I’m quoted in Le Monde today on a story about torture. The translation is kind of spotty and I don’t think the gist of what my position is comes out right. Here’s what I answered the reporter:
I do not believe in torture, and certainly not the type of torture being supported by the White House, but I believe that in the very limited instance of a ticking time bomb, when the threat of danger to a large amount of people is imminent and someone is known to have vital information that could save many lives — I believe that we should be able to use force to extract information.
You obviously said more than they quoted
Il ne soutient pas “le type de torture qui est prôné par la Maison Blanche”, nous dit-il. “Mais je crois que nous devrions pouvoir utiliser la force pour extraire des informations”, ajoute-t-il.
translates (Using Babelfish, and what I know about French) better as
He does not support “the type of torture which is advocated {preached} by the White House”, he told us. “But I believe that we should be able to use force to extract”, he added.
I’m curious: What kind of “torture” do you think the White House advocates, and how does that differ from the type of force you advocate?
WH seems to believe we should use torture to extract info whenever. I believe we should only use force when we know that someone has info about an imminent threat (aka ticking time bomb scenario)
I have to disagree with you, Oliver. The problem with torture is that people will tell you anything you want to hear to make it stop. They will tell you they flew to the moon on a broomstick, if that’s what you want to hear.
One man’s ticking time bomb is another’s alegedly planned car bomb.
Statutory language regarding torture which provides an “out” if there is an “imminent threat” would be overused, exploited, and essentially meaningless. Either we’re down with torture or we’re not.
Let’s stop pretending we can have it both ways.
Anyone who used torture in some kind of ‘24′ Jack Bauer bomb situation would be pardoned. But the anti torture laws should stand, and be strengthened.
“I believe that we should only use force when we know that someone has info about an imminent threat (aka ticking time bomb scenario).”
That’s right, because those terrorists who say “I know something, but I’m not telling you! Nyah, nyah, nyah” are so very common.
The whole “ticking time bomb” argument is such a cop-out, it’s not even funny.
Sorry OW, but “I believe that we should be able to use force to extract information” = “I believe in torture.”
I read somewhere (forget where now, sorry) about the guy who wrote the book on interrogation techniques in Vietnam. What he had to say was very interesting, he said, “everybody has a story to tell, everybody wants to be listened to.”
The technique he used was to gain his subjects’ trust. If they had wounds, he saw to it they were treated. He made sure they were fed, and comfortable. He made sure they felt safe, because people only talk when they are safe. Eventually they got bored.
He would come around and talk to them everyday, about nothing in particular. If he knew they were from a certain area he would say, “I have heard that place is very beautiful, with the river such and such and the little markets…” they would be telling him their whole life stories before it was over.
It was the gathering and sorting of seemingly innocuous stuff that was most useful. How troops were recruited, from where. How platoons were organized. Who was in power, who was out. Where supplies came from.
I think you about nailed it, OW.
Dugger
Ooooh. You were quoted in the very-lefty French paper, Le Monde?
I am soooo envious, you America-hater, you.
Haw!
OW,
Who determines that scenario? Rumsfeld? Abu-Gonzales? or Liddy England?
The whole ticking time bomb argument is such a cop-out, it s not even funny.
Personally, I think the whole idea of torture is a cop-out. I mean, as much as I’d love to have a go at Zarqawi, Mullah Omar, Osama and his minions myself… I’m more interested in obtaining useful intel, thwarting attacks, and winning the battle against extremism. Torture doesn’t help us do that, it simply does NOT work.
So, I’ve been convinced, by experts more well versed in the topic, to put aside my personal penchant for electrifying gonads, and instead support techniques that will actually help us achieve the goal we’ve got in mind.
This doodmsday scenario is such a red herring. I would be comfortable in putting forward the supposition that, in recorded human history, there has never been a situation where anyone has captured a suspected terrorist who has had information of an imminent attack (i.e., an attack that will happen within, say 24 hours).
The above scenario only takes place in movies and on television; it has never actually transpired in reality. Oliver’s statement is kind of like saying “I am opposed giving children cocaine, except in the event that cocaine use will actually save the child’s life.” A noble sentiment, to be sure, but that shit ain’t ever gonna happen.
I must agree with some others here, Oliver, that by qualifying your opposition to torture, you are playing into the hands of torture proponents who wish to obfuscate the issue by bringing up fanatastical situations with no basis in reality.
Oliver, I like you a lot and read your blog very frequently, but I’m shocked that you’ve made such a blunder.
It’s clear that the “immenent threat” scenario was whipped up by the neocons just so that they could trick some decent, relatively smart people into saying “Okay, sure…In THAT case, we can torture.”
The answer is still a resounding “NO!” Torture is not acceptable. There are SO many reasons not to torture, the most important of these reasons is that 1.) It just doesn’t work. I’m sure that if I tortured Osama bin Laden enough, he would confess to having shot Archduke Ferdinand. Furthermore, as outlined by my colleagues here, there are so much better techniques available. 2.) It’s wrong. Plain and simple, we are America. If we want to play the role of the Good Guys, we have to BE the Good Guys. That means that we don’t pull peoples toenails out with tweezers and demand to know where their “leader” is or even where the bomb is.
Please, rethink this Oliver. It’s important. Caveats have no place in this type of policy. It’s simply binary; see the light.
Agree with many above; OW is merely providing cover for the pro-torture types. The ‘ticking bomb’ scenario only exists in comics and TV.
So it looks like what OW is saying is “I don’t believe in torture…except when I do.” That’s about as clear as mud.
“I believe we should only use force when we know that someone has info about an imminent threat (aka ticking time bomb scenario) ”
So in a nut shell, you approve of torture. You can qualify it all you want but that’s what it is. Un-fucking-believable. Anyone who argue for torture in any circumstanceis either depraved, a coward or both.
If torture doesn’t work when you have all the time in the world to torture someone, why the fuck woudl it work if you only had 20 minutes? On a pragmatic level, your qualifications are bullshit. Let’s not even get into the ethical/moral dimensions. Next time, if you support the use of torture, just say so. You look less craven that way.
Dugger can’t go so much as a sentence without lying.
But before 9-11 there was never a single incident of a terroist flying an airliner into a crowded skyscraper. Not one.
Not true; airliners and smaller aircraft have been used as weapons before. In fact, NORAD and Pentagon planners had exercise scenarios involving terrorists using airliners as weapons.
But this so much deflection from the real issue. 9/11 could have transpired in a thousand ways that had nothing to do with airliners.
And, in fact, the use of torture would not have prevented 9/11.
Big Gay Al,
But before 9-11 there was never a single incident of a terroist flying an airliner into a crowded skyscraper. Not one. 2,800 dead innocent people later, we all sorrowfully learned that because it had never happened is no reason we should not have planned against it and tried to prevent it.
Here’s the key. We know there are terrorists: people who will easily give up their lives to kill as many of our (this country’s) men, women and children as they can. We know that. We know they will be courageous (in a cowardly sort of way), innovative and very murderous – the more dead Americans the better. We know they do not operate per the norms of civilized society – they are terrorists. As such, if we have reason to believe a particularly murderous group of terrorists-say Al Qaeda- is rumored to be planning a murderous attack and then we discover a key Al Qaeda member crossing the border with nuclear bomb components or biological warfare materials, you would not want our democratically elected government, if they deemed it necessary, to use torture to get that indvidual to talk? They might blow up the city of Portland and kill 500,000 innocent citizens. But would President Big Gay Al, elected to protect his fellow ciitzens, says ‘nope’ – better to save this one Al Qaeda operative discomfort rather save half a million of my citizen’s lives.
