Comments on: Torture http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:53:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Doug K http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63946 Doug K Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:33:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63946 katherine observed: "If someone tells you that the way to achieve human happiness or liberation or God’s will is to torture an innocent child to death—whether it’s a voice claiming to be God, or the party leader, or the leader of the resistance, or anyone else—they’re almost certainly lying". God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his son. Of course the sacrifice was not consummated, but it was nonetheless ordered. If you're a sufficiently loony fundamentalist Christian, then there is scriptural justification for child sacrifice. To go from child sacrifice to torture is not a difficult step. Just saying.. Thomas: On a merely pragmatic note, I worked in military intelligence for several years, and it is well known that torture does not work. Someone who’s being tortured will tell you anything you want to hear. This information is actually counterproductive, since intelligence then has to waste time investigating false leads. Torture is about revenge and punishment, not intelligence. As a (conscripted) military man, I'd also note that using torture has as a side effect that of endangering serving military. If they should be captured, we have no moral right to demand that the Geneva Convention be obeyed for them. The nightmares I had when living in the apartheid state are now back: sometimes I am torturing, sometime tortured. Evil is being done in my name. This is not what I signed up for when I took the oath of allegiance. The Medium Lobster of course is on top of this: http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_fafblog_archive.html#111083623740001599 "For every bomb plot foiled by cleverly sodomizing a prisoner with a chemical light, there surely must be a dozen more dirty bombs and anthrax attacks waiting in the wings. The forces of freedom need more boots on the ground, and they need those boots to be kicking emaciated prisoners in the groin." katherine observed: “If someone tells you that the way to achieve human happiness or liberation or God’s will is to torture an innocent child to death—whether it’s a voice claiming to be God, or the party leader, or the leader of the resistance, or anyone else—they’re almost certainly lying”.
God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his son. Of course the sacrifice was not consummated, but it was nonetheless ordered. If you’re a sufficiently loony fundamentalist Christian, then there is scriptural justification for child sacrifice. To go from child sacrifice to torture is not a difficult step. Just saying..
Thomas: On a merely pragmatic note, I worked in military intelligence for several years, and it is well known that torture does not work. Someone who’s being tortured will tell you anything you want to hear. This information is actually counterproductive, since intelligence then has to waste time investigating false leads. Torture is about revenge and punishment, not intelligence.
As a (conscripted) military man, I’d also note that using torture has as a side effect that of endangering serving military. If they should be captured, we have no moral right to demand that the Geneva Convention be obeyed for them.
The nightmares I had when living in the apartheid state are now back: sometimes I am torturing, sometime tortured. Evil is being done in my name. This is not what I signed up for when I took the oath of allegiance.
The Medium Lobster of course is on top of this:
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_fafblog_archive.html#111083623740001599
“For every bomb plot foiled by cleverly sodomizing a prisoner with a chemical light, there surely must be a dozen more dirty bombs and anthrax attacks waiting in the wings. The forces of freedom need more boots on the ground, and they need those boots to be kicking emaciated prisoners in the groin.”

]]> By: Ginger Yellow http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63929 Ginger Yellow Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:11:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63929 I agree a rational discussion is possible and desirable. But we've already had it. And the conclusion that pretty much the entire world came to is that torture is never, ever justified as policy. To the extent that countries are able, indeed legally obliged, to exert universal jurisdiction over acts of torture. The boundaries of torture are laid out in the convention on torture, signed decades ago and ratified by the US a decade ago. The problem with torture is that boundaries are always, always crossed. Torture is by its very nature extremely vulnerable to the slippery slope, on both a personal and a political level. I agree a rational discussion is possible and desirable. But we’ve already had it. And the conclusion that pretty much the entire world came to is that torture is never, ever justified as policy. To the extent that countries are able, indeed legally obliged, to exert universal jurisdiction over acts of torture. The boundaries of torture are laid out in the convention on torture, signed decades ago and ratified by the US a decade ago. The problem with torture is that boundaries are always, always crossed. Torture is by its very nature extremely vulnerable to the slippery slope, on both a personal and a political level.

