torture then...

[wardah]

firstly, apologies if this topic has been done to death already, but i'm a bit of a newbie here so you'll have to forgive me (or forever hold a grudge, whichever you prefer)...

Ok, another thing I’ve been ‘wondering about’ of late: Torture…

Can it be justified?? I’ve always been of the mind that regressing on human rights in the interests of ‘protecting society’ is a self defeating sequence. But once you start really thinking about it, it’s such a hard topic to deal with.

On the one hand, I feel I would rather live in a society where bombs occasionally went off then one where our rights were reduced – for example if torture were allowed, or the police allowed to hold people without trial (eg: the 90 days rule). But on the other hand, surely you would do anything that might avert a disaster if it was up to you personally to stop it? For example – the ‘ticking time bomb’ question – a bomb is due to go off in London and you have with you the person who can almost certainly provide you with the information to stop it…

So why, if I would do anything to get that information, should the government not be able to act in such a fashion? As I’ve said, I’ve been pondering on this lately, and in fact I just can’t bring myself through any argument to decide that torture and the like should be legalised, but I was wondering what other people’s opinions might be? I’m fairly sure attitudes to torture will have changed pretty substantially in recent years in the ‘climate of fear’ we live in, as people become more and more convinced that we need protection from outside threats, and a strong, decisive government is the thing to save us. But, surely nothing can be more worthy of that protection than human rights? Or is the idea of human rights just that – an idea only – and impossible to achieve in the real world?

Ideas? Comments? I really would be interested to see what other people think.

[Accountable]

AGH!! Torturing us with torture again!! :-5 Kidding! just kidding.



You bring up some good points. I'm all about liberty, and little justifies curtailing individual freedom. I can't think of a scenario where I would give police powers as you describe. War is a different issue, and what our military can do to the enemy to gain information is not what I'm addressing.



Now, if someone encountered a 'ticking bomb' situation, I would hope that that person would weigh the options and be willing to pay the legal price for any action he deemed necessary. I really get angry when I hear of someone admit they broke the law and still insist on innocence. If I torture someone I will have good reason -- reason enough to go to prison for. I will trust the system to find justice; I would never plead not guilty if I tortured or killed someone on purpose in such a situation.

[Chezzie]

Torture encompasses everything from the minor (sleep deprivation) to the horrible (thumbscrews, the rack, systematically breaking bones,etc). :-1

I am totally against Torturing anything and anyone. In my eyes its barbaric and I understand their are evil people in the world but to me "two wrongs dont make a right".

I like the way this person thinks and they speak better than myself so im going to quote them.:-6

Whether one tortures to save one life or a thousand lives, the argument for torture is indefensible due to insurmountable legal, moral, and practical problems.

First, it is impossible for interrogators to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that a suspect possesses information about the threat. There are numerous unknown variables, such as the existence of the threat, its extent, location, and duration, whether it can be averted, and the identity and knowledge of the suspect. This means that a person may be tortured based on speculation and untested pre-trial evidence, and it is inevitable that innocent people will often be tortured. We know that even after exhausting all levels of appeal in one of the world’s most advanced legal systems, many innocent people in the United States have been wrongly executed. The risk of error is multiplied by the climate of crisis and urgency surrounding terrorist incidents, and the public pressure on interrogators to produce speedy results.

It also means that the torture of an innocent person might only stop when the person is dead. If interrogators are wrongly convinced that a person has information, they will apply increasingly savage torture methods in the hope of extracting the information.

Interrogators may believe that the person is simply holding out, rather than innocent. The problem of torturing the innocent is very real considering that, according to U.S. investigations, two-thirds of detainees at Abu Ghraib in Iraq were found innocent of any terrorist links, and 40% at Guantanamo . Similarly, the Public Committee against Torture in Israel reports that torture of Palestinian detainees since the second intifadah is routine, even though few are ever charged with terrorist offenses.

Second, licensing torture would undoubtedly encourage its abuse, since the legal and moral stigma attached to torture would be removed. Even if torture saves lives in rare cases, the escalation and abuse of torture in the majority of other cases would undoubtedly cause greater suffering than it prevents.

