Comments on: Freedom on the March

By: nic

nic — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:11:28 +0000

Until fairly recently, none of these techniques would have been characterized as torture—they’d more likely have been described as “vigorous interrogation”. Again, not that torturofans should care, but there are laws according to which those techniques are torture. No matter how often a law has been broken, it’s still a law. An hypothetical abusive father may not consider beating his children and depriving them of food as child abuse, he may see it as only deserved punishment and strict discipline, but if the kids or wife call the cops, it’s the laws who get to decide what definition counts. This basic principle of social cohabitation of course does not apply to torture! the only crime for which everyone and his nanny can play the definition game, safe in the knowledge it’s always going to be someone else who’ll be tortured, and someone else who’ll be the torturer, so even if the crime should be uncovered, it’s never their problem. They just like to play torture scenarios. Like it was a game of Mortal Kombat.

By: nic

nic — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:01:00 +0000

I would like to remind the torturophiles here that torture by electric shocks is already banned by laws and conventions, and yet (!) there are no laws or conventions in any part of the world that define “anything short of hotel-guest conditions” as torture. Nor is anyone demanding they be defined as such. Maybe the t-philes above would like to enlighten us with their definition of what exactly are the imprisonment conditions they would consider to be torture? Oh wait, there’s laws that have answered that already. Doh. Oh wait, no, laws don’t count for the t-philes. They get to write their own. Uber-citizens that they are.

By: nic

nic — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:48:52 +0000

Kevin – I absolutely agree on this: My point is that the rules always get stretched, so it is better that the rules should be strict. I had misunderstood the point of your example of the person who’d given useful information while under torture. In general, what strikes me as surreal about discussions like these is, there’s no point in trying to argue about all possible cases, theoretical or otherwise, where torture could be excused. There’s many reasons why it’s been made illegal. All the possible theoretical what-ifs have already been examined to reach that conclusion. It’s been decided that the principles according to which torture is wrong supersede any possible benefit in any theoretical what-if scenario. So, yes, like you say, the rules themselves should remain as strict as they have been so far (even if in practice they have already been broken a thousand times). What’s so surreal and sad, is not just the disregard for ethical principles shown by torture apologists, but their complete shameless disregard for legal principles, international and national. As if they were only formalities.

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:33:26 +0000

Dan Simon, I believe the paragraph in my comment immediately preceding the one you quoted covers that point. Obviously you don't know the difference between proof and an opinion. I hope that you know the old saying about opinions. As for the second comment you're comfortable sliding down the slippery slope. I was merely showing you where you're going to end up. Stay in denial if it makes you comfortable.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:50:06 +0000

(Of course, the same kind of slippery slope that everyone here worries about with respect to torture also applies to the opposition to torture: once electric shocks and the like are banned, then anti-torture activists have to find something to protest, so they begin relaxing their definition until anything short of hotel-guest conditions qualifies as “torture”.) Proof? I believe the paragraph in my comment immediately preceding the one you quoted covers that point. Look at the fine company you keep:
Secret squads operating under the authority of the Iranian judiciary have used torture to force detained Internet journalists and civil society activists to write self-incriminatory “confession letters,” Human Rights Watch said today.
Comfy with that? I also hear that when Iran's ruling theocrats get into arguments, they routinely use that stupid polemical gimmick where you pick the very worst person in the world who could plausibly be said to have taken your opponent's side, and then accuse your opponent of being the moral equivalent of that person. I, of course, would never use such lame sophistry. But look at the fine company you keep....

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:45:15 +0000

Dan Simon, Look at the fine company you keep:

Secret squads operating under the authority of the Iranian judiciary have used torture to force detained Internet journalists and civil society activists to write self-incriminatory “confession letters,” Human Rights Watch said today.

Comfy with that?

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:13:16 +0000

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:31:15 +0000

While my jaw is still hanging open, Dan, could you answer the other Torture Questions? Thanks in advance. They are: 2) Dan- all the best torturers seem to want to use dogs in torture sessions. What kind of canine intervention do you want the US to use in torture sessions? Dogs menacing detainees? Dogs biting detainees? Dogs savaging detainees? 3) Dan, there would presumably have to be medical Doctors on site in the prisons to treat the jailers, if not the detainees. What should the Doctors’ input to torture sessions be? Should they be present at the torture sessions with the right to end a torture session, if only to keep the detainee alive for further questioning? Should they be present at torture sessions but be subordinate to the highest-ranking torturer? Should they only be allowed to see tortured detainees after the torture was over? Or should tortured detainees be denied all forms of medical treatment until they had agreed to co-operate with their torturers? 4) Should the US Army establish a Corps of Torturers? Or should the mission be given to an existing US Army unit? When, by the way, do you plan to join the US Military, as Canadians may, to torture people? 5) Should detainees be tortured until i) they suffer severe bruising; ii) they are at the point of major organ failure; iii) their major organs are damaged and they die or are permanently crippled? 6) If, as has happened, female suspects are detained in Iraq, should they be tortured? 7)If a torturer kills a detainee without having previously received permission from his superior officers to do so, should the torturer be tried for murder, for damaging government property or for neither of the above? 8)If a United States soldier or Marine refuses an order either to a)participate in a torture session or b) guard detainees subject to frequent torture, should he be court-martialled?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:26:33 +0000