]]> By: mpowell http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63923 mpowell Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:46:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63923 Ginger Yellow- this is what I am talking about w/ respect to a knee jerk reaction to even the bare discussion of the issue. The statement that I made that you quote is obviously true, but it does not imply a subsequent course of policy. And in my original posting I followed that quote with: "Of course, this is how it should be". Making clear my position on the issue- that people should not be arrested w/o adequate evidence, even foreign nationals. I can only speak for what Juan non-Volokh has said, not what else he might think. My take is that his position is consistent w/ the claim that foreign nationals have a reduced set of rights in the United States and that national security justifies the occasional rendition of a foreign national. Now I disagree w/ this position and I think you can make a counter-argument w/o ad-hominen attacks or cruel innuendos. I think there ought to be a discussion of what the boundaries of torture encompass and how we should regulate and administer different agencies (CIA, military, FBI, police) to insure that the appropriate boundaries are not crossed. But a productive discussion requires somewhat less grandstanding than is typical for this issue. Ginger Yellow- this is what I am talking about w/ respect to a knee jerk reaction to even the bare discussion of the issue. The statement that I made that you quote is obviously true, but it does not imply a subsequent course of policy. And in my original posting I followed that quote with: “Of course, this is how it should be”. Making clear my position on the issue- that people should not be arrested w/o adequate evidence, even foreign nationals. I can only speak for what Juan non-Volokh has said, not what else he might think. My take is that his position is consistent w/ the claim that foreign nationals have a reduced set of rights in the United States and that national security justifies the occasional rendition of a foreign national.
Now I disagree w/ this position and I think you can make a counter-argument w/o ad-hominen attacks or cruel innuendos. I think there ought to be a discussion of what the boundaries of torture encompass and how we should regulate and administer different agencies (CIA, military, FBI, police) to insure that the appropriate boundaries are not crossed. But a productive discussion requires somewhat less grandstanding than is typical for this issue.