Some academics counter the slippery slope argument by asserting that torture already happens and it is better to regulate it than prohibit it. That is perversely like arguing that because murder and terrorism happen, they too should be decriminalized. Torture cannot be trivially treated like alcohol or marijuana, where regulation may reduce harm. Torture is not a social problem; it is a different kind of violent harm. In medieval Europe , torture was regulated by detailed rules, yet codification failed to control the reckless and expanding use of torture.

Third, if torture currently happens despite prohibition, then why would interrogators obey the limits imposed by any regulatory scheme? Interrogators would still torture if they think it is in the interests of public safety. It is preferable to hold the line at prohibition, but better to implement it through training police and military forces, and closer judicial supervision of interrogations.

Fourth, torturing anyone who may have information, and not just wrongdoers, casts collective suspicion on whole groups of people, such as the family, friends, and colleagues of a suspect, who may happen to know something about the threat. There is no clear limit to the range of people who could be exposed to torture.

Fifth, if torturing terrorists aims to protect public safety, it is hard to see why other threats should not be combated by torture. Why not torture those planning genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder, or rape, even a child kidnapper, as well as those who might know of others planning such crimes? Again, there is no obvious limit to torture once the door to it is opened.

Sixth, torture does not work. Debating the effectiveness of torture immediately concedes that torture may be morally permissible if it works. Nonetheless, since arguments for its effectiveness continue to be loudly voiced, it is necessary to combat such arguments, even if it means getting our hands dirty in the process. Experienced interrogators know that torture produces misinformation rather than information, since victims of torture will confess to anything to make it stop. This could jeopardize rather than protect public safety, as investigators waste precious time chasing up false leads. Torture fell into disuse historically because it didn’t work.

Interrogators have sophisticated techniques for gathering reliable information: the shock of capture and disorientation of detention; offering rewards (like cigarettes, or as U.S. Department of Defense lawyer charmingly wrote, cookies), or withholding privileges; surveillance; psychological pressure; deception (including informants); plea bargaining; and gaining the detainee’s trust. Most detainees are soon worn down by the sheer exhaustion of resisting interrogators. The struggle against terrorism will be won by meticulous and time-honored police work, not cutting corners through torture.

Finally, torture corrupts our institutions and professions. Requiring interrogators to torture degrades and brutalizes them as human beings, and society cannot demand this of them. (I am trying to imagine what the job description would look like in newspaper: “Experienced torturers only need apply. Former Taliban welcome.”)


http://tamilink.org.uk/tl/?page_id=618

[wardah]

Accountable;764796 wrote:



Now, if someone encountered a 'ticking bomb' situation, I would hope that that person would weigh the options and be willing to pay the legal price for any action he deemed necessary. I really get angry when I hear of someone admit they broke the law and still insist on innocence. If I torture someone I will have good reason -- reason enough to go to prison for. I will trust the system to find justice; I would never plead not guilty if I tortured or killed someone on purpose in such a situation.


Now I actually quite like that answer - yes, I think that if you were to break the law because you felt that the means justified the end then you should be willing to accept the consequences. And if you feel that torture was a necessary evil then surely you would also think that if you end up in prison because of your actions then that also is worth it if you've saved lives.

Although out of interest, why do you think that war is a different issue? Why does a situation of war make human rights less important? And how would you decide what constitutes war and what doesn't? If you look at the 'war on terror' for example - are people seen to be engaging in acts of terrorism to be treated as criminals or as enemy combatants?

[Accountable]

wardah;764803 wrote: Although out of interest, why do you think that war is a different issue? Why does a situation of war make human rights less important? And how would you decide what constitutes war and what doesn't? If you look at the 'war on terror' for example - are people seen to be engaging in acts of terrorism to be treated as criminals or as enemy combatants?
Not to get into if/when war is justified will be difficult, but let's agree to start from the premise that we are talking about a fictitious justified war. I think that way we won't get stuck in the mire you'll find in probably every political thread here.