What kind of torture does a responsible fellow like you advocate? Electric shocks? Partial asphyxiation? Denial of medical treatment? Dogs? Torture to death? Torture of women? I'm far from an expert on this topic. It's my vague understanding that the most effective means of extracting information do not involve the application of severe pain, but rather what might be described as "persistent, extreme discomfort"--sleep deprivation, meager food and drink rations, uncomfortable physical positions, sensory extremes (loud noise or silence, bright lights or darkness), and so on. Until fairly recently, none of these techniques would have been characterized as torture--they'd more likely have been described as "vigorous interrogation". Indeed, if Frank Abagnale's description of his six months in a French prison in 1970s, as a convicted white-collar criminal, is at all accurate, then at the time these measures could quite accurately have been labeled, "relatively pleasant conditions for a French prisoner". (Of course, the same kind of slippery slope that everyone here worries about with respect to torture also applies to the opposition to torture: once electric shocks and the like are banned, then anti-torture activists have to find something to protest, so they begin relaxing their definition until anything short of hotel-guest conditions qualifies as "torture".) I could have been coy, and claimed to be against "torture", intending to distinguish between the infliction of severe pain and other forms of harsh treatment. However, since I myself don't know where exactly the line should be drawn, nor whether the most effective information extraction techniques ever cross it, I deliberately chose not to take that escape route. Instead, I'll just reiterate my points: 1) Under extreme circumstances, it might well be necessary--even morally so--to inflict very harsh treatment on detainees, (only) for the purpose of extracting their cooperation. Depending on the defintion of "torture", it might (or might not) apply to some of these forms of harsh treatment. 2) In contexts where such harsh treatment is already commonplace, its relatively indiscriminate use on detainees most likely has negligible direct, negative practical consequences. However, there still are obvious moral arguments for restricting its use to a (hopefully) very few extreme cases, even in those contexts. 3) Because the gradations of severity of treatment and necessity of its imposition are arbitrarily fine, distinguishing among them requires extremely careful examination and discussion of the moral and practical consequences of of any particular choice of distinction. It only hinders such careful consideration simply to proclaim all harsh treatment to be torture, and all torture to be so unthinkable that anyone who is willing even to contemplate its use must therefore be subhumanly evil.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:05:58 +0000

What kind of torture does a responsible fellow like you advocate? Electric shocks? Partial asphyxiation? Denial of medical treatment? Dogs? Torture to death? Torture of women? I'm far from an expert on this topic. It's my vague understanding that the most effective means of extracting information do not involve the application of severe pain, but rather what might be described as "persistent, extreme discomfort"--sleep deprivation, meager food and drink rations, uncomfortable physical positions, sensory extremes (loud noise or silence, bright lights or darkness), and so on. Until fairly recently, none of these techniques would have been characterized as torture--they'd more likely have been described as "vigorous interrogation". Indeed, if Frank Abagnale's description of his six months in a French prison in 1970s, as a convicted white-collar criminal, is at all accurate, then at the time these measures could quite accurately have been labeled, "relatively pleasant conditions for a French prisoner". (Of course, the same kind of slippery slope that everyone here worries about with respect to torture also applies to the opposition to torture: once electric shocks and the like are banned, then anti-torture activists have to find something to protest, so they begin relaxing their definition until anything short of hotel-guest conditions qualifies as "torture".) I could have been coy, and claimed to be against "torture", intending to distinguish between the infliction of severe pain and other forms of harsh treatment. However, since I myself don't know where exactly the line should be drawn, nor whether the most effective information extraction techniques ever cross it, I deliberately chose not to take that escape route. Instead, I'll just reiterate my points: 1) Under extreme circumstances, it might well be necessary--even morally so--to inflict very harsh treatment on detainees, (only) for the purpose of extracting their cooperation. Depending on the defintion of "torture", it might (or might not) apply to some of these forms of harsh treatment. 2) In contexts where such harsh treatment is already commonplace, its relatively indiscriminate use on detainees most likely has negligible direct, negative practical consequences. However, there still are obvious moral arguments for restricting its use to a (hopefully) very few extreme cases, even in those contexts. 3) Because the gradations of severity of treatment and necessity of its imposition are arbitrarily fine, distinguishing among them requires extremely careful examination and discussion of the moral and practical consequences of of any particular choice of distinction. It only hinders such careful consideration to simply proclaim all harsh treatment to be torture, and all torture to be so unthinkable that anyone who is willing even to contemplate its use must therefore be subhumanly evil.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:04:25 +0000

