Is Torture Ever Morally Justified?

[Beanieboy]

I said never.

I think that the US is guilty of claiming that terrorist administer torture techniques, which is what defines them as terrorists, and attacks on mankind.

However, when the US is discovered to be doing the same thing, sometimes to people that don't even have any proof that they are linked, humilate them with nudity, are guilty of waterboarding, etc., in the name of information, there are simply trying to justify what they condemn. They think it only bad if other people are doing it, or claim that it is justified because the other side engages in the same type of information gaining techniques.

In doing so, the US has themselves, become terrorists to foreigners, who may or may not be involved in terrorist activities.

Now, if someone took your friend, or brother, without proof, but simply with suspicion, held him there, tortured him for information, sometimes to a child, as was recently found in Canada, of a boy no more than 15, not giving information, but simply crying out for his mother, who wouldn't be angered, and feel justified to fight such a monster that brags of Freedom and Justice, while unable to demonstrate it. Who wouldn't fight such a superpower, with military might, that can go wherever they choose, blow up an aspirin factory that they thought was manufacturing weapons, say, "oops," and forgive themselves, while not really even talking about the "terrorist"-like blunder, but focusing only on Columbine?

I don't think that the US has the right to change the definition of terrorism when it suits them, simply because of their military might. I don't think that can justify what they claim to condemn only if others do it. And when 100s of thousands of civilians die in the search for WMD that don't exist, the claim to fight for democracy in a country that is not our own, and killing so many people in the process, one must question the choices, and the actions of the government. It is not only our right, but our duty as Americans, because when they kill all of the people in an aspirin factory, something that could easily have been distinguished, they represent the American people, and suggest that people that aren't American aren't as important, and therefore, not such a bad thing, when they are killed.

 

[Norseman]

Leaving the country would be a better option, but normally your passport is taken off you when you are on bail, so it might not be that easy.

Whether or not your passport is taken, you probably won't be able to get a visa if you're currently on trial for some major crime. That's ok, though. If you go to a country like Norway, for example, you can't be sent back to the United States. Norway considers prisons in the US to be inhumane. You don't need a passport or visa to get on the plane, IIRC. If you do, then you could pay a captain of some ship heading to Norway to pick you up. Once you're there, you just need to explain your situation to the Norwegian police. They might put you in a Norwegian prison, but they'd certainly have to give you a fair trial first. The longest sentence you could possibly get in Norway is 21 years, no matter what crime(s) you are convicted of. Norwegian prisons are designed to rehabilitate people, so prisoners are expected to help each other. They live pretty comfortably, and they get good health care. A Norwegian prison is, IMO, much more comfortable than an American ghetto.

Here's a brief clip about Norway.

Assuming leaving the country is impossible, could you justify putting pressure or doing whatever it necessary on someone who is lying. You might not go through with anything, but I'm pretty sure you could justify it, yes?

If I can't leave the country, and I'm charged with something like that, then I would try to prove that the witness is lying. If I can't prove that, and no one can prove that what the witness says is true, then I would argue that his claim is unfalsifiable and request jury nullification.

I don't think it would be justifiable to harm or bully the witness. For all I know, they're simply mistaken. The problem there is not the witness, but the system which allows a single lying person to put someone else into prison, with no corroborating evidence.

 

[stan1980]

If I can't leave the country, and I'm charged with something like that, then I would try to prove that the witness is lying. If I can't prove that, and no one can prove that what the witness says is true, then I would argue that his claim is unfalsifiable and request jury nullification.

I don't think it would be justifiable to harm or bully the witness. For all I know, they're simply mistaken. The problem there is not the witness, but the system which allows a single lying person to put someone else into prison, with no corroborating evidence.

That's fair enough. I mean, I'm just thinking of a hypothetical situation where the witness is likely to tip the scales and get me a guilty verdict. Of course, I could never know in reality what the verdict would be from a jury, but lets just say hypothetically, you know for sure if the witness testifies (falsely) you will be definitely be found guilty, could you justify taking action on the witness?

 

[Norseman]

Do you also know whether the witness is lying, or mistaken? Have you ruled out the possibility of convincing the witness that they are wrong, or of threatening that you can prove they're lying?

 

[stan1980]

Lets just say, you know 100% the witness is wrong and lying in his statement, and lets say the witness was even with you when the crime was committed in a different location, so you are certain he knows you are innocent but for some reason is framing you. You are definitely going to be found guilty unless you interfere with said witness. Can you justify action?

 

[Norseman]

I would first need to know why he was lying. Maybe the real criminal already tortured him to make him testify against me; in that case, I need to capture the real criminal so the witness can tell the truth safely. Maybe the witness wants me to bribe him, in which case, that's certainly better than spending most of my life in prison, and gives me the rest of my life to prove he was lying. Once I know why he's lying, I can decide what to do about it.

 

[Kris10leigh]

What would that ever achieve?

justice.

