Torture

[billroper]

I was unaware that this was LJ Blog Against Torture Day until catalana posted on the subject. So let me produce the concrete example to go with the philosophical one:

I don't much like torture. In general, it's on my list of bad things, but I must admit that there are borderline cases where I consider it justified, such as the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. It was apparently quick, effective, and produced actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda shortly after 9/11 while not permanently harming him.

Was it torture? I suppose that depends on your definition. It was certainly very unpleasant for him and there are many people who would say it was definitely torture.

But I think that they did the right thing on that day under those circumstances.

I have been thoroughly unimpressed with some of the posturing that has occurred on the subject of torture in the U.S. Congress, including legislators who have said that they want to pass a comprehensive law against torture that they expect the President to violate should he ever find himself confronting the infamous "ticking bomb" scenario. Excuse me, but what a crock! If you think it should be illegal, if you want to make sure that your hands are clean, then vote it out that way.

And if you think that the President should have the authority to "torture" when he thinks it absolutely necessary, then write that into the law and take your share of the blame for giving him permission to do so, even if you require him to submit a report back to the Intelligence Committees of both Houses when he does so.

Accountability is one thing. Saying "We expect you to break the law" is bullshit.

Leaving the concrete example and going off into science fiction for a moment, I wonder what people would think if we actually had a mindripper -- a device that would allow you to know with absolute certainty that bit of information that you need to get from your prisoner, including whether he had the information or not. And the harder he tried to prevent the mindripper from getting the information, the more it would hurt, but if the information wasn't there, it wouldn't hurt at all. In any case, there'd be no permanent damage done.

I wonder if that's torture.

Comments

[maiac.livejournal.com]

" It was apparently quick, effective, and produced actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda shortly after 9/11 while not permanently harming him."

The Bush Administration claims it produced actionable intelligence that justified its use, but why should we believe them? They've lied about so many other things, they have no credibility.

From a moral standpoint, torture is wrong.

From a pragmatic standpoint, torture is ineffective. All the hypothetical cases all the defenders of torture can devise cannot countermand the real-world evidence that torture induces the victim to say things because they're what the torturer wants to hear, not because they're the truth.

From a political standpoint, torture is counterproductive. Using it damages our own moral standing, our credibility, our influence so much that it does us far more harm than any "ticking bomb scenario" might.

There is no reason to use it, and every reason not to. Here's one more reason besides those I gave above: We, the American people, are not torturers. What our government does, it does in our name. I refuse to be corrupted. That is all.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in torture. Period. It's cruel, it doesn't get good results, and it gives our enemies license to do the same. These Jack Bauer gotta-save-the-world-in-44-minutes-plus-commercials postulations we've had thrown at us are bull. More to the point, they're scripted.

Waterboarding is torture. Rather than have any sort of permission to do it, Bush should, in my opinion, be dragged before the Hague as a war criminal because of it.

Re: your example -- besides being pretty horrific, because it boils down to, "Hey, it's the guy's own fault if it hurts" -- I will postulate for you a different sort of ripper: a clothesripper. One by one, they can shred layers of clothing off you. And the harder your struggle to stay clothed, the more dramatically the clothing is ripped from you. No permanent damage done.

I wonder who might consider that torture.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

How about an offripper? Systematically parodies all your songs. The harder you try to come up with more original material, the more parodies it produces.

Okay, not even remotely torture, but it's after midnight over here, so I figure I'm off the hook. Erm, as it were.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I thought we already had one of those? It's called a Kanefsky?

[catalana.livejournal.com]

It would depend on the circumstances. I could think of some very fun uses for that...*grin*

(My point being, of course, that devices are not themselves good or evil; it's all in the uses you put them to.)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Oh, I thought of at least three good stories I could write using the concept as I was composing that. ;) But, yeah, as you say. For our purposes, I was envisioning something and someone, say, in line at the airport security checkpoint. Or even in a private room near there.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

And the harder your struggle to stay clothed, the more dramatically the clothing is ripped from you. No permanent damage done.

I wonder who might consider that torture.

That depends...is this my Capricon hoodie we're talking about? Yes, that's torture!
The pink pantsuit my mother in law got me? No, no, not so much.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

I expect the Bush administration to violate the law too. They'll do what they want to regardless of what the law says; they've proven that before. Personally I think the ticking bomb scenario is BS. I also tend to believe the people who actually know about these things; several former agents who were involved say that torture is essentially useless and the vast majority of information gotten that way is false and worse than useless since it sends agents on goose chases.