]]> By: Katherine http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63899 Katherine Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:00:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63899 On the Dostoyevsky thing, I wrote this a month or two ago: "Terrorism and torture and certainly war in an unjust cause, are worse than terrorism and torture and war in a just cause. But the ends and means cannot be so neatly separated. The thing is, everyone always claims that their ends are just. One of the best ways to determine whether their stated ends are honest, or whether their stated ends will really be achieved, is to look at their means. If you abstract it out enough, bin Laden and Torquemada and Martin Luther King and Rabbi Hillel and a Quaker hiding a fugitive slave in her basement all shared an ultimate end: serving the will of God on earth. But bin Laden proposes to get there by means of the slaughter and, if the Taliban is any indication, enslavement of innocents, and Torquemada wanted to get there by the torture of Jews and heretics, and King and Hillel had very different means. It is by looking at their means, that we judge whether they are really serving God or the devil. (or what is best or worst in man.) That's perhaps too extreme an example. Here's another one: Yasser Arafat's cheerful willingness to see Israeli teenagers blown up in coffee shops cast doubt on his claim that his desired end was a two-state solution and not the destruction of Israel. I would actually argue that in evaluating self-described liberation movements throughout human history, the means chosen are a better predictor of what happens than the stated ends. I think it's pretty clear that an Irish Catholic in 1917, a Russian peasant under the tsar, just about every African in the 1950s, a black citizen of Ian Smith's Rhodesia, a Palestinian today--they all probably had stronger grievances than the colonists did in 1775. I mean really, tea and stamp taxes? They have a point about "No taxation without representation", but that's the slogan on the D.C. license plates. The Boston Massacre was four people--it's more on the scale of Kent State than the Potato Famine. And yet, things turned out very well here. They were worse in Ireland, and incomparably worse in the U.S.S.R, and really just about the entire continent of Africa. Look at Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and look at Mandela's South Africa. And do you realize how unbelievably lucky we were, black and white alike, to have the civil rights movement led for so long by a man like King? It's not that the stated ends don't matter. Of course they matter. But the means predict the actual ends far better than the stated ends do. This isn't an original insight of mine, either. You can find it in novels from <em>1984</em>: <blockquote>('You are prepared to commit murder?' 'Yes.' 'To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?' 'Yes.' 'To betray your country to foreign powers?' 'Yes.' 'You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases -- to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?' 'Yes.' 'If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face -- are you prepared to do that?' 'Yes.')</blockquote> to <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em>: <blockquote>(That's rebellion," murmered Alyosha, looking down. "Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly. "One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth." "No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly. "And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?" "No, I can't admit it....)</blockquote> to <em>Lord of the Rings</em> (too many examples to quote one. It's 1/3 of the damn plot, or more: the Ring cannot be used to do good, even for the wisest person or the strongest person or the person with the best intentions. "That is where it would begin, but it would not end there, alas!" Or words to that effect.) Alyosha's answer is the right answer, and Winston's is the wrong answer, even if you're a pure utilitiarian. If someone tells you that the way to achieve human happiness or liberation or God's will is to torture an innocent child to death--whether it's a voice claiming to be God, or the party leader, or the leader of the resistance, or anyone else--they're almost certainly lying, whether deliberately (as in 1984) or not." On the Dostoyevsky thing, I wrote this a month or two ago:
“Terrorism and torture and certainly war in an unjust cause, are worse than terrorism and torture and war in a just cause. But the ends and means cannot be so neatly separated.
The thing is, everyone always claims that their ends are just. One of the best ways to determine whether their stated ends are honest, or whether their stated ends will really be achieved, is to look at their means.
If you abstract it out enough, bin Laden and Torquemada and Martin Luther King and Rabbi Hillel and a Quaker hiding a fugitive slave in her basement all shared an ultimate end: serving the will of God on earth. But bin Laden proposes to get there by means of the slaughter and, if the Taliban is any indication, enslavement of innocents, and Torquemada wanted to get there by the torture of Jews and heretics, and King and Hillel had very different means. It is by looking at their means, that we judge whether they are really serving God or the devil. (or what is best or worst in man.)
That’s perhaps too extreme an example. Here’s another one: Yasser Arafat’s cheerful willingness to see Israeli teenagers blown up in coffee shops cast doubt on his claim that his desired end was a two-state solution and not the destruction of Israel.
I would actually argue that in evaluating self-described liberation movements throughout human history, the means chosen are a better predictor of what happens than the stated ends. I think it’s pretty clear that an Irish Catholic in 1917, a Russian peasant under the tsar, just about every African in the 1950s, a black citizen of Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, a Palestinian today—they all probably had stronger grievances than the colonists did in 1775. I mean really, tea and stamp taxes? They have a point about “No taxation without representation”, but that’s the slogan on the D.C. license plates. The Boston Massacre was four people—it’s more on the scale of Kent State than the Potato Famine.
And yet, things turned out very well here. They were worse in Ireland, and incomparably worse in the U.S.S.R, and really just about the entire continent of Africa. Look at Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, and look at Mandela’s South Africa. And do you realize how unbelievably lucky we were, black and white alike, to have the civil rights movement led for so long by a man like King? It’s not that the stated ends don’t matter. Of course they matter. But the means predict the actual ends far better than the stated ends do.
This isn’t an original insight of mine, either. You can find it in novels from 1984:
(‘You are prepared to commit murder?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘To betray your country to foreign powers?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases—to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face—are you prepared to do that?’ ‘Yes.’)

to The Brothers Karamazov:
(That’s rebellion,” murmered Alyosha, looking down. “Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that,” said Ivan earnestly. “One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”
“No, I wouldn’t consent,” said Alyosha softly.
“And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?”
“No, I can’t admit it….)

to Lord of the Rings (too many examples to quote one. It’s 1/3 of the damn plot, or more: the Ring cannot be used to do good, even for the wisest person or the strongest person or the person with the best intentions. “That is where it would begin, but it would not end there, alas!” Or words to that effect.)
Alyosha’s answer is the right answer, and Winston’s is the wrong answer, even if you’re a pure utilitiarian. If someone tells you that the way to achieve human happiness or liberation or God’s will is to torture an innocent child to death—whether it’s a voice claiming to be God, or the party leader, or the leader of the resistance, or anyone else—they’re almost certainly lying, whether deliberately (as in 1984) or not.”