 

[wanderingone]

As already posted it's not a means to achieve useful information, and as far as a means of obtaining justice, I don't see how torture would achieve that. An eye for an eye wouldn't somehow change a criminal act, nor would it return the lives of those impacted by crime (in war or otherwise) to their previously unmolested state.

 

[Beanieboy]

I find the difference between Christianity and Buddhism quite fascinating.

Buddhism teaches that one is to respect all forms of life, sometimes to a fault. There are stories of monks, unsure what to do about the rat problem in their house. However, because they even struggled with the question of the life of the rat, Humans are simply all seen as lives that are not for another to take.

However, Christianity is often checked at the door, and then put on again after what is clearly a violation of loving your neighbor, and loving your enemies, has passed. My boss, for example, would proudly wear her cross of ashes on her head, talked about how important her faith was to her, unless she had to violate it by being deceptive or sometimes downright disrespectful, but that was business, and surely she isn't expected to "love her neighbor" during office hours. She has to play the game. Then, she puts her cross back on, and now she serves Jesus again, unless it's inconvenient.

If one claims to be Christian, and claims to love their neighbor, can they, in anyway, support or justify it without clearly disobeying the will of God? Does one shrug, and know they are forgiven, so just disobey blantantly, something that even our most basic humaness understands is wrong? One may attempt to justify the means by the end result, but no one would ever condone you robbing someone at gunpoint, because you wanted to do a loving thing, such as buy food for your kids, or donate the stolen money to a charity.

In war, for whatever reason, I see people who claim that God tells them to love one another, but they seem to understand it as other Americans, and disobeying if the person is not, seeming to believe that someone from another country isn't our neighbor, but a foreigner. And yet, borders are man made concepts, and because of countries feeling of responsibility to only their own borders, their own people, they are able to justify not helping starving children in 3rd World countries, while sitting on their own wealth. The powerful take advantage of the powerless, and enslave them to make themselves even richer, a clear sign that God approves and blesses them.
And we torture people, claiming that it is for the greater good, ignoring our faiths, our own hearts that have to deaden ourselves to the cries and screams of the tortured, convince ourselves that we are the good guys, and the victim deserves it.

And then when the war is done, we ask ourselves why there is so much strife in the world, when we are barely able to love our neighbor in our own country, because loving outside of ourselves, the call of Christ, we claim isn't our responsibility.

It's curious. It's like a vest one wears only when it fits within our convenience, and when it doesn't, we simply take it off, justify it somehow, and still think ourselves "the good guys", because the bad guys are other people, not me, not you, not us...them.

 

[kiwimac]

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

.

 

[Beanieboy]

Cool quote. I saw that same idea in Narnia. When the small girl and boy claim different things about the wardrobe's existence, the consider which of them lies. Ultimately, the lines are split between Good and Bad, in a final battle.

Unfortunately, Iraq said that Allah was on their side,fighting against the US was holy and just, and that the US was evil. The US claimed that Iraq was an Axis of Evil, and that what we were doing was right.

And the whole time, I'm thinking, Do you really think that God wants you to go to each others' country, and kill each other?
God is either the Devil, who goes to one side, and convinces them that they are right and just in killing the other, then says the same to the other
or God's name is branded on something without his endorsement, simply because he never shows up to say, "Oh no I didn't!"

And yet, no one says, "What God wants is for us to take our abundance, and share with countries that are in need, regardless of borders. He wants us to use our excess resources, and address the AIDS crisis in Africa. He wants us to act as one people, as a brotherhood."

But i think that is what God really wants.

 

[cantata]

Okay, so Sam Harris' argument is this. In the classic "ticking bomb" scenario, the state should use torture. Why? Because the state is clearly willing to essentially torture innocent children via "collateral damage", which makes the insistence on holding off on the torture of known terrorists seem deeply weird.

I dunno how I feel about this argument, really.

 

[quatona]

Okay, so Sam Harris' argument is this. In the classic "ticking bomb" scenario, the state should use torture. Why? Because the state is clearly willing to essentially torture innocent children via "collateral damage", which makes the insistence on holding off on the torture of known terrorists seem deeply weird.

I dunno how I feel about this argument, really.

Well, the consistency problem could easily be resolved by the state abstaining from committing and/or knowingly accepting "collateral damage".

 

[cantata]

Well, the consistency problem could easily be resolved by the state abstaining from committing and/or knowingly accepting "collateral damage".

Agreed, of course. I would strongly prefer that neither torture nor collateral damage were perpetrated by our governments.

However, it is possible to argue that, as it stands, the American and most western European states' position on torture is inconsistent.

 

[quatona]

Agreed, of course. I would strongly prefer that neither torture nor collateral damage were perpetrated by our governments.

However, it is possible to argue that, as it stands, the American and most western European states' position on torture is inconsistent.

I think the argument as it reads there is flawed. It is assembled around a very sloppy (and uncommon) definition of "torture".

As abhorrent as I find the idea of "collateral damage" (and, btw., the idea of states sending out their citizens to kill each other, in general - uniform or not), it does not really match any of the definitions of "torture" I am aware of. And if there should be such a definition, the argument would still be based on equivocation.

