International laws against torture

Ethics
1

Here’s something I was thinking about this morning regarding the Geneva Conventions, in particular the part which forbids torturing prisoners of war, and whether or not the U.S. government is morally required to follow these laws.

 

I concluded that they are, for the following reasons. First, while it may be immoral to show mercy to someone who has committed an offense (I personally find the idea of forgiving any violation of rights at the expense of the victim completely abhorrent) it is also immoral to show unnecessary cruelty to an enemy, since this violates the principle of benevolence. Therefore, torture would only be morally justified if it served a purpose in terms of destroying an enemy (Specifically by producing useful information to bring them to justice) and I do not believe that torture does produce any useful information. I think that victims are much more likely to lie in order to end the torture (Especially if they’re being brutalized in order to extract information which does not exist) and the result of this is an act of extreme cruelty which yields no useful result.

 

It is also, in general, morally justifiable for the international community to establish rules to restrain the warmaking powers of states, and prevent unnecessary atrocities during the course of a war. (For instance, even if you believe that we would be morally justified in bombing a city in Iran if we were fighting a war in self-defense, it would still be immoral to do so if it served no strategic purpose.) And, if torture falls into this category, then it should be outlawed.

 

In addition, the U.S. government has voluntarily signed the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture, and the Constitution requires the government to follow our treaties. So by torturing prisoners of war, the government is violating proper restraints placed upon it, and threatening the liberty of all its citizens. (Especially since the basis the government uses to justify torture blurs the line between prisoners of war and civilians accused of a crime.)

2

Not being familiar with the text of treaty , my first thought on the torture aspect is that the US has established civilian control over our military , and the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, so signing an international treaty that agrees in that effect would be symbolic in nature.

What does restraining a state’s warmaking powers mean or look like? And other than a threat of war how is it enforced ?

It would certainly be moral for the government of US to sign agreements with other sovereign nations that are founded on like principles of individual rights protection, but signing agreements for the sake of not being accused of not signing them isn’t a principled stand worth a moral judgement.

3

and I do not believe that torture does produce any useful information. I think that victims are much more likely to lie in order to end the torture

You’re oversimplifying the job interrogators do. It in fact does not consist of asking questions and believing the answers. There is a long list of methods interrogators use to establish the honesty of subjects, and the truth value of the information they provide. 

 

It makes no difference what the incentive to talk is (the promise of a shorter sentence, better living conditions, the threat of severe punishment or torture, etc.), the only useful information produced through interrogation is verifiable information. No one in their right mind would ever trust a captured enemy to tell the truth about something that can’t be verified.

4

Not being familiar with the text of treaty , my first thought on the torture aspect is that the US has established civilian control over our military , and the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, so signing an international treaty that agrees in that effect would be symbolic in nature.

The Bill of Rights was not intended as a recipe for tactics to be used or not used in war. Obviously. If it was, the US military would also be in violation of the Constitution whenever they enter a house without a warrant in Fallujah, whenever they disarm an enemy soldier, whenever they search someone at a roadblock in Baghdad, etc., etc. 

 

The Bill of Rights refers strictly to the rights of persons within the US, and even then, only when the writ of habeas corpus isn’t suspended by Congress and the President.

 

Besides, the word “punishment” has a pretty unambiguous meaning, and it’s not what you’re implying it is.

In addition, the U.S. government has voluntarily signed the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture, and the Constitution requires the government to follow our treaties. So by torturing prisoners of war, the government is violating proper restraints placed upon it, and threatening the liberty of all its citizens. (Especially since the basis the government uses to justify torture blurs the line between prisoners of war and civilians accused of a crime.)

The Geneva Conventions protect POWs and non-combatants. The argument that members of terrorist groups which aim to murder civilians belong in a third category has its merits. 

 

If the Geneva Conventions were intended to protect such people (or indeed all persons in the custody of a signatory state), they would’ve stated just that. Saying that “everybody is protected” would’ve taken a lot fewer words than the wording which was chosen.