I, as president, would accept the moral responsibility for having tortured a possibly semi-innocent man to protect hundred-thousand-million of my fellow citizens. Could you as president accept moral responsibility for the deaths of a like number of innocents in order to spare an already suspected terrorist torture?
tell me a lot of things, but don’t tell me its simple.
Dugger
But dugger, here’s the problem. We know there are terrorists. Of course. No one argues that. But how do we know which ones are terrorists?
It’s easy to get into a situation where you are torturing A to tell you where the explosives are hidden. Fine, but how do you know A knows where they are? Because when you tortured B, he told you A hid them. How do you know that B knows who hid them? Because you tortured C into telling you B was the cell leader. Bad information leads to bad information, and there is no end in sight.
Torture is nothing but a real good way to lose a war, real fast, as we are seeing right now.
Anyway, suppose that there is a ticking clock scenario and someone goes ahead, tortures the terrorist, gets the info, and saves the day. If that actually ever happens, public opinion will be on that agent/President’s side, and either the President will be cleared by the public or the agent will be pardoned by the Pres. There is still no need to sanction torture on the books or use it as a matter of policy. Period.
Could you as president accept moral responsibility for the deaths of a like number of innocents in order to spare an already suspected terrorist torture?
Another red herring. Dugger, do you honestly believe someone would attempt to prosecute a President if he authorized the torture of someone in the interests of national security? The President, by virtue of his office, has discretion in matters like these.
The point is, you do not enshrine the use of torture into law. Like in my kids and cocaine example above, if it so happens that making your seven year-old snort a line saved their life, you would not be prosecuted. That doesn’t mean you should pass a law saying it’s okay to give cocaine to kids on the off chance that it might save their life.
Sadie,
I perfectly agree that we can’t exactly know everything about a suspected terorist and a suspected terrorist operation. But we accept the principal everyday in juris prudence of making judgements without being 100% certain (witness certain persons released because of DNA, which equally means certain persons got away with committing crimes – an imperfect system). Nevertheless, we accept locking up somebody for life on a judgement basis. And thats all ex post facto. The crime has been committed. Now we know a crime of monstrous proportions is about to be committed. Or lets say that a mass murdering organization who has already committed many mass muders, hates us and promises to kill more of us, has the weapons to committ more mass murder – nukes We shouldn’t use punitive pre-judgement in this circumstance to preclude an awful event?
Dugger
“lets say that a mass murdering organization who has already committed many mass muders, hates us and promises to kill more of us, has the weapons to committ more mass murder – nukes We shouldn t use punitive pre-judgement in this circumstance to preclude an awful event?”
That’s all well and good, but my point is that torture can never prevent crime. How could it?
Your argument is based on the assumption that torture can be used to find the truth, but there is no evidence this is ever the case, nor does it stand up to simple common sense.
All I know is my own experience. I’ve had three children. I remember, during childbirth, I asked myself the question, “is there anything or anyone in the world I would not betray to make this go away?” And you know what? There wasn’t.
If someone had held out to me a piece of paper that said I was a member of Al Qaeda, and told me I had to sign it to get an epidural, I would have signed that thing in a heartbeat. If they had asked me was my husband Al Qaeda, I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that he was, and had been for years.
Now maybe I’m a bigger wuss than average, but this is why I have zero confidence in any information derived from torture.
But if you don’t believe me, believe your own eyes. While “a few bad apples” are busy reenacting The 100 Days of Sodom, the insurgency rages on, picking off an average of three soldiers every day.
“Better to save this one Al Qaeda operative discomfort rather save half a million of my citizen s lives.”
But this isn’t the real equation. The real equation is preserving the principles and ideals of this country or a half a million of its citizens. It is, in short, a question of what you are willing to die for. If the choice is between becoming a country that condones torture today and dying tomorrow in a terrorist attack, I’ll choose the latter. I don’t give a fuck what the president is willing to take moral responsibility for because torture is not a moral choice in any circumstance. If I wake up alive one morning only to discover that my life was spared at the expense of the Bill of the Rights what would be the point of “winning” the war on terror? What would we have really won, except our lives at the expense of everything we are supposed to stand for. Dugger and OW apparently don’t give a fuck about what we’re supposed to stand for. Oh no, they just want to live to see another day no matter they have to do to get through the night. Glad to hear it boys. Like I said, only cowards condone torture.
Oliver,
While I don’t agree with everything you say on your blog I do agree with you a great deal of the time.
Usually when I do disagree with you I find your opinions thoughtful, if a little more conservative than my own. Heck there have probably been times when you have caused me to think about my own opinions because of your intelligent arguments.
On this point however I have to tell you that you are wrong. Aside from any moral arguments against torture, which are legion, the fact remains that torture is not designed to extract reliable information. The purpose of torture is to psychologically and physically break the subject. Even in your “ticking time bomb” scenario no useful information would be forthcoming. Eventually though Winston Smith would Love Big Brother.
Le Monde cut out the meat of your quote, alas. It happens.
But do we need to go through this a-fucking-gain? If an (extremely unlikely) ticking nuke scenario arises, then whoever has the opportunity will do what they consider necessary and throw themselves on the mercy of the courts and the plenary powers of pardon. If you’re going to torture someone in an extreme situation, you have to know that you might well spend the rest of your life in jail, and still be willing to make that choice. But it’s a dumb game of hypotheticals, given that real life isn’t scripted like ‘24′.
Laura Rozen points out that torture is a tactic of losers. And she’s seen torture chambers in the former Yugoslavia. Furthermore, as well demonstrated by Dugger, it’s the favoured tactic of the fearful. ‘Punitive pre-judgement’? That’s a new, and particularly distasteful euphemism for sanctioning torture. Heck, I’m sure that Dugger has some dirty secrets that a bit of punitive pre-judgement might adduce.
Dugger, do you honestly believe someone would attempt to prosecute a President if he authorized the torture of someone in the interests of national security.
Of course I do. Partisan politics is poisonous now. Bush hatred is rampant (you must admit that). The opposition would do anything to get him. DO you doubt for a second that, maybe not mainstream Democrats, but the likes of Conyers, Waxman and McKinney wouldn’t go after Bush in a heartbeat if he technically violated a law – even for national securirty purposes. After all, darling Cynthia believes Bush knew about 9-11 ahead of time and let it happen.
It is a harsh world we live in. Children are being murdered for political purposes. We are hated by religious extremists who have murdered thousands of our citizens and would like to murder more. We are democracy and can vote a bad presdient out. So why can’t we take actions to defend ourselves against ruthless murderers?
Sadie,
I can’t vouch for your statement that torture has never prevented a crime. Hard to argue that point either way. I’m saying in dire circumstances with lots and lots of lives in danger and when dealing with terrorists, it ought to be legal to use torture (under tightly controlled circumstances). And by no means tdo I think that oppositon to torture has anything to do with wussiness. It should be reprehensible to people – just as locking somebody away for life, in isolation – devoid of context, should be reprehensible.
frame,
(Aside. You start writing’ make some decent points up front and then fall apart logically and emotionally – lapsing into hyperbole and profanity. Try staying rational and calm the whole way through.) I would only say that yes tortutre is bad, and should never be used except under tightly controlled conditions, but that democracies operte under a distinct disdvantage vis a vis terorists and something must be done to allow them to fight back and save their societies.
