Does evil justify this?

[nikolai_42]

I remember hearing Alan Dershowitz being interviewed shortly after 9/11. He was talking about the interrogation techniques that were being considered should any important terrorists be brought into custody. In the course of the discussion he brought up the possibility that torture could be used to induce the suspect to talk. Legally, the question goes to a) admissibility of any statements obtained through torture and b) whether the nature of the practice is acceptable (permissible in a state of war). Ethically, it goes to a human rights debate.

 Interestingly enough, CNN is running a poll today (March 03) and 2/3 of respondents (approx 30000 of 45000 respondents) support the use of torture in interrogation. Oddly enough, it seems war itself is UNpopular. 

  Would you support torture in interrogation? Why or why not?

 Consider that while (if the CNN poll is reasonably accurate) a majority supports torture of individuals, while only a minority supports war. Does this not seem to reflect fear more than it does principled objection?

 

[David Gould]

I would not support torture.

Firstly, a terrorist suspect is just that - a suspect. They have been convicted of no crime.

As a matter of self interest, I would not support the torture of people who are suspected by authorities of doing something, because:

1.) authorities get things wrong

2.) anyone someone in power wants tortured could be named as a suspect and then tortured

Democracies are built with the intention of not allowing power to be concentrated or abused. History demonstrates that trusting governments with excessive power always results in abuse of that power.

 

Secondly, torture is not part of any moral system that I recognise as valid.

 

[nikolai_42]

Today at 11:24 PM David Gould said this in Post #2

I would not support torture.

Firstly, a terrorist suspect is just that - a suspect. They have been convicted of no crime.

Fair enough. What about known terrorists (e.g. incontrovertible evidence ) who hold the connection to more dangerous terrorists?

As a matter of self interest, I would not support the torture of people who are suspected by authorities of doing something, because:

1.) authorities get things wrong

2.) anyone someone in power wants tortured could be named as a suspect and then tortured

 Okay...but then so does everyone. This doesn't change the fact that there have to be ways of dealing with dangerous people. Yes, authorities get things wrong, which is one reason Modern Western civilization does not ascribe to dictatorship.

Democracies are built with the intention of not allowing power to be concentrated or abused. History demonstrates that trusting governments with excessive power always results in abuse of that power.

 So are you saying that such methods would bring the interrogator down to the level of the terrorist?

 

Secondly, torture is not part of any moral system that I recognise as valid.

 

 What, then, constitutes 'justifiable force'?

 

[Susan]

I would not support torture.

It is against my beliefs as a Christian.

It serves no purpose that cannot be served with less evil means.

And I have many other reasons. . .

 

[David Gould]

Today at 02:40 PM nikolai_42 said this in Post #3

Fair enough. What about known terrorists (e.g. incontrovertible evidence ) who hold the connection to more dangerous terrorists?

If the person has been tried before a jury of their peers and found guilty of terrorism then our legal system has punishments in place for that crime. If they have not been tried and found guilty then they are innocent, "incontrovertible evidence" notwithstanding.

There are also mechanism for plea bargaining in exchange for information and so forth.

If we permit torture for suspected terrorists, why not in all cases in which the person may have further information?

 Okay...but then so does everyone. This doesn't change the fact that there have to be ways of dealing with dangerous people. Yes, authorities get things wrong, which is one reason Modern Western civilization does not ascribe to dictatorship.

We do have ways of dealing with dangerous people. They are called prisons.

To allow the torture of suspects make a democracy a dictatorship, as those in power can then torture whoever they please, whenever they please. All they need do is say, "Oh, they are a suspect."

 So are you saying that such methods would bring the interrogator down to the level of the terrorist?

That is part of it, yes.

   

 What, then, constitutes 'justifiable force'?

Justifiable force? Difficult to answer. "Acting in self defence or defence of others in the case of an immediate threat where the subject of the force is the direct cause of the immediate threat, with the force being the minimum required to remove the immediate threat," would probably come close, although in my opinion each case would have to be judged on its individual merits.

I am sure there are ways to turn that into a justification for torture.

But no moral system is perfect. I would simply add the clause: "no infliction of pain allowed to gather information, no matter what".

 

[TheBear]

I say no. (but, I have not voted in the poll. )

 

[nikolai_42]

Yesterday at 11:54 PM David Gould said this in Post #5

Justifiable force? Difficult to answer. "Acting in self defence or defence of others in the case of an immediate threat where the subject of the force is the direct cause of the immediate threat, with the force being the minimum required to remove the immediate threat," would probably come close, although in my opinion each case would have to be judged on its individual merits.

I am sure there are ways to turn that into a justification for torture.

But no moral system is perfect. I would simply add the clause: "no infliction of pain allowed to gather information, no matter what".

 

  In other words, when it comes to torture, NO ENDS justify that means? Would you say that?

 There is a story (apparently not true) about Churchill having advance information on a German attack on Coventry. Having broken the Enigma code, Allied intelligence did not want to display this knowledge if at all possible. Since Coventry was not strategically important, the story goes that Churchill did nothing hoping to use the intelligence for a more strategic purpose - one that in the end would arguably end up SAVING more lives than if he had acted on the Coventry info.

 And in a related thought, one that advances a more difficult question, consider the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. While many people were killed, the use of nuclear weapons swiftly brought an end to the conflict with Japan (German having done themselves in in the Russian snow!).

 More often than not, the 'successful' application of brutal means can not be measured, as one cannot say what was prevented with absolute certainty. But on the other hand, "Oops" is not something you want to hear when looking back at missed opportunities to limit brutalities.

If there is strong indication that 'terrorist intelligence' will save lives and prevent disaster, how do one terrorist's human rights stack up against the welfare of possibly millions of innocent, unwitting citizens?

