It seems to be commonly accepted that police officers sometimes abuse suspects in their custody in order to get information. I suspect that the majority of the American people actually have no problem whatsoever with torture; the legal prohibitions are mostly made out of habit, and a vague sense that admitting we approve of torture is shameful.
In a situation where tens of thousands, perhaps millions of lives might be at stake, the best strategy in my opinion is to leave torture absolutely illegal. Any law official who feels that torture is necessary can then document his crimes fully, then accept the consequences. This will help eliminate the more sadistic proponents of torture and ensure that it's a path taken only by the most self-sacrificing individuals.
Law or no law, I think it's going to happen. The least we can do is ensure that those who resort to torture pay a very heavy price.
In a situation where tens of thousands, perhaps millions of lives might be at stake, the best strategy in my opinion is to leave torture absolutely illegal. Any law official who feels that torture is necessary can then document his crimes fully, then accept the consequences. This will help eliminate the more sadistic proponents of torture and ensure that it's a path taken only by the most self-sacrificing individuals.
Law or no law, I think it's going to happen. The least we can do is ensure that those who resort to torture pay a very heavy price.
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
I once read a rather long and scholarly book on the history of judicial torture. (as opposed to just being nasty to your enemies) Even the Romans, who used it routinely, had thinkers who railed against the practice, citing the unreliability of the information obtained. (And the Romans were pretty bloody-minded)
This was pretty much the case through most of the book. Right up through the Rennaissance, judicial torture was widely employed and even systemetized, with the Dutch going into great detail (with illustrations!) on what, how much, and so forth was to be applied.
Again, however, there were dissenters both on the human rights side and on the side of obtaining quality information and actual confessions.
The other aspect of this is pure punishment, of course. In addition to the gathering of evidence or obtaining confessions, torture was considered by many to be an appropriate punishment for a variety of crimes. In this case, it was often public. As I recall, the practice of public torture/execution did little to deter crime; pickpockets often worked the crowd which had shown up to watch the hanging of petty thieves...
In today's world, "civilized" nations have almost universally condemned torture as something done by the bad guys. Yet almost all have in one form or another managed to use and/or justify practices that most thinking persons would qualify as torture.
It's difficult to portray yourself as holding the moral high ground when naughty practices of your own people come to light.
Given all that, I would be inclined to accept the exigency argument; the "where is the nuke" scenario. I would not accept the glamorization of such acts, even if successful.
This was pretty much the case through most of the book. Right up through the Rennaissance, judicial torture was widely employed and even systemetized, with the Dutch going into great detail (with illustrations!) on what, how much, and so forth was to be applied.
Again, however, there were dissenters both on the human rights side and on the side of obtaining quality information and actual confessions.
The other aspect of this is pure punishment, of course. In addition to the gathering of evidence or obtaining confessions, torture was considered by many to be an appropriate punishment for a variety of crimes. In this case, it was often public. As I recall, the practice of public torture/execution did little to deter crime; pickpockets often worked the crowd which had shown up to watch the hanging of petty thieves...
In today's world, "civilized" nations have almost universally condemned torture as something done by the bad guys. Yet almost all have in one form or another managed to use and/or justify practices that most thinking persons would qualify as torture.
It's difficult to portray yourself as holding the moral high ground when naughty practices of your own people come to light.
Given all that, I would be inclined to accept the exigency argument; the "where is the nuke" scenario. I would not accept the glamorization of such acts, even if successful.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
I follow Dershowitz's reasoning in the "ticking bomb" scenario, but I don't agree with it, because it opens a whole can of worms. Dershowitz argues that it is, in effect, acceptable to compromise your principles and torture one guy to save the lives of hundreds or even dozens. But once you accept that, where do you stop? If the guy won't talk under torture, can you threaten, or evne actually torture his friends and family? If not, why not? The logical extension is that it's equally acceptable to torture any number of people, as long as that number is lower than the lives you're theoretically saving. And that objection leaves aside the question that, in real life, you'll never be 100% certain beforehand that the suspect you're torturing does in fact know what you want to know.
Then there's the point that, in practice, the restriction of the use of torture in only the most extreme circumstances has tended to get eroded rapidly. An Israeli government commission recommended in 1987 that "moderate physical pressure" be permissible in interrogations in cases where psychological pressure alone had failed. Ere long, however, the Israeli security service Shin Bet was routinely using "physical coercion" (as the Israelis euphemistically call it) on almost every Palestinian it brought in.
Allowing torture in any circumstances is a plain bad idea, because no matter how limited those circumstances are initially, it's very likely that they will get expanded further and further until they're commonplace.
Then there's the point that, in practice, the restriction of the use of torture in only the most extreme circumstances has tended to get eroded rapidly. An Israeli government commission recommended in 1987 that "moderate physical pressure" be permissible in interrogations in cases where psychological pressure alone had failed. Ere long, however, the Israeli security service Shin Bet was routinely using "physical coercion" (as the Israelis euphemistically call it) on almost every Palestinian it brought in.
Allowing torture in any circumstances is a plain bad idea, because no matter how limited those circumstances are initially, it's very likely that they will get expanded further and further until they're commonplace.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
From an Elizabethan ballad. Taken from the November 2005 BBC History Magazine, a fine publication with a crossword I can complete.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Another example is Northern Ireland. It was self-defeating. Far more people are outraged by reports of the torture than are actually dissuaded by experiencing it, unless the experience is common, which contradicts the premise. Claims to the moral high-ground disperse like mist. And the product is too tainted to be high-value.
I think you're confusing judicial interrogations with those whose objective is intelligence-gathering.
It is conceivable that somewhere, sometime, there was a justifiable act of torture (e.g. ticking nuclear bomb) but I am unaware of it. I would rather let dozen of people die rather than see the US engage in torture. I think the Bush administration acceptance of torture will probably cost thousands of lives because of the recruiting value it provides and the defense it provides tyrants.
It the theoretical case, I would second Melendwyr:
CBL
It the theoretical case, I would second Melendwyr:
If torture is ever allowed under any circumstances, the circumstances simply get more and more common. Torture goes from the exceptional to run of the mill. Unfortunately, in the face of terrorism, even civilized nations tend to turn a blind eye torture as Britain, Israel and the US have shown.
CBL
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Intelligence-gatherers have their biases too. The victim says something, the torturer accuses him of lying, so he says something different. In the very unreal "ticking bomb" situation, the victim need only old out for a while then give bum info. If you're after names and contacts, they'll give you anyone, especially anyone the torturer asks about.
Torture is normally used as a deterrent. People are arrested, tortured, then released to tell the horrible tale. Personally, I'd be more frightened of torture than of death, and even more frightened of the torture of my loved ones (another common theme in torture states).
What does the fact that those places utilize torture say about civilized countries?
I think it shows that people are imperfect. People who are fighting evil get too caught up in the ends to understand that the means are just as, if not more, important. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prevent people in position of authority (presidents, police, soldiers, prosecutors, etc) from abusing their power when they think they are dealing with terrorists or criminals.
It takes constant vigilence to prevent torture but unfortunately the majority of people think it is sometimes justifiable. Civilized nations do uncivilized things in the face of apparent danger.
Please do not take any of this as a defence of torture. I am attempting to explain why it occurs not to justify it.
CBL
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
That they're civilised. But you knew that, didn't you?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
They get too caught up in the idea that they are fighting evil. Take that on board and all moral questions are answered, while tricky questions about motives and outcomes can be ignored. Even asking them becomes questionable.
No I'm not. Information is information. "I did it" is information. "The bomb is in a car at the corner of so-and-so" is information.