5

The Bill of Rights was not intended as a recipe for tactics to be used or not used in war. Obviously. If it was, the US military would also be in violation of the Constitution whenever they enter a house without a warrant in Fallujah, whenever they disarm an enemy soldier, whenever they search someone at a roadblock in Baghdad, etc., etc. 

 

The Bill of Rights refers strictly to the rights of persons within the US, and even then, only when the writ of habeas corpus isn’t suspended by Congress and the President.

 

Besides, the word “punishment” has a pretty unambiguous meaning, and it’s not what you’re implying it is.

The Geneva Conventions protect POWs and non-combatants. The argument that members of terrorist groups which aim to murder civilians belong in a third category has its merits. 

 

If the Geneva Conventions were intended to protect such people (or indeed all persons in the custody of a signatory state), they would’ve stated just that. Saying that “everybody is protected” would’ve taken a lot fewer words than the wording which was chosen.

What I was implying was in answer to the morality of the signing and what that would say as to our nation’s position on torture. The main implication being that human rights protection is a founding principle the Constitution adheres to and given the civilian control over the military ,signing a document that pledges to abstain from tortue would be little more than symbolic, no?

Add to that the idea of argreeing to 'rules of war ’ in the first place. Are you implying signing would obligate other nations to some standard of moral reciprocity where by they would not torture our POW’s but only if we sign?

6

What I was implying was in answer to the morality of the signing and what that would say as to our nation’s position on torture. The main implication being that human rights protection is a founding principle the Constitution adheres to and given the civilian control over the military ,signing a document that pledges to abstain from tortue would be little more than symbolic, no?

Add to that the idea of argreeing to 'rules of war ’ in the first place. Are you implying signing would obligate other nations to some standard of moral reciprocity where by they would not torture our POW’s but only if we sign?

The only thing I’m implying is what I said: that neither the US Constitution, nor the Geneva Conventions, prohibit the use of torture for the purpose of gathering information about terrorist acts from the members of international terrorist groups.

7

 

What does restraining a state’s warmaking powers mean or look like? And other than a threat of war how is it enforced ?

 

I think it would be based on the threat of prosecution of the leaders of the nation for war crimes, which, ideally, would happen with the voluntary compliance of the nation’s people. Whether or not the international community is justified in going to war over a violation of the rules of warfare is a moral issue which I would like to consider more fully before giving a complete reply.

 

 

You’re oversimplifying the job interrogators do. It in fact does not consist of asking questions and believing the answers. … It makes no difference what the incentive to talk is (the promise of a shorter sentence, better living conditions, the threat of severe punishment or torture, etc.), the only useful information produced through interrogation is verifiable information.

 

I suppose that is worth considering. Maybe the threat of torture could provide an incentive for enemy captives to cooperate. It still seems a bit barbaric, but I suppose it might be justified in a legitimate war of self-defense.

 

On the other hand, I have talked to one guy who fought in the war in Vietnam, and he and fellow soldiers were specifically instructed NOT to use torture, because the information they obtained would be unreliable. Also, the information obtained by torturing prisoners at Guantanimo has not been reliable. It’s how we got the story about WMD’s in Iraq, which led to an unnecessary decade-long war which wasted military resources, destroyed an entire country, and installed a radical Islamist government with ties to Iran. I also do not believe, based on the sources I have heard, that information obtained through torture served any useful purpose in finding Bin Laden.

 

 

The argument that members of terrorist groups which aim to murder civilians belong in a third category has its merits.

 

The problem is that this creates a separate legal category which allows individuals to be classed alongside military combatants for what were previously criminal acts, and removes any protections based on due process. And this is the real threat that torture poses, because if one person’s rights can be taken away, and it’s legal to torture them, then the government could make a law allowing any one of us to be arrested and tortured at the whim of the authorities. (And we’re currently moving closer to this sort of system with laws like the NDAA.)