Ahem,
Likewise, unable to argue intellectually – resort to personal insult. Still you are suggesting passing the buck. Make some poor sap do it (torture to prevent mass murder or calamity) and then say society knew this might happen but we decided to do nothing – even after 9-11. Sorry, bud, you are on your own.
Dugger
“… democracies operte under a distinct disdvantage vis a vis terorists nd something must be done to allow them to fight back and save their societies.”
Might I quote Charlton Heston from the Orson Welles masterpiece Touch of Evil: “A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state.”
You’re talking about turning America into a police state.
And Jadegold is right. It is extremely ludicrous for you to be demanding civility when you are, yourself, arguing in favor of barbarity. It’s disgusting and highly unAmerican to support torture. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
It’s rather laughable that Dugger–a pro-torture apologist–claims someone can’t argue intellectually. As he’s defending torture.
So it appears that the most cogent argument in favor of torture is based on a fictional f–king TV show. Is that the level to which critical thinking skills have sunk in this nation?
I’m glad to see that at least a few people in this so-called Christian nation still have an understanding of what Christ was all about (even if they may not consider themselves Christians). When you stoop to the level of torture, you completely devalue whatever it is you claim to be defending. There are no “ticking time bomb” scenarios. Torture wouldn’t have prevented 9/11; good police work and an executive branch that was interested in protecting the nation (as opposed to hunting down pot smokers) would have.
Sometimes courage and honor involve sticking to your principles, even at great risk to yourself and your loved ones. Making legal concessions to torture (or turning a blind eye to illegal torture) would be the action of a nation of chickenshits at best, Nazis at worst.
Keep in mind that the majority of the people the U.S. is holding in Guantanamo, and likely in all its other gulags around the globe, have never been accused of any crime. Hundreds of innocents have been released already. Are we to trust the bunch of arrogant cockups responsible for this travesty to decide when and where torturing people is acceptable? If we’re even asking this question, haven’t we already consigned ourselves to a fiery destruction?
“And Jadegold is right. It is extremely ludicrous for you to be demanding civility when you are, yourself, arguing in favor of barbarity. It s disgusting and highly unAmerican to support torture. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.”
AS always you are uncareful in your assumptions and thoughts. There is a good argument to be made against torture (but one I disagree with), but it isn’t that the other debater is a ‘depraved coward’.
And I demand nothing in the way of civility. I have no ability (nor do any us) to demand something over the Internet. I do believe civility and some respect among ourselves are desirable attributes, even as Internet debaters. If you choose to be childish and make the basis of YOUR argument not the factual correctness of the other side, not his or her logic, but what you guess about them as individuals, including their motives (and of course since they are the other side, you always ‘guess’ they are evil idiots) then that is your business. Just keep in mind some are able to argue content and logic and others believe it is sufficient to attack the debater.
Hey Corrigan, another Nazi analogy. Congratulations. At least it wasn’t the US Marines this time. What a guy!
Dugger
If the shoe fits, Dugger, one should either wear it or get some new feet. That goes for contemporary Nazis and depraved cowards alike. Especially those with pretensions of being civilized U.S. citizens.
I do have one disagreement with frameone, and it has nothing to do with evading the substance of his/her post in favor of belaboring style points: I’m beginning to wonder if the cowardly and/or satanic waffling over torture truly is “unAmerican.” Given what I’ve seen since 9/11– illegal, preemptive wars, violations of basic civil rights, increasing government secrecy, etc.– I’m beginning to see that this nation has failed the Job litmus test:
“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (Job 1:9-11)
This nation so frequently pats itself on the back for its ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy,’ but look at what we’ve allowed the runaway executive to get away with since 9/11. We’re sitting here parsing torture. If that in itself doesn’t give you pause, then maybe the term “depraved coward” isn’t too far off the mark.
Oh please. The factual correctness of the other side? What facts have you presented? What logic are you applying? Your entire decision to support the depravity of torture is based entirely on a hypothetical doomsday scenario which, if it is to be convincing, begins with the assumption that torture works. It’s hard to know where to even begin discussing the dishonesty and circularity of your argument.
But let’s start by addressing the fact that you comepletely ignore my last point, by way of Charlton Heston, that a policeman’s work is only easy in a police state. Where’s your logical, fact based argument against the assertion that one of the major distinctions between our democracy and repressive regimes purporting to be democracies (such as Hussein’s Iraq) is our system of jurisprudence based as it is on a little thing called the Bill of Rights. Your fantasy scenario never makes a distinction between foreign born terrorists and a home grown terrorist cell. In your hypothetical scenario, would you torture an American citizen in obvious violation of the Constitution?
But let’s look more closely at your “content” and “logic.” You’re whole case rests on this hypothetical “What if” scenario: What if we could save a billion people by torturing one terrorist would you do it? One of the prime, pragmatic arguments against torture is that it does not work. Take the case of al-Libbi and the search for WMDs. From ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1
“According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.
His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.”
Libbi told the investigators what they wanted to hear after two weeks of torture. All of it bullshit. Why should we expect anything else from the terrorist suspect in your hypothetical? Even if the guy did know all about the plot, what would keep him from lying to his torturers? Telling them the bomb is at LAX when its really La Guardia? That it will go off at noon instead of midnight? What if the investigators don’t have the time to check out the veracity of the information they get? Your hypothetical doesn’t take any of these possibilities into account at all. Nope. You just assume that torture works and lives are saved. Nevermind reality, never mind the descration of the Constitution and all we hold dear as a free society.
In real life torture doesn’t work. So the hypothetical upon which your entire argument rests is just what it is, a hypothetical fantasy. And yet this is the main thrust of your whole argument. Here’s an idea Dugger. I’ve given you one real world scenario in which torture didn’t work. How about if you give me one real world scenario in which torture saved lives. Give me just one. And we’ll proceed from there.
So to sum up, just tell if you would torture an American citizen and then give me one real world scenario in which torture saved lives.
Some police tortured a kidnapper to find out the whereabouts of the victim, and then escaped prosecution. I remember reading about this when the ticking bomb scenario was talked about in 2003. Maybe Allan Derschowitz?
It looks like the case you’re talking about was itself a hypothetical scenario proposed by Dershowtiz in an interview, not an actual case.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html
Who escaped prosecution, the kidnapper or the cops?
hey Corrigan,
You said enough for me when you used the Nazi analogy re the marines. Typical. Maybe one day those service peole you insult won’t be there to protect your freedom of speech. Do you know the difference betwen the US marines and the Nazis?
Kiss off. I don’t like you.
Dugger
frame,
What argument? A quote from Chuck. OK I disagree with it. There was no argument behind it. I would rather hear in your own words why torture under any and all circunmstances should never be admitted. To date your answer is that I’m a bad person and torture is bad. But I’ll try to play along.
In your hypothetical scenario, would you torture an American citizen in obvious violation of the Constitution?
BTW, I made no distinction because I make no disticntion – in my example. If it was in violation of the Constitution, probably not. It might depend on the perceived urgency of the situation. If it was not in violation of the Constittution and it might save thousands of lives and it was conducted under very limited, tightly controlled circumstances, yes.
And I will research your example for a counter example.
Dugger
frame,
You asked for an example where torture worked.
“Abu Ali, who was a student at the Islamic University of Medina when he was abducted, “admitted” on video tape to being a part of a terror plot against the United States. His statements came after being whipped and beaten by his Saudi captors.”
Your shaky argument that torture does not work is thereby DOA. Try again.