Even if there are scenarios that torture should be use (which I am not saying), the problem is that it's pretty clear from U.S. actions in the last decade that once the line is crossed, it seems that it essentially disappears and torture becomes the default treatment.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

I would argue with the "not permanently harming him" statement as well. I've read accounts written by people who have been waterboarded. One guy said that if he were given a choice of being waterboarded or having his fingers and hands methodically smashed with the hammer, he'd take the hammer without hesitation. Waterboarding is convenient because it's unprovable; it doesn't leave a physical mark.

[(Anonymous)]

Was it torture? I suppose that depends on your definition. It was certainly very unpleasant for him and there are many people who would say it was definitely torture.

A U.S. law enacted in 1994 defines torture as an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

How can it be hard to understand what is torture?

[maiac.livejournal.com]

The question I want every person who defends the use of torture, even those who limit its use to "ticking bomb scenarios": In cases where you believe it is justifiable because it is necessary, will you perform the torture yourself?

[billroper]

I concluded a while back that if I had a choice between waterboarding someone (in this case, a kidnapper) and seeing Gretchen or Katie die, that I'd waterboard the bastard. So, yes, I'd do that.

I've also seen posited a case where you would have to torture the kidnapper's innocent child to get the kidnapper to talk. And I couldn't do that.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

In equivalent circumstances I would do the same. I would then expect to have to justify myself in court to see if a jury of my peers thought what I had done was justifiable.

All forms of torture should be illegal. All individuals who question prisoners should know that torture is illegal and that they will be prosecuted if they break the law. Then a jury gets to decide if the actions taken can be justified.

[weirdsister.livejournal.com]

Bill, thank you for being brave enough to share your views. I couldn't agree more.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

But Roper, you haven't really answered the question. You've answered a different question, which is would you, yourself, torture someone in order to save your life or the lives of your family. That puts it in the context of self-defense, not policy.

Would you , youself, torture someone, who you think, but don't know, to have information in order to get that information for the "general good" in a "ticking bomb" situation? A bomb that will not touch you or your family.

Any hesitation is an indication that at some point, you find torture immoral. (Which, I think you do, by the way.) So, how much sliding do you, personally, allow yourself before you are reaching the stages of denial?

[billroper]

min0taur gave a much better answer to this question elsewhere than I am about to give here.

I do not want that job. There is a psychic price that you pay for causing pain to another person and that is a check I do not want to write. But there is also a psychic price to pay for knowing that it was within my power to stop something terrible from happening and that I stood back, because I didn't want to write the other check.

Both actions that I might take -- because refusing to act is an action as well -- are immoral in some sense. And I do not want to have to make that decision. But if I had to, then I would, based on the best data that I had available at the time. And I would hope that I would end up being able to live with the results.

I am very happy that it is not my job to make that decision. I would apparently make a lousy President.

I would have made a lousy soldier too.

[carolf.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too. I can understand people joining the military. I've never understood how anyone can *want* the job of president!

I think what maiac and others are saying is that they feel that what the president decides *on their behalf* implicates them in the moral question. So, whether they wanted to be in that situation or not, they are in it by extension. I confess I lean in this direction, as well.

It's what lends all the heat to this.

So, go hug Katie. Kiss Gretchen. (hugs)

[maiac.livejournal.com]

That's a very specific hypothetical case, and belongs under the category of "defending my family", not "National Security". Would you torture someone because a government official told you that person had information that could prevent a terrorist attack?

[billroper]

See my reply to carolf upthread...

Waterboarding in WWII

[wick-deer.livejournal.com]

In WWII, at least one Japanese officer waterboarded American prisoners as an interrogation technique.

He was prosecuted for war crimes and sentence to 15 years.

Given that historical record, trying to sell waterboarding as "not torture" is difficult to do with a straight face.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"Saying "We expect you to break the law" is bullshit."

Not at all. In the real world, all sorts of situations arise in which we expect people to break the law. (e.g. You're lost in a blizzard and you stumble across an empty locked cabin that doesn't belong to you. You are physically able to break in, but not permitted to do so.) We don't clutter up the law books with every "well, breaking and entering is OK in this, that, and the other situation" that somebody can possibly think of; instead, we expect that someone who thinks that he's in a situation that justifies breaking the law will do so, and face the consequences later.

That puts the ball back in the court of people who raise the ticking bomb scenario. Someone who asserts that the emergency justifies the crime isn't actually prevented from committing the crime, He just has to accept that it might result in doing the time. By definition, that price is acceptable if he's sincere in his asserted belief.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

I agree. Part of the problem with rule utilitarianism is that there are circumstances under which we actually do expect you to break almost all rules; it's pretty much impossible to come up with a rule which admits of no exceptions. It might make a difference, however, whether those exceptions are foreseen or not. It might be less of a problem to pass a law not realizing there are exceptions than setting out and passing a law knowing that, in fact, there are cases you know that you don't want it to apply.