 

[Beanieboy]

Okay, so Sam Harris' argument is this. In the classic "ticking bomb" scenario, the state should use torture. Why? Because the state is clearly willing to essentially torture innocent children via "collateral damage", which makes the insistence on holding off on the torture of known terrorists seem deeply weird.

I dunno how I feel about this argument, really.

This isn't unlike the scene from The Dark Knight, where there are two ships, one with convicts, and the other with civilians. Each has the option to save themselves by killing the other. If neither blows up the other boat, he will kill them both.

What he is cleverly doing is getting them to do his work for him, making themselves the murderers responsible for the deaths of the others by acting selfishly in fear.

And indeed, the "good, innocent" people start to discuss, saying that the convicts life is somehow less than their own, how their life is better because they are innocent, all the while, trying to make that a justification for murder (but they would never call themselves that after it happened, because they are "innocent" and killed "the bad guys.")

The US, for example, has a war on terrorism, meaning, terrorist from other countries. They condemn torture in other countries, but their torture isn't torture at all, but simply a means to get information, to prevent further terrorism. We kill civilians, but they aren't people, but colateral damage.
And it helps us sleep at night.

However, if you were living in Iraq, you would probably see the US as terrorists themselves, militaristic bullies who kill you family and friends as part of their supposed search for Bin Laden or Sadam or WMD or democracy or whatever the reason du jour is for the war, and expect a thank you. And you may have family members stripped naked, an assault to your customs and faith, put on blocks with electrodes, photographed naked in front of female soldiers, and the photos circulated all over the world via internet.

Of course, the US claims that they are shocked, did not know about any of this, but you know that it is someone who simply got caught, and probably happens more than we even realize.

So, as an Iraqi, what would you think of the US?
As Freedom Fighters, or terrorist that are not simply a marginal extremist organization, but within the military itself, justifying torture and humiliation to the point of taking pictures to brag about it to their friends?

 

[Beanieboy]

Waterboarding is used by the CIA, and it is debated about whether or not it is actually classified as torture.The person has water poured into breathing passages, experiencing drowning, and feeling that they are going to die. It causes the gag reflex, brain damage, lung damage, and extreme pain.

Yet, they aren't sure if that really qualifies as "torture." Something used in the Spanish Inquisition, and they are trying to argue whether or not that is torture.

I've seen movies where the mob takes a guy by the hair, and submerges his head into a tub of water for a minute. They then ask the guy where the money is. He says that he doesn't know, and goes in a little longer, and as it progresses, he is coughing from the water entering his lungs, unsure if he will live through this.

Why is that so easily understood as torture, and an even harsher technique, waterboarding, more of a argument of semantics of what defines torture?

 

[Beanieboy]

I was thinking about this on my run.

Imagine that you are going to get married. Your spouse wants to know what you expect from them. You say that they will stay with you in good times and bad, be faithful, etc.

They then ask: Having intercourse is out of the question then?
How about if I am only have oral sex? That's not really sex, right?
What if it is simply manual sex? That isn't sex, right, and not adultery?

You aren't ok with that?
Ok. How about this: kissing. Kissing is clearly NOT sex, so I wouldn't be commiting adultery, right? And maybe some touching, but only over the clothes?
Still no???

Ok. This you will have to agree with as not being adultery: I meet someone, we decide to have dinner dates, lunch dates, maybe flirt a bit, but nothing physical happens.
That's ok, right?

While one can argue what is and isn't technically "adultery", the issue seems to be to what limit can I push it, and make it seem acceptable, by confining adultery to physicality. My intention is to have an affair, clearly, but trying to get around it using legality and semantics. My intention is not to prove my faithfulness, but to prove my innocence in not being unfaithful. It is clear what the intention is, despite the action itself.

The same, I believe, is true of torture. If one has to ask, "is this torture?", then it probably is, but they are simply trying to see to what point they can torture someone, and simply call it something else. Similarly, I would never want to be tortured, nor do i think I could torture another, yet, to need to ask whether torture is sometimes justified, is to imply that it is unethical, and try to struggle, through semantics and legaleze, to make it seem ethical.

Legally, I can start up a company, employ workers in 3rd world countries, take advantage of their desparation by offering poor wages legal in the country, and low safety standards of the country.

Is it ethical? One simply need to ask themself: Would you want to be them? Would you want someone of power to take advantage of your poverty, powerlessnes, and desparation, for nothing more than financial gain?

Is torturing US soldiers ever ethical? Or is it only ethical when the US does it?

 

[Ringo84]

No. Never. If it's wrong when our enemies use it on our soldiers, it's wrong when we use it on them. Period.
Ringo

 

[bliz]

The latest Newsweek has an interesting article on US torture policy. It turns out that THE major influence on US policy was the TV show 24. That's right - a fictional TV show that shows torture always working to extract the needed information has influenced US policy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/149009

I must say I'm not surprised. Terrified, but not surprised.