Dugger
Dugger –
Under American law there is no such thing as “punitive pre-judgement,” to use your words. Americans are innocent until proven guilty, remember? The Supreme Court dealt rather clearly with the question of tortue as it relates to the Eighth Amendment in 1878:
In an early case addressing this clause, Wilkerson v. Utah (1878), the Supreme Court stated,
Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive] and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.
So torture under any circumstance is a violation of the Constitution.
As for your example, how about a link next time? But more to the point, the paragraph you cite makes no mention of lives being saved by his “confession.” Ali merely admitted under torture to being part of a terror plot against the United States. How did this admission itself save any lives? At the same, how does his confession alone refute the Libbi example which calls into question the validity of forced confessions? How can we trust this confession since it was coerced? In America coerced confessions are inadmissable in a court of law. The Abu Ali’s “confession” would never make any where near a jury in the States. Of course in Saudia Arabia, the confession is a-okay. Which really only proves my point. In order to find an example in which torture “works” you had to find a country which accepts coerced confessions in a court of law. In other words, you had to lower the bar. Which is what the acceptance of torture does in any circumstance: it lowers our standards and corrupts our system of justice.
So here we are. We now know that you support torture of Americans as well as the lowering of American legal standards to the standards of Saudi Arabia. That’s just great.
Let’s look again at the logic at work in your example Dugger, leaving aside that it didn’t address my question at all: to find an example where torture saved lives.
You are arguing that torture works because Abu Ali confessed to something under torture. Is there any evidence to confirm that Abu Ali is telling the truth? That is to say, is there any independent verification that his admission is true? If there is no independent verification of his confession then your example is meaningless. It doesn’t prove that torture works to extract the truth.
If there is independent verification of Ali’s confession why was torture required in the first place? The whole point of the Heston line I quoted is that requiring the police to do extra work in making their case is a defense against abuses of police power. Policework is apparently a snap in Saudi Arabia. All they have to do is torture a confession out of someone. No actual detective work is required beyond what gets you the initial arrest. But then again, why even bother with that since whoever you arrest is liable to confess to anything under torture. The al-Libbi example is proof of that. He gave information under torture that was then found to be untrue. You can’t make the same claim for the Abu Ali confession because there is no independent verification of his confessiojn. And if you could come up with independent verification why was torture needed to begin with?
Holy crap dugger. Abu Ali is an American! You approve of this? You approve of an American citizen being tortured by a foreign government at our own government’s request? I’m stunned that an American would say that about another American. That another American could conceivably make an argument for why some Americans don’t deserve protection under the Constitution. You are so high and mighty with your support the troops crap but while the troops are supposedly fighting to defend the Constitution of the United States you turn around and apply it so selectively? I’m stunned. Simply stunned.
You said enough for me when you used the Nazi analogy re the marines. Typical. Maybe one day those service peole you insult won t be there to protect your freedom of speech. Do you know the difference betwen the US marines and the Nazis?
Where in my comments did I single out the Marines as Nazis? There you go, hiding behind a straw man you’ve built out of servicemen’s uniforms. This is probably why you were labelled a coward, but I think that particular insult might be giving your intellect too much credit.
By the way, what the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan– in spite of their own individual intentions– are doing has nothing to do with my freedom of speech, or anyone’s freedom to do anything. Except, of course, for Bush’s buddies’ freedom to make shitloads of cash over the bloody, broken bodies of those U.S. servicemen whose honor you claim to ‘defend’ with your inane, infantile arguments.
The true dishonor, and the true shades of Nazism, are worn by the Bush White House, the Republican-led Congress (including the Dems who rubber-stamp their wickedness), and the dickheads in the electorate who consistently vote for and support this nonsense.
Kiss that, if you’re swift enough to catch it.
Now I guess I know why you didn’t provide a link.
And what did they judge in the case tell the jury:
“U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee told the jurors that if they believe Abu Ali’s confession was coerced through torture, they cannot consider it as evidence even if they believe the confession is true.”
Which points out another big problem with your torture argument. Let’s say you torture someone and their confession leads to the discover of a ticking time bomb and people’s lives were saved. Even if all that happened the coerced confession is not admissable as evidence in court under the Constitution. If all the cops have linking the suspect to the bomb is his coerced admission, they won’t be able to prosecute him. Your own hypothetical, aside from all of its other problems, would preclude the prosecution of the person who comitted the crime. You would have saved lives but the suspect would have to be released or later the case would be thrown out. Brilliant.
I can’t beleive you put forward the Abu Ali case as proof that torture works It most decidedly does not. Indeed, his whole case has been a travesty of justice.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20050307.html
Oh Dugger, nice going. You picked a real winner example there. Did you see that the prosecution in the case, which went to the jury on Friday, ended up denying that Abu Ali was tortured?
“Abu Ali confessed shortly after his arrest at a Medina university in June 2003 that he joined al-Qaida and discussed numerous terrorist plots, including a plan to personally assassinate President Bush (website – news – bio) and to establish himself as a leader of an al-Qaida cell in the United States.
But the defense contends that he was whipped and tortured into a false confession by the Saudi security force known as the Mubahith.
Prosecutors say he was never mistreated and confessed voluntarily.”
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1105/278920.html
Nice going genius. For all the reasons I cited above, this one, try again.
frame, You whine for an example of torture working. I gave you one. then you whine about the example. Make up your mind. Try thinking things out. Nobody said torture was good or desirable. Nobody said it was pretty. The position that I took was that under certain dire circumstances, to save thousands of lives, I support our using it, under tightly controlled conditons. Now if you find details of torture so horrible, and thats all your mind is able to handle, I guess you don’t even look at the 9-11 jumpers, do you? Do you think of how those people died? Incinerated. Suffucated. So bad they jumped out of buildings. 2,800 of them versus one tortured terrorist. Polemically I could say by not supporting the very limited use of torture one is tacitly supporting another 9-11. But I won’t say that. I don’t actually believe you thought that far. And thats a lefties tactic. Sufficient for you is with “magical understanding” you know the other guy, as opposed to yourself, always has evil motives and must be wrong.
Dugger, Don’t want an example, don’t ask for it
Try thinking things out? Lefty tactics?
You failed to come up with an example from real life even remotely similar to the doomsday scenario which you suggest is the only siutation in which you would support torture. You gave an example of torture extracting a confession from someone but that doesn’t prove your point that torture works. Not by a long shot. It’s a simple tautology: Torture works because this guy confessed because torture works. But there’s no indication in your example that his confession is true — the baseline for any argument that torture is effective. Torture has been used to get people to confess to things for thousands of years but that’s not what the question is. The question of is whether or not any of these confessions are reliable. You failed to give such an example.
Then when you find out that the example you did come up with has caused the US government so much embarrassment that it ended up having to deny that torture ever took place in order to salvage its case aaginst the defendant. Confronted with these facts what do you do? Resort to cheap emotional appeals and suggestions that I support the terrorists. Now that’s classic rightie tactics for you. When confronted with facts the other person must support terrorists.
You said I couldn’t argue with your “facts” or your “logic.” But from the beginning your whole argument has amounted to little more than tautology gilded with cheap emotionalism. You mention “magical thinking.” You haven’t once made a logical, fact-based case for torture. You’ve simply constructed a fantasy in which your solution, torture, magically works. I could do the same thing: “What if you had 24 hours to step up your investigative policework to find a bomb and save a million lives, would you do it?” I bet I could find any number of examples in which good solid policework without torture has saved lives.
