More Americans Say Yes To Torture

[levenshulme31]

The high positive response to whether torture can be justified is down to the question asked (as is so often the case in polls).

Of course a lot of people will agree if the questions along the lines of 'Is it OK to torture a terrorist suspect to prevent another 9/11?'

Change it to 'The authorities think you are a terrorist (you aren't but they think you are), and they think you are planning another 9/11. Is it OK for them to torture you to get you to divulge details of the plan? (Bear in mind that there is no plan, you aren't a terrorist, but those torturing you don't know that, and aren't going to be convinced by your denials)

My guess is the response would be down to 1 or 2% in favour. (There's always a couple of S&M types to skew the numbers).

 

[Ramindra]

The actual question asked was:

"Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives."

Some question! For a start, what constitutes "some degree of torture"? I suspect that my definition and that of Donald Dumsfeld would be somewhat different. Does some degree of torture mean that the light is left on 24 hours a day, or does it mean have alligator clips attached to your testicles and a charge pumped into you?

Moving on..... "if it may gain information that saves innocent lives." How does one know that if torture is used that they may gain information which will save innocent lives? It all rests on the word "may". What this allows for is the of torture on virtually anyone, regardless or not of a prima facie case existing that the person who is chosen to be tortured may have information which he may divulge if the charge to his testicles is strong enough.

Perhaps we could solve any objections to torture by not using it. I suppose we may rest assured by Bubya's promise that the US has not, does not and will not torture people, so much of the above comment is redundant.

 

[miatajeff]

I only believe that torture should be used as a sexual pleasure device between two consenting adults.

 

[opinterph]

Maybe if there truly was a “ticking bomb” scenario, I’d be first-in-line to beat a few secrets outta the [individual suspected of knowing how to disarm the bomb] …

Please note that the very description that you give, the 'ticking bomb' scenario, might well earn you a place amongst those who 'support torture', according to this thread.

It’s nice to know that someone is paying attention. Thank you, maltese, for pointing out an apparent contradiction in my opinion. In actuality, I was already acutely aware of it and quite intentionally included that particular personal-gut-reaction to a “most urgent” of possible circumstances. ~It is also a scenario I’ve often heard in the context of a justification for torture, (in certain circumstances.)

From the acknowledgement I provided, it is logical to therefore assume that there are indeed circumstances where I advocate/tolerate torture. After all, if my acquiescence of support for torture depends merely upon the degree to which a particular threat is imminent, then it becomes a rather simple logical exercise to regard other less-specific, yet also perhaps “likely,” or “potential,” and therefore to some extent “possibly imminent” threats as equally deserving of inclusion in a general allowance to permit torture within the context “to save innocent lives.”

Here's the actual question posed, for what it's worth:

[The survey asked respondents to choose between the following 2 positions]

• Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.

• Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.

My response to the survey question would be unequivocal support to maintain clear rules against torture. Please take notice that the choice relates to the official policy of governments. In the ticking bomb scenario, I indicated that my own personal actions to “cross-over the line of decency” in order to “gain information” should represent a punishable infraction. In other words, to the extent that whatever outrageous “beating outta” process I may consciously decide to impose upon another human-being results in the saving of innocent lives, I nonetheless fundamentally regard the process itself to be inappropriate. If I cross-over the line of decency, I should be held accountable – as an individual. If you happen to be among the persons on a tribunal considering my case, you may elect to entertain an element of leniency~ according to the results of my actions. However, the actions of a rogue individual are fundamentally different from a government policy of advance blanket-forgiveness.

I do not think any situation exists in which it is ever acceptable for a government to condone, endorse, or encourage torture. Perhaps in some circumstances torture may generate useful information, but the moral cost of that information is exceedingly high. As a matter of routine policy, the use of torture far exceeds any possible benefit. Any individual who violates the rules of common decency should be punished. And although individuals may consciously choose to sacrifice the value of their freedom – governments cannot realistically do so.