]]> By: Crooked Timber » » Needles Under the Nails http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63898 Crooked Timber » » Needles Under the Nails Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:53:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63898 [...] s on two fronts. The first comes up with scenarios where torture seems justified—the ticking bomb case that we know and love. As we know, real torture never meets the criteri [...] [...] s on two fronts. The first comes up with scenarios where torture seems justified—the ticking bomb case that we know and love. As we know, real torture never meets the criteri [...]

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63896 abb1 Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:44:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63896 Torture is an essential tool for defending ourselves against barbarity and savagery. Torture is an essential tool for defending ourselves against barbarity and savagery.

]]> By: Anderson http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63893 Anderson Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:18:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63893 Jet: "On a separate note, Dostoevsky must have been too deep into the fire water. The most ethical choice is to kill [sic; torture] the small child." "Ethical"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Got any kids, Jet? Not to come down on Jet; Jeremy Bentham, presumably, would've made the same pick. Which is why most of us aren't really utilitarians all the way down. Jet: “On a separate note, Dostoevsky must have been too deep into the fire water. The most ethical choice is to kill [sic; torture] the small child.”
“Ethical”? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Got any kids, Jet?
Not to come down on Jet; Jeremy Bentham, presumably, would’ve made the same pick. Which is why most of us aren’t really utilitarians all the way down.

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63887 Matt Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:19:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63887 Jet, Perhaps this is a pedantic point, but the cases you cite above to indicate the "most societies allow murder" are not, in fact, murder in either a legal or a moral description. Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being, but the cases you described above are, at least arguably, not unjustified. If not, they are not murder. Jet,
Perhaps this is a pedantic point, but the cases you cite above to indicate the “most societies allow murder” are not, in fact, murder in either a legal or a moral description. Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being, but the cases you described above are, at least arguably, not unjustified. If not, they are not murder.

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63886 jet Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:32:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63886 Walt Pohl, Logic of a coward? So, you are trying to make a counter-argument and you start with that. Let me tell you, I'm deeply impressed. Absolutely brilliant opening line. But all joking aside, you need to get a grip. If you can't have a calm rational discussion about torture, then what can you have a calm rational discussion about (and yes for those dry humorless souls who haunt this place, that was tongue in cheek)? And what the hell are you talking about? We trust our government with far worse than torture every day. Or did you think it was some grand jury deciding where those bombs fell at night? But I can think of a quick and dirty way to implement torture. Give it immediate Senate oversight. Make each case has to go before a JAG criminal investigation. Give some hard, detailed, rules on when it is okay. Make the officers criminally accountable. Only allow military officers the ability to make the decision (no CIA). And make each case's details public after one year. That should limit the cases to only the extremes that most people would agree with, ie, almost never. But since that is the only way I'd agree with torture, it is obviously better to ban it as impractical. On a separate note, Dostoevsky must have been too deep into the fire water. The most ethical choice is to kill the small child. Dostoevsky was interesting (I've read most of his stuff, but have not studied him), but he didn't reduce the decision to its most simple form ie, it is a choice to kill one or a choice to kill millions, there was no third choice. Walt Pohl,
Logic of a coward? So, you are trying to make a counter-argument and you start with that. Let me tell you, I’m deeply impressed. Absolutely brilliant opening line. But all joking aside, you need to get a grip. If you can’t have a calm rational discussion about torture, then what can you have a calm rational discussion about (and yes for those dry humorless souls who haunt this place, that was tongue in cheek)?
And what the hell are you talking about? We trust our government with far worse than torture every day. Or did you think it was some grand jury deciding where those bombs fell at night? But I can think of a quick and dirty way to implement torture. Give it immediate Senate oversight. Make each case has to go before a JAG criminal investigation. Give some hard, detailed, rules on when it is okay. Make the officers criminally accountable. Only allow military officers the ability to make the decision (no CIA). And make each case’s details public after one year. That should limit the cases to only the extremes that most people would agree with, ie, almost never. But since that is the only way I’d agree with torture, it is obviously better to ban it as impractical.
On a separate note, Dostoevsky must have been too deep into the fire water. The most ethical choice is to kill the small child. Dostoevsky was interesting (I’ve read most of his stuff, but have not studied him), but he didn’t reduce the decision to its most simple form ie, it is a choice to kill one or a choice to kill millions, there was no third choice.