Face it Dugger, you got schooled because you never had any logic or facts to begin with. You just had a fantasy in your head and your dick in your hand. You have proven yourself once again to be without credibility and without shame. You’re finished my friend. You have nothing to offer whatsoever.
frame,
Get with the program. You asked for an example. Got one. Then whined about the example and starting caveating the ground rules. Then you, ironically, go emotional and try to cover yourself in the flag. Won’t work. You write 5,000 words and say nothing. Bottom line: torture is horrible, so is death, so is lifetime confinement in a very small area. But even good societies can sometimes do those things to protect themselves. Otherwise religious and political fanatics, terrorists etc will take advantage of those weaknesses and murder their innocents in mass numbers. It is not unreasonable for those societies (like the US and Israel) to fight back hard – even in rare, dire circumstance using a weapon the Ts use all the time – torture. 2,800 horribly dead and you wouldn’t let us use a weapon the bad guys use indiscriminately all the time on a single terrorist to prevent a recurrence.
Dugger
I want to say one more thing about this. This is my own emotional appeal in this case. I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As the law of this land, these documents protect me from torture in any circumstance. But they do more than that. I believe they also place upon me the grave responsibility to uphold the ideals and principles behind that law. Five signers of the Declaration of Independence were later captured by the British and tortured before they died in custody. http://www.ctssar.org/articles/price_paid.htm
Our forefathers abhored the practice of torture which is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights prohibit it. If I support torture now, in this war, I am disgracing their sacrifices and their ideals. I will be turning my back on the principles upon which this country was founded. Sometimes we have to make great sacrifices to uphold our ideals. Our soliders do it everyday, but sometimes, even average citizens have to make the ultimate sacrifice as well. In the war against terror we all have to make a decision about whether we want to give in to our fears or stand strong with our ideals. I choose the later. Even if your fanatsy scenario were remotely realistic, I would rather die in a terrorist attack than see this country turn to torture as a remedy. Sadly, we already have. Which is I am so angry about this issue. We have turned our back on the sacrifices and principles of our founding fathers. We have disgraced them and for what? The remote, improbable chance that we might save our skins. This whole debate over torture is truly one of the most shameful things I have ever witnessed in this country.
Dugger –
What? Let’s refresh. What were the ground rules? Give me an example that proves your point that torture can be used to save lives. The example you gave doesn’t prove that. An example that doesn’t prove your point isn’t really an example is it? To suggest that your example proves torture saves lives is a tautology of the laziest sort: Torture works because torture works. That’s the laziest sort of thinking. Your response to my pointing this out only shows just how dishonest you are. We can return to your exact quote if you wish: “You asked for an example where torture worked.” BUt your example doesn’t prove that torture works. It’s like if I asked you to prove WHY the sky is blue and you presented me with a picture of the sky and said, “See, that’s why.”
I think it’s interesting that you would attack me for defending the ideals and principles of the Constitution when you would rather cover yourself in corpses. You put the lives of American citizens above the Constitution and its principles. Can you think of a more craven and cowardly stance? If every American believed the way you do — that when faced with a mortal threat we should take up our enemies’ tactics regardless of our own principles — where would we be today as a nation? If we were even still a nation.
In order for any of your claims about torture to be valid you have to begin by proving that torture produces true confessions and reliable information. I gave you a clear example proving that the opposite is often the case. You gave me an example in which someone confessed to something under torture but the whole point is that people are prone to confess to anything under torture, so simply presenting an example in which someone confessed something is not sufficient to make your case.
I note that you have yet to return to your example and argue why it proves your case. Instead you have accussed me of changing the ground rules. You have proven yourself here to be utterly dishonest and incapable of reasoned debate.
Can you even articulate why your example proves what you say it does? Abu Ali confessed to being a terrorist under torture. How does that prove torture works to produce reliable evidence? Tell me how.
Or maybe you would like to refute these guys about the effectiveness of toeture:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1119nj1.htm
Some perennially high-profile retired CIA officers like Bob Baer, Frank Anderson, and Vincent Cannistraro recently spoke out to Knight Ridder about their opposition to torture on practical grounds (Cannistraro said that detainees will “say virtually anything to end their torment”). But over the past 18 months, several lesser-known former officers have been trying, publicly and privately, to convince both the agency and the public that torture and other unduly coercive questioning tactics are morally wrong as well.
Speaking at a College of William and Mary forum last year, for example, Burton L. Gerber, a decorated Moscow station chief who retired in 1995 after 39 years with the CIA, surprised some in the audience when he said he opposes torture “because it corrupts the society that tolerates it.” This is a view, he confirmed in an interview with National Journal last week, that is rooted in Albert Camus’s assertion in Preface to Algerian Reports that torture, “even when accepted in the interest of realism and efficacy,” represents “a flouting of honor that serves no purpose but to degrade” a nation in its own eyes and the world’s. “The reason I believe that torture corrupts the torturers and society,” Gerber says, “is that a standard is changed, and that new standard that’s acceptable is less than what our nation should stand for. I think the standards in something like this are crucial to the identity of America as a free and just society.”
The moral dimensions of torture, Gerber adds, are inextricably linked with the practical; aside from the fact that torture almost always fails to yield true or useful information, it has the potential to adversely affect CIA operations. “Foreign nationals agree to spy for us for many different reasons; some do it out of an overwhelming admiration for America and what it stands for, and to those people, I think, America being associated with torture does affect their willingness to work with us,” he says. “But one of my arguments with the agency about ethics, particularly in this case, is that it’s not about case studies, but philosophy. Aristotle says the ends and means must be in concert; if the ends and means are not in concert, good ends will be corrupted by bad means.”
Face it Dugger. You got nothing. No facts, no logic and no morality to back up your support for torture. Otherwise let’s see it. But you have to start by proving to me, apparently a lot of ex-CIA agents, that torture works to produce reliable information. If torture cannot be counted on to produce reliable information your fantasy scenario breaks down immediately. People lie under torture, they make stuff up. They tell the their torturers whatever they want to hear. You seem unable or unwilling to address these facts and until you do, directly, your scenario is meaningless.
Or would you care to argue with Porter Goss on the effectiveness of torture:
“This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work,” Goss said in an interview with USA Today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/security_cia_torture_dc;_ylt=AkpwloZYk5Rc.AVBI8d3xEys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ–
frame,
Lets summarize. I say torture should be allowed under dire circumstances with thousands of innocent lives in the balance. You say torturing is ineffective, unAmerican and morally corrosive. Then you cite anecdotal evidence of people being against torture and saying it is ineffective. However, there is anecdotal evidence, as I provided , of torture working. There is no unbiased clearing house of data on torture so we will never resolve that. Fair enough?
Problem is I agree with most your argument as I summarized it and would still allow torture in dire circustances with thousands of lives at risk. It is morally corrosive – as surely as the executioner’s job or the jailer’s job is morally corrrosive. But democratic societies have both. It can often be ineffective. Thats true. But it can also be effective.
You will not convince me with name calling, claims of moral superiority or anecdotal evidence. The Israelis, at times facing the threat of extinction, use torture. If another Tim McVeigh were out there about to blow up a school house or another Atta out there about to murder another 2,800 “little Eichman’s” then we should it too IMO. And yes my scenario is unrealistic. As was McVeigh’s terrorism and the 9-11 terrorism. Completely unrealistic scenarios both of them.
Dugger
I have not given you anecdotal evidence. I have given the facts of the case against torture as an effective means of producing reliable information. I gave you the proven case of al-Libbi who manufactured evidence for WMD under torture that turned out to be completely untrue. I give you the accounts of veteran CIA officers who argue that torture does not work based on their years of experience. Read the article I linked to. They discuss the case of South Vietnamese intelligence officers and their “success” with torture. I give you the assessment of Porter Goss the current head of the CIA who says point blank: Torture does not work. You have given nothing that rises even remotely close to any of this in terms of evidence to support your case. Nothing. Your citation of the Abu Ali case proved nothing.