 

 

If the Geneva Conventions were intended to protect such people (or indeed all persons in the custody of a signatory state), they would’ve stated just that. Saying that “everybody is protected” would’ve taken a lot fewer words than the wording which was chosen.

 

If that type of wording had been used, then it would have interfered with a nation’s own legal system for civilian crimes. Plus I think the Geneva Conventions do say that civilians captured during wartime have the same right to due process as accused criminals in the nation holding them captive.

8

Another question for Nicky: If we the Geneva Conventions were rescinded, and were subsequently attacked by an enemy nation, would we be justified in using torture? If so, do you believe that it was morally right for us to sign the Geneva Conventions, and if not, how are terrorist groups any different?

9

On the other hand, I have talked to one guy who fought in the war in Vietnam, and he and fellow soldiers were specifically instructed NOT to use torture, because the information they obtained would be unreliable.

Like I said: trained interrogators and intelligence analysts can verify information, rather than take a prisoner’s word for it. I assume the guy you talked to and his fellow soldiers were neither of those things. They probably had no business even being in the war, let alone interrogating prisoners.

Also, the information obtained by torturing prisoners at Guantanimo has not been reliable. It’s how we got the story about WMD’s in Iraq, which led to an unnecessary decade-long war which wasted military resources, destroyed an entire country, and installed a radical Islamist government with ties to Iran. I also do not believe, based on the sources I have heard, that information obtained through torture served any useful purpose in finding Bin Laden.

I doubt that’s true.

The problem is that this creates a separate legal category which allows individuals to be classed alongside military combatants for what were previously criminal acts, and removes any protections based on due process. And this is the real threat that torture poses, because if one person’s rights can be taken away, and it’s legal to torture them, then the government could make a law allowing any one of us to be arrested and tortured at the whim of the authorities. (And we’re currently moving closer to this sort of system with laws like the NDAA.)

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

Another question for Nicky: If we the Geneva Conventions were rescinded, and were subsequently attacked by an enemy nation, would we be justified in using torture? If so, do you believe that it was morally right for us to sign the Geneva Conventions, and if not, how are terrorist groups any different?

Yes, and no (trusting nations we’re willing to go to war with to abide by a convention is idiotic, as evidenced by the fact that not a single one of them did, since the Geneva Conventions were adopted).

I’ve already explained how the legal status of Islamic terror groups differs from that of soldiers in any nation. I’m not going to explain how their moral status differs, because it’s obvious.

10

 

Like I said: trained interrogators and intelligence analysts can verify information, rather than take a prisoner’s word for it.

 

How would they verify it? And if it turns out to be false, and you then torture the prisoner, how is that likely to lead to useful intelligence?

 

 

 

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

 

I didn’t use a slippery slope argument. Under criminal law, everyone has a right to due process. On the battlefield, anyone captured is assumed to be an enemy, so the rules are different. But, this only applies when we’re at war with an enemy nation. What the designation of terrorists as a third category does is create a category which simultaneously invokes criminal law to justify apprehending terrorists anywhere on the planet, regardless of whether or not we’re at war, but removes the due process protections granted under criminal law. If they decide that you or I are terrorists, then, according to this position, we can be thrown in a prison camp and tortured – and, as I mentioned, the NDAA makes this easier.

 

 

I’ve already explained how the legal status of Islamic terror groups differs from that of soldiers in any nation.

 

I do not see where you have explained this, aside from an assertion based on your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

 

 

I’m not going to explain how their moral status differs, because it’s obvious.

 

The only difference in moral status which I can see is that a terrorist is not attached to any national military force, and could therefore be considered a private criminal. But under this position, they should have a right to due process in a criminal court.

11

How would they verify it?

T

he list of methods for verifying information is long, but a couple of items that come to mind are using multiple sources and lie detectors. There are many others.

I didn’t use a slippery slope argument.

I’m 100% confident that you did.

The only difference in moral status which I can see is that a terrorist is not attached to any national military force, and could therefore be considered a private criminal.

Sounds like we can’t even get on the same page on what we mean by the words “moral” and “legal”.