I'm not sure - this is just a thought. I've been puzzling over this (although not in this context) on and off for the last 3 years of teaching utilitarianism.

[samwinolj.livejournal.com]

Allowing torture, even in extraordinary circumstances, crosses a line we should not cross. Once we allow it for any reason--a ticking bomb, a kidnapped child, whatever--that line gets a little blurrier, and it starts to move. Sooner or later, it will move into areas that now seem unthinkable.

This is inevitable, if a tool is available, it gets used--look at how RICO has been used against people who are in no way, shape, or form gangsters. Elliot Spitzer, a hypocrite of the first water, but certainly no terrorist, was brought to the attention of the authorities by the financial surveillance his bank was required to do by the Patriot Act. Allowing torture makes us all less safe, not more safe; no terrorist, not even Osama with a nuke, can do as much damage as an out-of-control government.

Once upon a time, we were brave enough to face the dangers of the world without sanctioning torture. We kicked Hitler's ass and we made the Soviet Union blink without it, we don't need torture to beat a despicable little gang of thugs like Al Qaeda.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

"Once we allow it for any reason--a ticking bomb, a kidnapped child, whatever--that line gets a little blurrier, and it starts to move. Sooner or later, it will move into areas that now seem unthinkable."

This is why I say that one reason to prohibit torture absolutely, no exceptions, is that anyone who would permit it cannot be trusted to decide, objectively and honestly and with skepticism about their own beliefs, that a situation justifies using torture.

[billroper]

Sam, we chatted briefly after the WindyCon meeting, so you've heard this, but...

Yes, we kicked Hitler's ass, but in the process we bombed the hell out of Dresden, and Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and threw our own Japanese citizens into internment camps, any of which might be arguably worse than torture. And we made the Soviet Union blink as we mutually threatened mass civilian deaths and -- to be honest -- I don't know how many spies were tortured by our side or the other in either of those conflicts.

You told me that you would rather the law be silent on the subject of torture than to say it's ok under some circumstances. And I agree with that.

[samwinolj.livejournal.com]

Here's why I think it's so dangerous to allow torture under any circumstances: earlier in the comment section, you proclaimed that you would waterboard a kidnapper if it meant saving Gretchen or Katie. The thing is--under those circumstances--I would hold the sonovabitch down for you.

Yeah, that makes me a hypocrite. It also, I think, makes me human.

Going for the easy answer is too damned seductive--allow it, and I guarantee that the restrictions on its use will become looser and looser, until it gets used for things that neither of us, today, would countenance.

I'd rather it stay illegal; I'd rather have to explain myself after the fact to a judge and 12 of my peers, than allow torture to become the norm.

Some years ago there was a story in Analog

[capplor.livejournal.com]

called, "The Melancholy Torturer". I think it was in the 1980s, which is when I had a regular subscription. I highly recommend it.

[mstrhypno.livejournal.com]

After WWII the US ECECUTED 8 Japanese officers for waterboarding US servicemen.

I believe that sets what's known as a legal precedent regarding this heinous practice.

Also, according to some of the reports that have come out about Khalid Sheik Muhammed, some of the interrogators have stated that they believed that he would have rolled over very shortly, without the waterboarding, anyway. Like most bullies, he lacked the guts to put up much of a fight, evidently. (sources: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Washington Post)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think I've made my position clear elsewhere and I accept that you are a person of goodwill who disagrees with me somewhat (though I don't trust the Bush administration to tell the truth or make good decisions anywhere near as much as you seem to, but that's another issue too). On to the hypothetical scenario!

Leaving the concrete example and going off into science fiction for a moment, I wonder what people would think if we actually had a mindripper -- a device that would allow you to know with absolute certainty that bit of information that you need to get from your prisoner, including whether he had the information or not. And the harder he tried to prevent the mindripper from getting the information, the more it would hurt, but if the information wasn't there, it wouldn't hurt at all. In any case, there'd be no permanent damage done.

I had to think about this for a day or two. If someone wanted to find daisy_knotwise in order to murder her, and was using the device on you to learn her location, hell yes, that's torture! And if it's torture to use it on a resisting subject for a bad purpose, I think it's torture to use it on a resisting subject for a good purpose too. I'm just having trouble making it come out any other way. I don't think the "no physical harm" makes a difference to my estimate; I judge whether something is torture by whether it deliberately causes suffering as a negotiating tool, rather than whether someone ends up permanently maimed. So that's my two cents.