]]> By: Ginger Yellow http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63883 Ginger Yellow Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:25:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63883 "If you distrust his motives or dislike his example, fine- but part of his point is legitimate: it is possible for the CIA or FBI to strongly suspect a foreign national of being involved in a terrorist plot w/o have them lawfully detained by a US court." So what you're saying (or what Juan non-Volokh is saying, if you prefer) is that it is right there should be a lower standard of proof for torture than for detention. Forgive me if I disagree. “If you distrust his motives or dislike his example, fine- but part of his point is legitimate: it is possible for the CIA or FBI to strongly suspect a foreign national of being involved in a terrorist plot w/o have them lawfully detained by a US court.”
So what you’re saying (or what Juan non-Volokh is saying, if you prefer) is that it is right there should be a lower standard of proof for torture than for detention. Forgive me if I disagree.

]]> By: Walt Pohl http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63871 Walt Pohl Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:29:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63871 Jet, your logic is the logic of a coward. Sometimes doing the right thing means that you might die, and some things are wrong, even in war. If during World War II we invented a virus that would kill every German (but no one else), we would have been wrong to use it, even though it would have ended the war almost immediately. It's eerie how suddenly the government, the same government that apparently can't be trusted to run our health care or our retirement pensions, can be trusted to distinguish the guilty from the innocent, and to only torture the guilty. It only takes a little fear to turn many libertarians into believers of big government at its worst. Jet, your logic is the logic of a coward. Sometimes doing the right thing means that you might die, and some things are wrong, even in war. If during World War II we invented a virus that would kill every German (but no one else), we would have been wrong to use it, even though it would have ended the war almost immediately.
It’s eerie how suddenly the government, the same government that apparently can’t be trusted to run our health care or our retirement pensions, can be trusted to distinguish the guilty from the innocent, and to only torture the guilty. It only takes a little fear to turn many libertarians into believers of big government at its worst.

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63863 jet Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:22:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63863 Kasei, Most societies allow for murder all the time. If someone breaks into your house and appears to be a threat, you can kill them. Some US states allow that the mere presence in your house represents enough threat for deadly force. I would take for granted that most societies allow for some type of deadly force against a person before that person actually uses deadly force themselves. If you don't believe me, point an empty gun at a state highway patrol officer on a Saturday morning at 2:30am (don't really do this, it would be extremely dangerous). And your point that "A second point to make is the legal status of this – the moment the legal system concedes torture is acceptable in limited circumstances, the precedent becomes available for widespread abuse of detainees and you can be sure the circumstances it is ‘justified’ under will be widened drastically." doesn't make sense. The state allows citizens to murder other citizens and that hasn't turned into a slippery slope of condoned shootings for fender benders. Somehow we managed to allow citizens to take the law into their own hands in extreme cases and that has worked out well with few ambiguous cases. Attacking torture because it is impractical to implement and oversee is a much more valid argument than torture is never necessary. But there are many cases where torture has saved lives. And eschewing torture because it is so "dirty" seems an awful lot like Chamberlain in 1938 talking about his peace being better than war. Sometimes a bad choice is the best. Kasei,
Most societies allow for murder all the time. If someone breaks into your house and appears to be a threat, you can kill them. Some US states allow that the mere presence in your house represents enough threat for deadly force. I would take for granted that most societies allow for some type of deadly force against a person before that person actually uses deadly force themselves. If you don’t believe me, point an empty gun at a state highway patrol officer on a Saturday morning at 2:30am (don’t really do this, it would be extremely dangerous).
And your point that “A second point to make is the legal status of this – the moment the legal system concedes torture is acceptable in limited circumstances, the precedent becomes available for widespread abuse of detainees and you can be sure the circumstances it is ‘justified’ under will be widened drastically.” doesn’t make sense. The state allows citizens to murder other citizens and that hasn’t turned into a slippery slope of condoned shootings for fender benders. Somehow we managed to allow citizens to take the law into their own hands in extreme cases and that has worked out well with few ambiguous cases.
Attacking torture because it is impractical to implement and oversee is a much more valid argument than torture is never necessary. But there are many cases where torture has saved lives.
And eschewing torture because it is so “dirty” seems an awful lot like Chamberlain in 1938 talking about his peace being better than war. Sometimes a bad choice is the best.