 

[maltese]

My response to the survey question would be unequivocal support to maintain clear rules against torture. Please take notice that the choice relates to the official policy of governments. In the ticking bomb scenario, I indicated that my own personal actions to “cross-over the line of decency” in order to “gain information” should represent a punishable infraction. In other words, to the extent that whatever outrageous “beating outta” process I may consciously decide to impose upon another human-being results in the saving of innocent lives, I nonetheless fundamentally regard the process itself to be inappropriate. If I cross-over the line of decency, I should be held accountable – as an individual. If you happen to be among the persons on a tribunal considering my case, you may elect to entertain an element of leniency~ according to the results of my actions. However, the actions of a rogue individual are fundamentally different from a government policy of advance blanket-forgiveness.

You have far more articulately stated my position on the question. If indeed you're the officer with unequivical proof that the individual in question knows where that nuclear weapon destined to go off in the next 12 hours is, and how it can be disarmed...

Well, then a few years in prison is worth the tradeoff. You do what you have to do, but it doesn't take away the consequences.

And the part of the question which requires 'clear' rules on the use of torture seems to be just common sense. Even if you support some kind of in extremis measures, it does not take away the need for clear direction, and a general ban on it.

 

[Sausy]

What constitutes torture?What should be permissible?Absolutely physical torture,sexual or cultural degradation should be absolutely prohibited...but hard ,bad cop psychological tactics for those who it is certain are operational leaders should be permitted,with no penalty ...blare the rock music,make sleep difficult if one has knopwledge of any terror plot,a suicide bombing or a WMD detonation plot we have good evidence is in planning stages.To stupidly and irresponsibly allow people to die or be injured for some Ivory Tower European Socialist style enlightenment is as bad as to encourage or turn a blind eye to torture and sexual/cultural abuse.It's not either-or....I thought liberals believed in shades of grey,no moral absolutes.Life was complex,conservatives are simpletons.Well,simple is as simple does.....you have to balance,and it's tough,real security concerns with real commitment to human rights .Academia ain't real life,but this is an academic and ideological exercise....to me as empty as the Bush administration's misguided policies here.

 

[opinterph]

Here is a link to a reasonably objective essay titled: Can Interrogatory Torture Be Morally Legitimate?

It is currently hosted on the United States Air Force Academy’s web site.

The paper examines most of the pro and con torture arguments generally put forward in this forum. I am posting it simply as a potentially useful resource to provide persons on either side of the issue a means to better articulate their own position, as well as perhaps fostering a better understanding of important aspects relative to the opposing viewpoint. (6,600 words)

oo --- ooo --- ooO --- oOO --- OOO --- OOo --- Ooo --- ooo --- oo​

NOTE: I apologize for the author's apparent insensitivity to the issue of gay marriage; however, I regard those remarks as essentially illustrative and do not think they represent a critical objection with respect to his overall examination of the topic of the essay.

 

[Kulindahr]

One note before my real post: there was a connection between La Queda and Saddam; Saddam let them use training camps in Iraq. OTOH, that's about as much a moral link as a school renting a room to someone with dubious intentions.

Anyway....

Given the sort of scenario opinterph posed, I might also opt for torture. Assuming that the effort uscceeded -- I got the codes from the barbarian, and disarmed the device -- in my book I might still be morally obligated to give restitution. I say "might" because the situation may be similar to self-defense, i.e. using my sidearm to stop the threat from an individual threatening me, family, friends, or other innocents. I am inclined to think I am obligated to pay restitution, because in the self-defense scenario, I have no moral room for inflicting unnecessary pain -- my "rules of engagement", as it were, allow stopping the threat, and no more (note: if stopping the threat results in the death of the invader, as it often does, that is not outside the ROE, partly because that's the sort of thing an invader should expect). So if I did use torture to stop a mad bomber by getting necessary information, since I am not trained in the use of torture to get information I would fully expect to sit in front of a jury of my peers as they determined to what extent the pain I inflicted was beyond the minimum necessary.
Of course, morally I'd also be due thanks from the thousands-plus people I saved, but then given the generosity of Americans with their own money.... <sigh>