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]

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...