He still hasn’t answered the Dan Simon Torture Questions. Now then: 1) Dan- as an advocate of torture, what specific methods would you approve of: Whipping? Electric shocks? Burning? Asphyxiation and submersion in water? Beating with boots and fists? Anal penetration with truncheons and similar objects, as per Abu Ghraib? Rape of family members, as per Pinochet and Saddam? Further questions above- medical treatment (or not) of detainees, use of dogs, rape of women- all the sorts of details that a forward-looking fellow needs to think through when coming up with a few civilised torture guidelines. Come on Dan, why are you holding out? You’ll have to answer these questions eventually. Not replying now just increases the amount of pain and humiliation you’ll suffer in the meantime. Yes, some might call my methods barbaric, but I’m doing this for the greater good…

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:00:47 +0000

The problem with changing the rules so that a little bit of torture is sanctioned in exceptional circumstances is that those rules, like the current ones, have to be interpreted. All you really accomplish is a lowering of the barrier. Not necessarily—the rules and their interpretation could well end up being more stringent than the de facto “rules” that tend to apply when the use of torture is completely unacknowledged, unsanctioned and unregulated. We don’t know how extensively the USA is using torture. The fact that there is precious little audit is not reassuring. I agree. However, if torture is officially banned, then such information is inevitably going to be hard to gather and analyze. Again, limited official permission can actually mean better control over the use of torture than an outright ban.

By: kevin

kevin — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:52:47 +0000

“Perhaps you’re unaware how utterly perfectly your rhetoric matches that of a pacifist. The only difference is that you’ve drawn a line in a slightly different place: it’s apparently okay in your book to send soldiers out into the field to hunt the enemy down and kill them, but to torture them under any circumstances is to have abandoned all “justice and decency”. Make the appropriate substitutions in the above paragraph, and it would apply equally well against making war in the first place.” Well, no, of course not. The difference is that a decent country fights wars only when required, and fights them in such a way as to minimize civilian death as much as possible. Torturers, on the other hand, operate under completely different rules. They are designed to inflict as much physical and psychological damage on people under their power. And they do this knowing that they will do it to perfectly innocent people. Yes, perfectly innocent people do get killed in war, but at least in war, a decent army takes steps to try and prevent it. Torturers do not and cannot because of the nature of their work. It is not that I draw a line in a different place (as if that is somehow intrinsically wrong. After all, we all know that murder and shoplifting should get the death penalty—crime is crime), dan, it is that you do not draw a line at all. If you advocated carpet bombing Mecca, for example, I would come to the same conclusion. And if the moralizing bothers you, well, I don’t really care. You, dan, are the on that used the image of the towers to justify your stance. You are the one who tried to play on the dead of that day as a justification for your own decisions. The moralizing began with your posts, dan. I just thought you needed to be reminded that your idea of morality is not universally accepted.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:20:46 +0000

Dan- you haven’t answered the Dan Simon Torture Questions. Why not? Come on, let’s have the benefit of your advice here. What kind of torture does a responsible fellow like you advocate? Electric shocks? Partial asphyxiation? Denial of medical treatment? Dogs? Torture to death? Torture of women? Fuller questions above. If you don’t answer these questions, people are going to form the impression that you’re a moral coward running away from the details of what he advocates, and we can’t have that.

By: Kevin Donoghue

Kevin Donoghue — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:07:27 +0000

Dan Simon, The problem with changing the rules so that a little bit of torture is sanctioned in exceptional circumstances is that those rules, like the current ones, have to be interpreted. All you really accomplish is a lowering of the barrier. We don’t know how extensively the USA is using torture. The fact that there is precious little audit is not reassuring. Nic [in ironic mode]: “Good, then, I’m convinced, let’s scrap the Geneva conventions.” What I am suggesting is that there is no good reason to ease the rules, even though there are cases like the one I mentioned where reasonable people will excuse police brutality. If those accused of torture are entitled to trial by jury, the jury can decide to acquit even if the evidence is pretty conclusive. My point is that the rules always get stretched, so it is better that the rules should be strict.