In war people are dying by the hundreds and in imminent danger of dying. Ask either side and they'll tell you they are defending their people against the other people. Delay spends lives. Threat of torture or death is a very effective tool which can potentially -- potentially -- shorten the time to get vital life-saving information. For the threat to be effective it has to be real.



That was the beauty of waterboarding, by the way. There was no real danger of death, and no permanent injury. There was only the prisoner's perception of such. Of course now the truth of waterboarding is public knowledge and the practice is redered useless.

[Galbally]

Oh no, torture again. Well its a complicated question but I think that there are two main parts of it. The first one is should torture be part of an institutional framework wether in the military or the police as a means of gathering information. I think that in the main most people would realize that institutional torture is a fairly barbaric practice and also a self-defeating device (well for people who believe in the idea of rule under universally applied just laws is a good thing it does anyway) and this is why most modern countries try to minimize if not eliminate its use.

The other one is the ethical question of whether torture is ever justified and the answer is yes of course it is, there are lots of hypothetical situations where by torturing someone you could access information that would prevent a lot of people dying horribly or something to that effect. Its the basic question of whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the indivdual, and in many cases the answer is yes, though of course its by no means a black and white one, but in principal ethically you can justify torture, murder, incarceration and all manner of not very nice behaviour, fortunatly most of the time we don't have to face these kinds of questions personally.

[koan]

I don't believe torture is something that any sane person could consider doing to another human being. Unfortunately we don't live in a sane world. I'd rather continue being sane myself then join the chaos. I can't control what other people do so I can only hope that more and more people become sane and try to lead by example.

I recall watching the show "24" with some acquaintances and they were excited every time someone was going to be tortured. Egging it on from their couches. I found it very bizarre. Those were my least favourite moments in the series, though eventually I just stopped watching because the hapless daughter constantly needing rescuing wore on my nerves.

[gmc]

It's a no brainer IMO. Freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to face your accusers in open court are the two basic rights from which all the rest flow. If you give the authorities the right to do what they like without having to account for their action you no longer live in a free country. It's a method of state terror that should not be allowed and those that would justify it show themselves unfit for iffice in a free democratic country,

Apart from that it doesn't work. People will say and confess to anything under torture it was often used as a way for the state to implicate and get rid of it's enemies. Don't know about america but here it wasn't the state-as in the king that voluntarily gave up it's right to do what it wanted they weren't given the choice by the people who finally had had enough.

posted by galbally

The other one is the ethical question of whether torture is ever justified and the answer is yes of course it is, there are lots of hypothetical situations where by torturing someone you could access information that would prevent a lot of people dying horribly or something to that effect. Its the basic question of whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the indivdual, and in many cases the answer is yes, though of course its by no means a black and white one, but in principal ethically you can justify torture, murder, incarceration and all manner of not very nice behaviour, fortunatly most of the time we don't have to face these kinds of questions personally.


It was little use in Northern ireland and it's use in iraq has effectively destroyed any claim the coalition forces had to the moral high ground.

In all recent conflicts where it has been used to get information the results are at best of dubious value.

All out total war is maybe a different scenario. on the other hand Torture didn't help the nazis or the japanese much in ww2 but it's use did much to stiffen the resistance to them. No doubt both americans and british also used whether it was more or less effective than other methods of interrogation is highly debatable.

[Accountable]

Nobody wants to comment on my implying that the threat of torture is more effective than torture itself? I thought it rather clever.

[koan]

It is rather clever, except you'll notice with kids that they never take the threat of a spanking seriously unless you've done it or are known to have done it in the past.

[Chezzie]

Accountable;765000 wrote: Nobody wants to comment on my implying that the threat of torture is more effective than torture itself? I thought it rather clever.


did you now:sneaky::sneaky::D

your right of course but nobody wants to admit that to you:wah:

[Accountable]

koan;765001 wrote: It is rather clever, except you'll notice with kids that they never take the threat of a spanking seriously unless you've done it or are known to have done it in the past.
Thus the now defunct beauty of waterboarding.

[Accountable]

Chezzie;765002 wrote: did you now:sneaky::sneaky::D



your right of course but nobody wants to admit that to you:wah:
HA!!



