works remains a weak justification for its use, and responds more to the efficacy of a broken clock. Anything less than 100% efficacy means that some are being tortured without result, and I suspect that many is a more accurate term than some.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[mdegges]

Thanks for adding this link, although I was disappointed that the question asked (about 51min), "Are we less safe today since the program (torture) was curtailed?", went unanswered. There was also a point when one of the panelists mentioned receiving a 15 minute supportive evaluation of the ethics and morality of the program, but failed to reveal any of that argument. I was left understanding that the practitioners of torture at that time believed it worked, but that it was justified primarily because it wasn't illegal.

To your first point, the question didn't go entirely unanswered. Each panelist just had a different answer. The leader (of the NAS, I believe) said something along the lines of 'I was notified 12 hours before the executive order was made to disband the advanced interrogation unit. I suggested that we at least keep the idea on the table so that if something major happens again (like 9/11), we'll have the option to continue using our techniques. That suggestion was ignored. Now there's so many political barriers up that it's probably never going to be available if we need it again.' And I think it was Rodriguez (? not totally sure, I watched it really late last night) who said, 'Since the unit was closed down, we've only captured one person' (as in- one little peanut). Also, every panelist showed disdain for some paper that was written over the course of 3 years that concluded the advanced interrogation techniques were completely useless. (This paper was written without the authors even talking to CIA members who were involved in the unit). To which the leader responded, 'If all of the information we gathered is so useless, why don't we just throw everything away?' Every panelist recognized that the information they gained had a tremendous amount of value. But I think they also understood that times have changed. Right after 9/11 people criticized them for not 'doing enough', but once they did, they were criticized for 'doing too much.'

As for your second point, I agree- I would have liked to hear more about that 15 minute conversation. But Rodriguez did say that their goal was to save lives and prevent another catastrophe like 9/11.. and in his opinion, the techniques they used were necessary and well worth the end result.

[Devil's Advocate]

To your first point, the question didn't go entirely unanswered. Each panelist just had a different answer. The leader (of the NAS, I believe) said something along the lines of 'I was notified 12 hours before the executive order was made to disband the advanced interrogation unit. I suggested that we at least keep the idea on the table so that if something major happens again (like 9/11), we'll have the option to continue using our techniques. That suggestion was ignored. Now there's so many political barriers up that it's probably never going to be available if we need it again.' And I think it was Rodriguez (? not totally sure, I watched it really late last night) who said, 'Since the unit was closed down, we've only captured one person' (as in- one little peanut). Also, every panelist showed disdain for some paper that was written over the course of 3 years that concluded the advanced interrogation techniques were completely useless. (This paper was written without the authors even talking to CIA members who were involved in the unit). To which the leader responded, 'If all of the information we gathered is so useless, why don't we just throw everything away?' Every panelist recognized that the information they gained had a tremendous amount of value. But I think they also understood that times have changed. Right after 9/11 people criticized them for not 'doing enough', but once they did, they were criticized for 'doing too much.'

No panelist answered, "Yes", and Rodziquez's statement about one person is hard to evaluate without knowing what the capture rate was while the unit was in force. What I heard was a lot of justifications being forwarded by the practitioners of torture, without any positive statements indicating that torture was either 100% effective, or entirely responsible for any capture. For me the supposed benefit of torture producing a result is negated by any number of supposed "suspects" being tortured without any result.

As for your second point, I agree- I would have liked to hear more about that 15 minute conversation. But Rodriguez did say that their goal was to save lives and prevent another catastrophe like 9/11.. and in his opinion, the techniques they used were necessary and well worth the end result.

I accept the opinion of a torturer justifying their actions to be necessary and worth the effort as a given; what else would he say?? What I have trouble with, is sanctioning the practice of torture outside the scope of a lifeboat where anything goes, and I don't accept that torture is justifiable as an act of desperation intended to do whatever it takes to produce information in order to avoid being accused of not doing enough.

[Nicky]

The problem with torture is that one may only get the answers one wants to hear, as opposed to the truth of the matter.

ruveyn1

You should read the thread. That simplistic argument has been addressed.

[Marc K.]

That a brutality like torture occasionally works remains a weak justification for its use, and responds more to the efficacy of a broken clock.

The justification for torture is self-defense. Are you against that?

Anything less than 100% efficacy means that some are being tortured without result, and I suspect that many is a more accurate term than some.

100% efficacy? I have no idea what this means. There is not 100% efficacy in the use of bombs or bullets so should we outlaw their use also?

I guess it also means that you have no moral objection to torture, right? If it was 100% efficacious then it would be alright to use it, right?

[Devil's Advocate]

The justification for torture is self-defense. Are you against that?

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?

100% efficacy? I have no idea what this means. There is not 100% efficacy in the use of bombs or bullets so should we outlaw their use also?

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??

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??

I guess it also means that you have no moral objection to torture, right? If it was 100% efficacious then it would be alright to use it, right?

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.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

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

Edited February 5, 2013 by Devil's Advocate