 

[David Gould]

Today at 03:29 PM nikolai_42 said this in Post #7

 

  In other words, when it comes to torture, NO ENDS justify that means? Would you say that?

 There is a story (apparently not true) about Churchill having advance information on a German attack on Coventry. Having broken the Enigma code, Allied intelligence did not want to display this knowledge if at all possible. Since Coventry was not strategically important, the story goes that Churchill did nothing hoping to use the intelligence for a more strategic purpose - one that in the end would arguably end up SAVING more lives than if he had acted on the Coventry info.

 And in a related thought, one that advances a more difficult question, consider the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. While many people were killed, the use of nuclear weapons swiftly brought an end to the conflict with Japan (German having done themselves in in the Russian snow!).

 More often than not, the 'successful' application of brutal means can not be measured, as one cannot say what was prevented with absolute certainty. But on the other hand, "Oops" is not something you want to hear when looking back at missed opportunities to limit brutalities.

If there is strong indication that 'terrorist intelligence' will save lives and prevent disaster, how do one terrorist's human rights stack up against the welfare of possibly millions of innocent, unwitting citizens?

I would never measure it like that. This is because if one terrorist's human rights are trampled on, the human rights of all of us are trampled on.

 

In my reasoning on the Iraq crisis, I have had to make my decision based on my best guess as to what action will cause the least suffering.

This is how I would base many of my moral decisions on.

In the case of torture, I believe that using it damages causes us more harm than not using it, even if millions are at risk of death if we do not.

 

[webboffin]

I have a very high disregard for torture. I hate the concept of it as barbaric, awful and disgusting.

But on the other hand, the capture of terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is a known al-qaeda terrorist I do have smaller sympathy for them as they are butchers of innocent and crave to cause maximum bloodshed by any means to people who just live their lives.

Expecting them to give information by friendly chat and coffee probably won't work. But I do repel torture also but what if the information extracted saved thousands of innocent lives???

I personally say no still on principle and conscious, but my heart would not bleed if a known terrorist was having information extracted by unorthodox means though there are definately limits.
I would trust the Americans or others have ways such as maybe truth serums/drugs or bribing and they probably have specialised interrogation techniques more humane than using thumb screws.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 04:16 PM webboffin said this in Post #9

I have a very high disregard for torture. I hate the concept of it as barbaric, awful and disgusting.

But on the other hand, the capture of terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is a known al-qaeda terrorist I do have smaller sympathy for them as they are butchers of innocent and crave to cause maximum bloodshed by any means to people who just live their lives.

Expecting them to give information by friendly chat and coffee probably won't work. But I do repel torture also but what if the information extracted saved thousands of innocent lives???

I personally say no still on principle and conscious, but my heart would not bleed if a known terrorist was having information extracted by unorthodox means though there are definately limits.
I would trust the Americans or others have ways such as maybe truth serums/drugs or bribing and they probably have specialised interrogation techniques more humane than using thumb screws.

What are those limits and how are they policed and enforced?

Who decides who it is acceptable to torture?

What are the methods for regress if someone who is innocent is tortured?

If someone dies under torture due to an 'error' by a torturer, what are the criminal penalties involved and how are they enforced?

If another country has similar procedures and tortures a UK or US citizen is the situation any different?

 

[Rae]

I believe torture is inherently immoral and should not be used on people, even really evil bad people that eat puppies for breakfast.

 

[webboffin]

But how do you deal with an immoral enemy? And what if you KNOW a terrorist? How should USA/UK other deal with such people who have privileged information?

 

[David Gould]

Today at 04:43 PM webboffin said this in Post #12

But how do you deal with an immoral enemy? And what if you KNOW a terrorist? How should USA/UK other deal with such people who have privileged information?

If you deal with an immoral enemy in an immoral way, what makes you any better than him?

They should deal with them in the same way they deal with any suspect - through the due processes of law.

What if 'they' KNOW someone is a murderer? What if 'they' KNOW someone is a drug dealer?

Where do you draw the line and why?

And what are the answers to my previous questions? 

 

[webboffin]

Someone can say you can draw the line if it is for national security of it's country and civilians from people who are hell bent on seriously endangering them on a mass terror scale.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 04:53 PM webboffin said this in Post #14

Someone can say you can draw the line if it is for national security of it's country and civilians from people who are hell bent on seriously endangering them on a mass terror scale.

And who decides who these people are? If they arrest you by mistake and want to start torturing you, are there any processes in place to protect you?

Saying, 'It might be justified in such and such a case,' does not answer any of these questions.


 

 

[webboffin]

I don't like torture at all in any case. But I did say KNOWN terrorists with information not drug dealers or bag snatchers.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 05:30 PM webboffin said this in Post #16

I don't like torture at all in any case. But I did say KNOWN terrorists with information not drug dealers or bag snatchers.

Who 'knows' that these people are terrorists? Who 'knows' that they have information?

Would I as a private citizen have the right to torture someone whom I knew was a terrorist with information?

Do these people who know all this stuff ever make mistakes? What oversight is there?

I realise that you are against torture and are throwing these things out there but I am responding by asking the questions I would ask someone who DID support torture.

 

[Lacmeh]

Leaving all moral and religious arguments aside, torture is still impractical.
A person in pain will of course do everything to stop it. So the person will reaily agree to being a terorist and happily sign off anything the torturers want. Wether it´s the truth or not.
Any information getting out of tortured prisoners is highly suspicious.

 

[JillLars]

Lacmeh is completely right. Torture does not work. I will have to get into some research to back that argument up, but people have been known to give false information to avoid torture. The problem is if they don't know something, they are tortured until they give an answer, even if it is a lie. I don't like terrorists, but torture won't help us much.

 

[nikolai_42]

So are people here saying that torture is immoral?