]]> By: kasei http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63860 kasei Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:21:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63860 Jet, you said "Society condones murder if that murder serves a purpose, like preventing even more murders." Generally, most societies tend not to support this line - leaving aside the morality here - because there is no way of really knowing if such killing will really save lives in the future. This is not too dissimilar from the Iraq war: there was a "threat" that Iraq might have posed in the future, therefore (IMO unjustifiable) means were used to deal with the "threat" in the present. And this is the real point of the torture debate - we have no way of knowing what will happen, but we are aware of what we are doing. So a guess about the future justifies an unpleasant reality in the present? Not an argument I find convincing. A second point to make is the legal status of this - the moment the legal system concedes torture is acceptable in limited circumstances, the precedent becomes available for widespread abuse of detainees and you can be sure the circumstances it is 'justified' under will be widened drastically. Jet, you said “Society condones murder if that murder serves a purpose, like preventing even more murders.”
Generally, most societies tend not to support this line – leaving aside the morality here – because there is no way of really knowing if such killing will really save lives in the future. This is not too dissimilar from the Iraq war: there was a “threat” that Iraq might have posed in the future, therefore (IMO unjustifiable) means were used to deal with the “threat” in the present.
And this is the real point of the torture debate – we have no way of knowing what will happen, but we are aware of what we are doing. So a guess about the future justifies an unpleasant reality in the present? Not an argument I find convincing.
A second point to make is the legal status of this – the moment the legal system concedes torture is acceptable in limited circumstances, the precedent becomes available for widespread abuse of detainees and you can be sure the circumstances it is ‘justified’ under will be widened drastically.

]]> By: Donald Johnson http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63858 Donald Johnson Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:03:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63858 What's annoying about these ticking time bomb scenarios is that in the real world, people who start using torture generally aren't cold-blooded rational utility-maximizers (which might be a little terrifying in itself), but people who invariably end up torturing innocent people, including children who might go to those schools Jet wants to save. So yeah, if someone uses torture in some extreme situation, they should be put on trial for it. And if I'm on the jury I'll take their good intentions into account when recommending a sentence after I've voted to find them guilty. What’s annoying about these ticking time bomb scenarios is that in the real world, people who start using torture generally aren’t cold-blooded rational utility-maximizers (which might be a little terrifying in itself), but people who invariably end up torturing innocent people, including children who might go to those schools Jet wants to save.
So yeah, if someone uses torture in some extreme situation, they should be put on trial for it. And if I’m on the jury I’ll take their good intentions into account when recommending a sentence after I’ve voted to find them guilty.

]]> By: Anderson http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63855 Anderson Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:59:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/13/torture-2/#comment-63855 [Tried to post this before, but there was a glitch; if it double posts, mea culpa.] (1) Jet appears to conflate law with morality; but the former by its nature is obliged to be practical, the latter's reason for being is the assumption that practicality ain't everything. The classic statement is Dostoevsky's, which has been cited on many blogs in this context. You can secure lasting peace and justice for the world, just by torturing a small child. Do you? That is the difference between morality and expedience. (2) Thomas, it's said that the Army's own interrogation manuals (written presumably by its better interrogators) reject torture on pragmatic grounds, including the "tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear-so-the-pain-stops" problem. Haven't read them myself, so anyone who can contradict me, please do. (3) Spaces between paragraphs would be pleasant, wouldn't they? [Tried to post this before, but there was a glitch; if it double posts, mea culpa.]
(1) Jet appears to conflate law with morality; but the former by its nature is obliged to be practical, the latter’s reason for being is the assumption that practicality ain’t everything.
The classic statement is Dostoevsky’s, which has been cited on many blogs in this context. You can secure lasting peace and justice for the world, just by torturing a small child. Do you? That is the difference between morality and expedience.
(2) Thomas, it’s said that the Army’s own interrogation manuals (written presumably by its better interrogators) reject torture on pragmatic grounds, including the “tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear-so-the-pain-stops” problem. Haven’t read them myself, so anyone who can contradict me, please do.
(3) Spaces between paragraphs would be pleasant, wouldn’t they?

]]>