The Israeli’s use torture? Give me a link, give the article, find me the quote where an Israeli intelligence officer says that torture has saved Israeli lives. Can you find one person in a position of authority anywhere who has gone on record as saying that torture works, torture is effective?
If you weren’t open to dicussion then why did you ask me to stop calling you names and address the “facts” and “logic” of your argument? I’ve done that in spades and you have given nothing to refute any of it accept more of the same fantasy. When pressed for actual facts what do you? Resort to hogwash: There is no clearinghouse of data on torture so I guess we’ll never know. We’ll never know if torture works or not so we better err on the side of torture? Give me a break. All you have left is your ridiculous opinion that torture works. That isn’t enough to trash the Constitution in my book. I’m sure most Americans would agree. You are indeed a liar, a coward and a disgrace to this country.
“As was McVeigh s terrorism and the 9-11 terrorism. Completely unrealistic scenarios both of them.”
Here’s how dishonest you are. No one ever said that the scenario of nuclear bomb threatening half million people or whatever scenario you want to concoct was unrealistic. No one ever said that. I never said that. All I ever said was that there is no evidence whatsoever that torture will produce the results you say it will, that is, information that will save lives. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that torture does not produce effective information. You’re arguing against statements that no had made but yourself because you cannot argue the real point: torture does not work.
I didn’t ask you to stop calling names. Doing so is stupid and immature IMO and detracts from debate, but how you try and discuss things is your business. If you come from an environment where shouting invective and insulting people is OK – well it says something about you. It is often the weapon of the factually- and logic-challenged.
Do you even know what anecdotal evidence is. You just gave anecdotal evidence and then said you didn’t. Make it harder than that,. Come on.
“No one ever said that the scenario of nuclear bomb threatening half million people or whatever scenario you want to concoct was unrealistic. No one ever said that. I never said that. All I ever said was that there is no evidence whatsoever that torture will produce the results you say it will, that is, information that will save lives.”
So a nuclear bomb scenario is, then, realistic. It could kill half a million. But you would let those peopler die because you have some kind of weird rule that the information gained by torture, BY DEFINITION, can not be used to save lives. Wonder what magic rule of nature causes that to happen. I would think that under any given set of circumstances, just about any source of information could be used to save a life. A man in the street. Etc. But magically, per your ground rules, God intervenes with data gained from totrture and forbids by Holy fiat that information from being used to save lives. Nice.
Dugger
It’s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of ‘personal insults’ where none exist. One might infer that he has something to hide, and that a bit of punitive pre-judgement might help find out just what.
Of course, this is the Republican tactic par excellence: accuse others of your own faults.
Ahem said,
“It s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of personal insults where none exist.”
Did I just imagine all of this below? When you get right down to it, nobody, I mean nobody, hates as intensely and as irrationally as a leftist. That is undoubtedly why under the banner of that political ideology, in the history of our planet, many, many more innocent human beings have been murdered than any other form of extremism. Uncontrollable, irrational, hate. Its pervasive on the left.
“You have proven yourself here to be utterly dishonest and incapable of reasoned debate.”
“You are indeed a liar, a coward and a disgrace to this country.”
“You just had a fantasy in your head and your dick in your hand. You have proven yourself once again to be without credibility and without shame.”
“Dugger and OW apparently don t give a fuck about what we re supposed to stand for. Oh no, they just want to live to see another day no matter they have to do to get through the night. Glad to hear it boys. Like I said, only cowards condone torture.”
Dugger, Well ‘Informed’ Comment, Ahem
And I stand by every single accusation. I admit to getting frustrated with you Dugger because you aren’t an honest debater. You consistently ignore facts put forward, construct strawmen and change the subject so consistently I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse. You are indeed a coward and a disgrace for supporting torture in any circumstances but let’s face it, your patent dishonesty is on display for all the world to see in this thread and others. Here’s yet another example:
“But you would let those peopler die because you have some kind of weird rule that the information gained by torture, BY DEFINITION, can not be used to save lives. Wonder what magic rule of nature causes that to happen.”
What weird rule are you talking about? I never said that information extracted using torture can’t be used to save lives. I have said and proven repeatedly that the information extracted through torture is not useful to save lives because torture does not produce reliable information on which you can act. There’s a huge difference that you refuse to see. What magic rule of nature makes this so? BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR TO STOP BEING TORTURED! If I put a pair of pliers to your balls and asked you “Where is the bomb?” how long would it take before you told me that you planted the bomb in locker A at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Los Angeles? Even if you’ve never beento Los Angeles in your life? Second of all, if terrorists areso die hard determined to kill Americans on a mass scale, why do you think a terrorist would crack under torture in time to save anybody? Your whole scenario depends entirely on torture working so quickly and efficiently that wecould torture someone in the morning and have the bomb defused by lunch. That’s why I say your whole scenario is a fantasy your whole understanding of torture has no basis in fact. Torture does not work to extract relaible informationso how can you argue that it canbe used to save lives? You have yet to produce one single example from real life in which lives were saved using information gleaned through torture. I dare you bring up the Abu Ali example again and try to explain how it advances your case. You have yet to explain why this example proves what you say it does. You once again have yet to return to it to clarify what it is you mean. I bet you won’t either. I bet you’ll never mention it again in another post because you know it doesn’t mean anything. Indeed, it proves the exact opposite of what you want it to prove because Ali’s lawyers are arguing the confession he gave under torture was bogus and now the American prosecutors are saying that he wasn’t tortured at all. Either way you lose. So I know you won’t ever return to it and explain yourself or — even worse — admit you were wrong. Because you are fundamentally dishonest. It’s either that or stupid as fuck.
I gave you the facts of torture, from experts and from newspaper accounts of proven cases in which torture produced false information. You have yet to refute any of these facts. None of it. Instead you go one making up strawmen to attack and shifting the subject from torture to my manners.
And please, there’s no clearinghouse for facts on torture? Try this one:
http://www.amnesty.org/
frame,
You are so easy to knock down becasue you are your own worst enemy. You said: “And please, there s no clearinghouse for facts on torture?”
But I actually said: ” There is no unbiased clearing house of data on torture”
Are you smart enough to see where you screwed yup. Or do you want to hurl another insult?
You couldn’t get Plame right now you’ve bungled this. But you did manage to throw in another crude insult . Make sure your ideological buddy Ahem, who says he didn’t see any insults, sees what a nice, intellectual guy you are.
You write reams of crap and despite that, screw up every time.
Dugger
An unbiased clearhinghouse for torture? I wonder who would sponsor an unbiased clearinghouse on torture, you know, one presenting both sides of the argument. Who do you think would be its biggest sponsors? I bet you could count on Saddam Hussein for an endowment. You could definitely put the the House of Saud, Qadafi, any number of African tyrrants and the leadership of the Ukraine down for a few bucks. I’m sure there are many other wonderful benevolent leaders who would be willing to go on record as supporting an unbiased debate about the value of torture. Indeed, they could hold their annual conference in the Mengele Memorial Ballroom to layout all the unbiased, objective facts of torture’s effectiveness and have a reasonable debate on whether electrodes are best applied to the ears or the genitalia.
