"They came down and started to beat me with a baseball bat, breaking three of my lower ribs, badly bruising my intestines and causing a slight leakage in my liver.Once again, torture worked quite well at extracting accurate information. The attackers left with "thousands of pounds from a safe."
"The leader lost his cool. He said ’now final ultimatum, live or die, where big money?’
"The other guy pulled my up by my hair, because I could hardly stand after the beating, and put a knife to my throat.
"The third man, who was a complete madman, jabbed a knife in my ear and threatened to cut my ear off.
Last minute Christmas gift from Amazon!
27 minutes ago
Sure, it sometimes works.
ReplyDeleteIf someone has me at knife point and threatens me with torture unless I give up the location of my cash, I'm giving it up. You don't even need to start the torture.
But if they want to know the location of my wife and daughter's hiding place so they can rape and murder them, their torture is going to be much less effective.
And what if I don't know the information in the first place? I'm going to start lying in order to end the torture. They will waste resources following up on the lies. How much torture of the wrong person is acceptable? How certain are you that you are torturing the right person? Of course United States intelligence agencies are infallible and would never torture the wrong person.
In the second and third example spying and other forms of interrogation would probably be more efficient.
And then there's the matter of your examples. You've given us an example of a person having boiling water poured on them (previous post) and then one of an old man being beaten with bats. You want us to model our behavior on these torturers? You want people around the world the world to think of us the way we think about these guys?
Sure, torture sometimes works, but it makes you look like a disgusting human being. Looking like a disgusting human being has consequences with your relationship with the world. You make new enemies, provide propaganda for old enemies, and lose the strength of the moral high ground.
"How much torture of the wrong person is acceptable?"
ReplyDeleteNone. But the only people that I've argued that we should have the option to torture are those who are clearly terrorists. And when I say clearly, I mean people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There are certain people that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are terrorist enemies.
"But if they want to know the location of my wife and daughter's hiding place so they can rape and murder them, their torture is going to be much less effective."
True. The more important the information to the individual, the more he is going to resist.
"And what if I don't know the information in the first place?"
Then no interrogation method is going to get it. And yes, in that case torture is going to be extremely counterproductive.
"In the second and third example spying and other forms of interrogation would probably be more efficient."
I would never argue that it's the best method in every case. Only that it can be effective, and might be the best method in certain cases.
"You want us to model our behavior on these torturers? You want people around the world the world to think of us the way we think about these guys?"
It depends on the situation, the prisoner in question, the information, and a number of other factors.
"Sure, torture sometimes works, but it makes you look like a disgusting human being."
I disagree. I don't think there's anything morally repugnant about the torture of certain people. I only favor it in certain extreme cases for specific individuals. And I think it should be kept secret as much as possible.
But yes, it has significant negative consequences, not just externally but internally. Even though I think it sometimes necessary, I'm hardly comfortable with the U.S. government having a cadre of torturers, secret prisons, etc. And there is always the chance that any government power will be misused, or used against the wrong targets. But sometimes the possible benefits outweigh the risks.
The reason the civilized world does not like terrorists is because they are seriously deficient human beings who do not find it morally repugnant to torture and kill people. We do. That makes them our enemies. Those who support them are also our enemies. It's nice that you make clear which side you're on.
ReplyDeleteuzza,
ReplyDeleteTypical illogical nonsense. You apparently have no ability to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. The reason the civilized world doesn't like terrorists is because they deliberately target innocents. Torturing a known terrorist is not remotely similar to torturing an innocent.
I'm not sure what the difference between guilty & innocent is apparently such a difficult concept to grasp. Do you think sending an innocent person to jail is the same as imprisoning the guilty? Why are so many torture opponents apparently incapable of basic logical reasoning?
"It's nice that you make clear which side you're on."
I'm on the side of the U.S. And if you don't think protecting the country sometimes requires extremely unpleasant actions, you might want to get our of your own personal dreamworld.
"Torturing A is not remotely similar to torturing B"
ReplyDeleteROFL! And you call me illogical! We easily distinguish guilt and innocence, and not being sociopaths, we understand its irrelevance to this topic.
Torture is morally repugnant to the civilized world.
The US is part of the civilized world.
Torture is not morally repugnant to terrorists.
Torture is not morally repugnant to you.
“You're on the side of the US” = LOGIC FAIL! Urging us to adopt policies we have long since determined are illegal, contrary to our basic principles,and counterproductive, is not being on our side.
""Torturing A is not remotely similar to torturing B"
ReplyDeleteROFL! "
You can't even understand basic logical reasoning? Something done to an innocent is a different moral premise than something done to the guilty. I know that's tough to understand.
"We easily distinguish guilt and innocence, and not being sociopaths, we understand its irrelevance to this topic."
No, actually you don't -- as what you have written continues to demonstrate. And it is extremely relevant. Numerous people, none of them "sociopaths," understand that torture can sometimes be justified. The fact that you personally think torture is wrong in all cases doesn't negate differing opinions.
"Torture is morally repugnant to the civilized world."
So what? Sometimes things that are morally repugnant are necessary or useful.
"“You're on the side of the US” = LOGIC FAIL!"
Of course I'm on the side of the U.S. Have I accused you of siding with the terrorists? Try not assuming that anyone that has a differing opinion must be un-American. And nothing I wrote was the slightest bit illogical. You are just repeating the same nonsense. Because you are a moral absolutist on torture, doesn't mean everyone else is. Many people are able to distinguish a difference between something done to the guilty, and something done to an innocent.
"Urging us to adopt policies we have long since determined are illegal"
Now that's irrelevant. I'm not making an argument about legality.
"contrary to our basic principles"
They are not contrary to our principles. Your opinion isn't some sort of fact. The U.S. has employed torture on various occasions throughout it's history and still does today. It will do so again.
"and counterproductive"
I'm not in favor of doing it in a counterproductive way.
"is not being on our side."
Again, that's just stupid.