I figured I'd better catch this quote before you have a chance to delete it .............

since ... you ... are ... WRONG! :p

[gmc]

Accountable;765000 wrote: Nobody wants to comment on my implying that the threat of torture is more effective than torture itself? I thought it rather clever.


I thought it was a singularly inane comment and that you were being facetious.

[Accountable]

gmc;765358 wrote: I thought it was a singularly inane comment and that you were being facetious.
Ouch! Parents use threats of pain or at least unpleasantness all the time. It's quite effective. Cops get information from criminals by using threat of arrest & prison. If a combatant is captured and believes that his enemy will torture or kill him for information, he is more likely to give tell than if he knows that the enemy's gov't has tied his hands.



Inane??

[spot]

As far as Accountable's point goes, the threat of torture in the sense of a build-up of expectation and helplessness increases the subsequent efficacy of actual torture. So I'm told, and to the limited extent that actual torture is effective anyway. It qualifies, presumably, as anything from coercion to mental torture in its own right.

With regard to the question at hand there's two weights to be put onto the scales. One is the effect on ten or a thousand or a million individuals if an imminent threat isn't averted by the use of torture. The other is the cost to society of the state authorizing and applying that torture, or the state not prosecuting its use subsequently if it was an unauthorized private initiative. I don't think the scales can ever come down on the side of the benefit to the individuals at the cost to society, regardless of their number. This is just the same issue as the apocryphal haggling by George Bernard Shaw at the dinner party. Even a single instance, regardless of the potential benefit, is enough to permanently scar the character of the society which countenanced it.

The responsibility for the harm, if any harm eventuates, is invariably with the perpetrator of the harm. If that harm was criminal then the perpetrator is subject to criminal sanction. Torture doesn't enter this equation at any level.

[wardah]

spot;765399 wrote:

With regard to the question at hand there's two weights to be put onto the scales. One is the effect on ten or a thousand or a million individuals if an imminent threat isn't averted by the use of torture. The other is the cost to society of the state authorizing and applying that torture, or the state not prosecuting its use subsequently if it was an unauthorized private initiative. I don't think the scales can ever come down on the side of the benefit to the individuals at the cost to society, regardless of their number.


there you go, that's what I was trying to say. Although I must admit I'm stymied by George Bernard Shaw's apocryphal haggling (not to mention the troubles I had trying to spell 'apocryphal')

[koan]

I just watched bits from a film about the three British Muslims held in Guatanamo... it's disgraceful really. I can't say I'm excited about living in a society that feels they need to act the way we do to secure "peace".

Perhaps my strong views against war, armies and torture are influenced by my lack of enthusiasm for perpetuating the human race but I just don't see the value in becoming monsters so that we can survive.

[spot]

One day we'll all have Google hard-wired somewhere behind the hippocampus and conversations will be less fraught.

Results 1 - 100 of about 193 for apocryphal haggling by George Bernard Shaw at the dinner party. (0.54 seconds) George Bernard Shaw once found himself at a dinner party, seated beside an attractive woman. "Madam," he asked, "would you go to bed with me for a thousand pounds?" The woman blushed and rather indignantly shook her head.

"For ten thousand pounds?" he asked. "No. I would not." "Then how about fifty thousand pounds?" he contined. The colossal sum gave the woman pause, and after further reflection, she coyly replied: "Perhaps." "And if I were to offer you five pounds?" Shaw asked.

"Mr. Shaw!" the woman exclaimed. "What do you take me for!" "We have already established what you are," Shaw calmly replied. "Now we are merely haggling over the price."Which is, perhaps, the same territory.

There's a practical reason not to torture as well as the ethical one we've proposed so far. Maybe the person you propose to torture is a criminal, maybe he isn't. If you treat him as a criminal in open court you expose his actions to the world and hold him up as an example that few would applaud. If you torture him you generate such outrage at your behaviour that another ten will take his place.

At that practical level I'd put torture in the same box as paying ransom to kidnappers in terms of its effect, if that helps. If you refuse to treat with a kidnapper and expose him he's reviled. If you pay him off you create an industry and another ten kidnaps happen in consequence.