So your blaming the failure of your own argument on the lack of a clearinghouse for objective information on torture? Hilarious. Next you will be blaming the obvious anti-torture agenda of the liberal media for covering up all the positive news about torture. “Yes, it’s true, the good news about torture just isn’t getting out there. I would make my case using facts and expert testimony but there’s just no central clearing house for it all.” How intellectually honest am I? I’m doing your work for you. Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4412065.stm Read the article and just tell me you support what these men did and what they say.
Read it all the way through to the end:
“Many torturers cite the pressure of leading a double life as the hardest aspect of their profession.
Mr Garcia in Uruguay was carried along with the belief shared by his colleagues that the prisoners were evil and, given the opportunity, would do the same to him. It was only when he witnessed the torture of a family friend that he began to question what he was doing, exposed the regime and fled the country.
Most torturers, however, continued their trade until the regime change. For many, stopping torture was not an option – peer pressure, political indoctrination and a conviction of its effectiveness ensured their participation. But the very demise of the governments under whose name they tortured is testimony itself to the fact that torture, in the long term, rarely sustains a regime.”
You’re on the side of cowards and monsters.
Because you see Dugger, I’m not afraid of the facts. These tortures say that torture works. Fine. It’s anecdotal evidence to be sure (and we know how much you hate that) but if you recall what I originally asked of you:
“How about if you give me one real world scenario in which torture saved lives. Give me just one. And we ll proceed from there.”
You see, all you had to do was give me an example in which torture worked to save lives as it supposedly would in your rhetorical ticking time bomb scenario. In the BBC, article a Frenchman who tortued in Algeria says he saved lives in a literal ticking bomb scenario. I will note that he got the techniques from the Nazis. So now that I’ve found you your own evidence because you’re too fucking lazy and stupid to do it yourself (please, I have a certain right to call you names now that I’m feeding you your own argument) we can proceed to the next phase of the discussion. Are you game?
frame
Seriously. Why do you call names? Do you hate other posters? Is it possible to disagree with you without being called whatever harsh name pops into your mind? Is that the type of world you live in everyday: screaming invective at people?
And it was never an issue with me as to whether torture works or could be used to get information to save lives. It was your thought. I know history and I know what has happened over time. In addition do you understand that I also know torture is bad, very bad? That some of the worst critters in human history have used it. Thats no revelation. Taking a life is also very, very bad, but we permit the state to do it, don’t we? Lifetime incarcertion is bad but we permit the state to do it, don’t we. We permit a soldier to point a gun at another soldier and take his life, don’t we? Arguably, taking a life, killing a person, is worse than torture. But our and most other civilized societies see a need, per tightly controlled circumstances, to do those very ‘bad’ things at times. To make your point, it won’t do to argue torture is bad or that it hurts or that it has been done by bad people. I acknowledge all of those.
But if my society can electrocute (killing is bad) a person for killing another single person, why can’t that society torture a terrorist to prevent him from taking ten thousand lives?
Dugger
Dugger –
Do you not even see the contradictions of your own statements? You have to care about the effectiveness of torture because in order to achieve the ends that you say justify your means, torture has to work, and it has to work in an efficient and dependable manner. If torture doesn’t work, you don’t have an argument period. History and the facts have shown that torture is neither efficient nor dependable. So to be intellectually honest you must include a degree of uncertainty into your utilitarian equation. You have to say, “On the outside chance that torture might save half a million lives, would you do it?”
Of course, as I have previously pointed out, this isn’t the entire equation either. You have to also include the legal side of the argument as well because torture is against the law in the United States and any information gleaned through coercion is inadmissable in a court of law.
So the utilitarian argument has to be this:
“Understanding that torture is a violation of the Constitution and could jeopordize the possibility of future prosecution in American courts would you torture someone on the outside chance that it might save half a million lives?”
Of course there is also the ethical and moral dimensions to consider as well. Your utilitarian equation does not take into account the corrupting influence of torture on the individuals and society who condone it and practice it. So the utilitatian equation has to be this:
“Understanding that torture has a corrupting influence on society, that it’s a violation of the Constitution and could jeopordize the possibility of future prosecution, would you torture someone on the outsiude chance that it might save half a million lives?”
If utility is your sole argument in favor of troture, you have to include all of these things into the equation. But there’s more.
For your scenario to make sense, we have to assume that killing innocent people is the sole goal of the terrorists. But it isn’t. Killing people is only a means to an end for them. Their ultimate aim is to undermine and destroy our way of life. I submit to you that inflicting massive civilian casualties will never accomplish thsi goal. Los Angeles, where I live, could be incinerated tomorrow, and myself and everyone I love with it, but this massive tragedy, in and of itself, has no bearing on the surrvival of our way of life and the Constitution. The real danger to the Constitution and our way of life comes in our response to this tragedy. I believe that taking up torture as a response to this threat does more to undermine our way of life and Constitution than any number of civilian casualties. If we sanction torture we are saying point blank that our free, democratic society is a failure. That it is weak and cannot stand without resorting to the tactics of our enemies. We would be announcing our lack of convinction in our highest ideals. It’s a very simple relationship: If we torture, the terrorists win.
But you still have yet to present an honest scenario in which torture is justifiable. There are a number of questions you have yet to answer or refuse to answer:
1. What is the minimum number of lives that have to be at risk before torture becomes acceptable? Is it half a million? Why not half a dozen?
2. What is the minimum timeframe in which torture becomes acceptable, that is, at one point do we say that there is no more time for acceptable and effective forms of interrogation or investigation to work? Is it 24 hours out? A week? A month?
3. What level of evidence will have to be met to determine if the suspect has the information needed? Is it simple association or will there have to be more concrete proof? “Punitive prejudgement,” to use your words, will be based on what? What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect might know the information? Do we proceed with torture anyway?
You don’t answer any of these questions and yet still arrive at the conclusion that your scenario is valid, workable and justified. If the president is going to take responsibility for violating the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold and defend you better have have some pretty clear guidelines of when and how he is going to do it. Failing these guidelines there is no way a reasonable policy can be built that sanctions torture.
You also note that our society sanctions killing in times of war and in captial punishment. I am opposed to capital punishment for many of the same moral reasons I am opposed to torture. For one because it leads to a debasement of the society that practices, as witnessed in your argument of equivalence: “We execute people, why can’t we torture them?” You may as well ask, “We execute people, why can’t we also eat them?” You can use captial punishment to start down the slippery slope to justify all manner of barbarity. On the question of effectiveness, can you show me any study that proves capital punishment is a clear and effective deterrent to crime? We also know that historically it has been applied in a discriminatory fashion to people of color and the poor. So as a social policy, capital punishment has and always will raise just as many moral, ethical and pragmatic questions as does torture.
But setting aside the question of capital punishment for the moment, let’s return to the issue of war. You cannot fail to recognize that even war, while sanctioned, has rules and is governed by a set of laws under the Geneva Conventions. The rules of war specifically outlaw torture in any and all circumstances. You can argue all you want that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists but that simply isn’t true. At the same time, this doesn’t help you at all when the terrorist, in Abu Ali’s case, is an American who is still protected under the Constitution. Even in the face of sanction mass murder, such as war is, torture remains abhorrent and illegal in the eyes of decent nations.
Can you find, at any point in modern history, a respected world leader arguing on the record in favor of torture for national security. Can you find Bush himself, saying directly, that torturing people to save lives is a good and just? Do you think the President or anyone in his administration would ever come out and directly support the argument you are making for torture?