[Accountable]

Your post seems to place torture in the realm of punishment, like Braveheart or something. In my mind, torture is useless except as an expedient means to gather vital time-sensitive information.



"Who is your leader?"

"Where is the bomb?"

"How can I get this wine stain out of the carpet before the wife gets home?"



It's not dependable even then, but when that's all you have to save lives, that what you use.

[spot]

Or when that's all you have to save lives, that what you refuse to stoop to. It depends on your moral sensibility. Nobody's even hinted at punishment or even had it cross their mind as far as I can see. It certainly hasn't crossed mine.

[wardah]

spot;765883 wrote: One day we'll all have Google hard-wired somewhere behind the hippocampus and conversations will be less fraught.




ah well, I went to wikipedia and didn't find it there, it seems it's not quite the font of all knowledge after all.

But about the issue depending on your moral sensibilities, although in theory I do agree with you, that's the only bit I really have trouble sorting out in my head...

'madam I didn't save your family by finding out where the bomb was because of my moral sensibilities' ? Ach I don't know, it seems a bit... selfish?

[spot]

You can't just ask yourself who was responsible for the bomb being there at all? The responsibility is that of the bomber, not you. By all means improve your policing efficiency. By all means pre-emptively arrest, prosecute and convict for crimes committed - after all, conspiracy to cause an explosion is as heavily sentenced as causing the explosion itself. Your job is to police so effectively that nobody commits crime. It isn't to entrap, to bait honeypots, to commission terrorism, it's to provide extensive genuine cast-iron incontrovertible evidence of genuine unprovoked intent to a court of law. Do your policing job properly and there will be no explosions.

How far down the slippery slope is it to say "I'm 90% certain that the person I intend to torture is complicit in this bomb plot" rather than 100%? Given that you're saving thousands? Or "I rounded up a dozen people and one of them must be in on the plot" and torture them all? Given, after all, that you're saving thousands?

[Galbally]

gmc;764991 wrote: It's a no brainer IMO. Freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to face your accusers in open court are the two basic rights from which all the rest flow. If you give the authorities the right to do what they like without having to account for their action you no longer live in a free country. It's a method of state terror that should not be allowed and those that would justify it show themselves unfit for iffice in a free democratic country,

Apart from that it doesn't work. People will say and confess to anything under torture it was often used as a way for the state to implicate and get rid of it's enemies. Don't know about america but here it wasn't the state-as in the king that voluntarily gave up it's right to do what it wanted they weren't given the choice by the people who finally had had enough.

posted by galbally



It was little use in Northern ireland and it's use in iraq has effectively destroyed any claim the coalition forces had to the moral high ground.

In all recent conflicts where it has been used to get information the results are at best of dubious value.

All out total war is maybe a different scenario. on the other hand Torture didn't help the nazis or the japanese much in ww2 but it's use did much to stiffen the resistance to them. No doubt both americans and british also used whether it was more or less effective than other methods of interrogation is highly debatable.


Actually relatively sophisticated psycological torture was found to be a highly effective way of demoralizing Republican prisoners in the north, (as well as interrogating them), and it was used in various guises, and also long-term torture techniques were used quite effectively to turn people or at least damage them enough that they would no longer be useful to the other side once they were let back out. Torture is not always used to extract information, but to say in a blanket way that it "does not work" is incorrect, its a highly effective terror method, and also of course for interrogation and "breaking" people. As if was ineffective professional military establishments wouldn't waste so much time using it. On the IRA and other paramilitary organizations used more, direct, (shall we say) methods of interrogating those accused of collaboration or informing, as well as the odd hapless squaddie or even more highly ranked British military personel, before they were shot.

To be honest I think its wishful thinking to imagine that torture doesn't work, it does if the people who are doing it know what they are doing, which makes it worse I suppose, because that ensures that it will always be with us. Again, your points about its barbarity and its proper prohibition from any decent society in anything but the most extreme circumstances are well made and I completely agree.

[Grizzled_Bear]

I don't think it's possible to get past the lack of credibility of information or the polarizing effect it has on your enemy.