I would also point out that we kill in the name of war, but we also send civilians to die in the name of war. We make them soldiers yes, which is another way of saying we make them legitimate targets for murder. But why are civilians to be spared from having to make this moral choice of dying for the defense of our country and our way of life? The willful bombing of civilians in war is a disgusting, immoral and illegal practice. But that doesn’t mean that civilians don’t have to accept some sacrifice, some responsibility in maintaing the integrity of our principles and ideals. People keep saying that freedom isn’t free. They’re damn right and the price we pay to live in a free society is that we, soldier or civilian, may have to die to keep our society free. As I ahev said before, I would rather die in a terrorist bombing than see the Bill of Rights chucked aside in favor of torture. Which is why I could look into the eyes of those who lost loved ones in an attack and say to them that their loved ones died to keep this country free.
You’re entire argument is built on a pair of dubious assumptions: One, that torture works; Two, that saving lives is the only thing that matters in war. Neither is true.
I need to add more specifically that your final comparison is entirely bogus:
“But if my society can electrocute (killing is bad) a person for killing another single person, why can t that society torture a terrorist to prevent him from taking ten thousand lives?”
I disagree with capital punishment but at the very least it is a punishment meted out — in this country at least — after a very lengthy system of due process that involves a trial by jury and the right to appeal. Even then it can sometimes prove horribly, tragically flawed:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/chronicle/3472872
I would also add that under our current system of law even a murder charge or conviction based on a confession can be thrown out if the confession was found to be coerced.
None of this holds true or could hold true in the case of torture. The scenario you describe precludes due process, trial by jury and the right of appeal in favor of administering cruel and unusual punishment based on suspicion and assumption. Don’t you see that torture isn’t due process, torture is the antithesis of due process? Of course you don’t. Otherwise you never could have written what you’ve written.
Did I just imagine all of this below?
Um, you weren’t quoting me, Dugger. Pick out a personal insult from the comment of mine to which you replied earlier, rather than wielding a broad, tar-drenched brush.
frame, You write too much for me to respond to all. But in brief: it doesn’t matter if totrture is or is not generally ineffective. Under my scenario it would not be generally used, only very rarely used, and then in dire, controlled circumstances where the prevailing situation could be catastrophic.
Also the argument isn’t if it is or is not legal but rather whether it should be permitted – theoretically- under any circumstances.
” Killing people is only a means to an end for them. Their ultimate aim is to undermine and destroy our way of life. I submit to you that inflicting massive civilian casualties will never accomplish thsi goal.”
Doesn’t matter if thats how you think. It isn’t how the terrorists think. They will kill large numbers of people and the historical evidence of this propensity is clear (remember Lockerbie, what the shoe bomber was trying to do, McVeigh).
The Israelis used and wanted to continue to use torture.
And yes torture is corrupting and yes I doubt any world leader has said ” I like torture” and yes torture would not use due process (as a sniper who points his rifle and shoots someone, does not use due process).
And I would say the bottom line is that you think torture is so bad that you wouldn’t let is be used under any circumstances and I would permit it under certain very limited, tightly controlled circumstances. I’m leaving it at that.
Dugger
Ahem,
So you did not say (in response to an exchange between frame and myself): “It s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of personal insults where none exist. “?
And therefore you must have actually said: “It s interesting how freely Dugger throws around accusations of personal insults by Ahem where none exist. “? Did OW or the Internet Gremlin twist your words?
Face it. The left and leftist posters have a bad anger/hate problem and most are incapable of civil excahnges, probably because in a civil exchange the shallowness of their positions are so easily exposed. Can’t debate? Can’t argue civilly? Call names.
Dugger
And then you turn around and say things like this:
“most are incapable of civil excahnges, probably because in a civil exchange the shallowness of their positions are so easily exposed.”
Ha. It’s too classic. The shallowness of their positions? You have been forced to admit that you don’t care if torture is effective. You don’t care if it works but you are convinced it can save lives. Tell me how that makes sense. Explain yourself. You can’t. Because your position is puddle deep.
“it doesn t matter if totrture is or is not generally ineffective. Under my scenario it would not be generally used”
Okay, see, you’re brain dead. Using torture rarely doesn’t change the fact that everytime you use it there is a high chance that it will prove inefficient and unrelaible. If there’s an 80 percent chance that a gun will jam every time you use it, only using it once a year won’t change that. The point is, if you cannot rely on torture to produce reliable information efficiently, your scenario, no matter how rare, will never end in the result that justifies torture: saved lives.
“Also the argument isn t if it is or is not legal but rather whether it should be permitted – theoretically- under any circumstances.”
If it is not legal, then it is illegal to use it. Give me another scenario in which the police are allowed to use such illegal or exta legal methods to accomplish their goals?
“They will kill large numbers of people and the historical evidence of this propensity is clear.”
And I agree. My point, however, is that they do this to force an extreme reaction from the state they target: They want us to turn to torture because they want to corrupt and destroy our way of life. Whether or not terrorists can accomplish their ultimate goal — destroying our way of life and shaking our faith in our prinicples — is entirely up to us.
“torture would not use due process (as a sniper who points his rifle and shoots someone, does not use due process)”
In what context does your sniper analogy suipport torture? You mean a police sniper who takes out a suspect firing on a crowd of people? That’s a lot different than arresting someone with an Aranic last name who lives in the same building as a terrorist cell and then torturing him to figure out where the bomb is. Remembering the guy who was shot after the London bombings? Turns out the only reason the cops were tailing him was that he had brown skin and lived next door to the terrorists. An innocent man died because fear took precedence over due process.
“The Israelis used and wanted to continue to use torture.”
So did the Nazis. Prove they use it effectively and reliable a high degree of the time. But then again, you don’t care if torture works right? Isn’t that a bit like saying, “I don’t care if this luck rabbit’s foot doesn’t work, I’m going to use it to cure my cancer anyway?”
“I would permit it under certain very limited, tightly controlled circumstances. I m leaving it at that.”
You have to leave it at that because on all counts you haven’t got a leg to stand on. There is no factual, legal or moral argument you can make that holds up to the slightest scrutiny. If you were honest you’d just admit it. But you won’t because you aren’t. At long last we know how you operate. You’ll whine and whine about how no one is arguing like reasonable adults but once you are backed into a corner by the facts and arguments both legal and moral, you stick your fingers in your ears and hold your breath until your face turns blue. You’re just sad.
frame,
I was just about to let this thread drop, but I couldn’t resist just one more little educational lesson for you.
“Using torture rarely doesn t change the fact that everytime you use it there is a high chance that it will prove inefficient and unrelaible.”
Every time? Really? Then why is it and has it been repeatedly used throughout history – even by democracies. Hint: because it can work sometimes when perhaps nothing else will work.
I suppose good ‘ol coach frame, trailing by 6 points, with fourth down and 6 seconds on the clock, then would not try to win the game with a Hail Mary. “Nope. Can’t do that. It probably won’t work. We quit right here. Ground the ball and concede defeat boys. What, the owner is calling?”
Dugger
No Dugger wrong again. You clearly fundamentally misunderstand what torture is. Torture is not an effective means of interrogation and investigation. It is, however, a highly effective instrument of state terror. States thoughout history turn to torture not when they want to produce reliable information but when they want to instill fear in their political opposition. If you actually bothered to look at the history of torture and accounts of its use by both torturers and their victims you will find that torture is more often used to stifle political dissent, not to prevent violence.
[...] lks to wonder if the Heritage Foundation got to me (we ve had a lot of that lately – torture, death penalty, parental notification), but I think the gist of what Ed Kilgore [...]