How do we get him to reveal his group's plans and the names of his colleagues? It will be hard. It will, in fact, be harder than it used to be. He can no longer be waterboarded. He knows this. He cannot be deprived of more than a set amount of sleep. He cannot be beaten or thrown up against even a soft wall. He cannot be threatened with shooting or even frightened by the prospect of an electric drill. Nothing really can be threatened against his relatives -- that they will be killed or sexually abused.This scenario is very similar to one laid out previously by Michael Scheuer, with regard to the hypothetical capture of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately that is where we are right now, with blind legalism in the driver's seat. The whole article should be read, especially by the moralistic fools who put the imaginary rights of terrorists above the security of the American people -- the same imbeciles who think that torturing a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed somehow makes us morally equivalent to Al Qaeda.
He knows the new restrictions. He knows the new limits. He may even suggest to his interrogators that their jobs are on the line -- that the Justice Department is looking over their shoulders. The tape is running. Everything is being recorded. He is willing to give up his life. Are his interrogators willing to give up their careers? He laughs.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Richard Cohen's Torture Article
Richard Cohen is one of the more intellectually honest liberals out there, and his piece called, "Torture's Unanswerable Questions," is no exception. In the key passage he asks what will happen the next time we have another terrorist leader in custody.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As long as we are being intellectually honest about torture, do you admit the following?:
ReplyDelete1. Any form of abuse--including raping the detainee's wife, sons and daugthers in front of the detainee--is acceptable if the abuse will make the detainee reveal important information that may prevent an attack sometime in the future. If not, why not? What kinds of methods are acceptable? Is there some sort of sliding scale as to when certain forms of torture are acceptable? If the information is important enough, shouldn't the US use any methods to get it?
2. It is acceptable to abuse a detainee who may be innocent if there is some chance that the detainee has important information that may prevent a terrorist attack in the future. If you disagree, are you aware that so-called EITs were used on detainees who were not members of a terrorist group?
3. Torture should be used to extract information in situations that are not "ticking time-bomb scenarios"--i.e., to gain information about the structure and background of a terrorist organization.
4. There is no contradiction in asserting that the US has the right to torture terrorist suspects in derogation of its commitments under the Convention Against Torture (which prohibits torture under all circumstances), but that other countries do not have that right. You apparently believe that the US should adopt torture as an official policy. Do you believe that the US should criticize other countries that do the same?
One more question: do you know anyone who has actually argued that torturing a terrorist makes the US morally equivalent to al qaeda?
Thanks for the questions. I've answered most of these before, but I'll go by each of your numbers.
ReplyDelete1. There is a huge difference between torturing the guilty and the innocent. I am not in favor of torturing or abusing any innocent victims regardless of their relationship to the guilty, just as I'm not in favor of imprisoning the families of common criminals. Pretending that torturing the guilty implies a willingness to torture the innocent is a common strawman of torture opponents.
2. See above. I am certainly aware that the Bush administration did all sorts of stupid and counterproductive things. I am not giving a blanket defense of their actions with regard to interrogations, many of which foolishly abused mere suspects and some innocent people. I defend only the torture or other borderline techniques used on positively identified terrorists.
4. "There is no contradiction in asserting that the US has the right to torture terrorist suspects in derogation of its commitments under the Convention Against Torture (which prohibits torture under all circumstances), but that other countries do not have that right."
This is another strawman with regard to my views. Where have I ever asserted such a thing? In fact I've said exactly the opposite, that certain categories of individuals can reasonably expect to be tortured. I'm not making a U.S. exception argument. As I said in a previous post, if Iran captured a U.S. spy near one of its nuclear facilities, it would be fully justified in torturing him for information in order to protect its country from attack. And obviously I think the U.S. should violate any international agreement if necessary to protect U.S. interests and national security -- preferably in a secret and deniable way, but openly if needed.
"You apparently believe that the US should adopt torture as an official policy"
No, I certainly do not. I believe that the U.S. should reserve torture as an option in specific cases, and that we should break our own laws if necessary. I also think that the actions of the CIA outside the U.S. should not be interpreted as tightly constrained by law, given that its main purpose is to violate the law.
"Do you believe that the US should criticize other countries that do the same?"
It would depend on what they are doing and why.
"One more question: do you know anyone who has actually argued that torturing a terrorist makes the US morally equivalent to al qaeda?"
Read pretty much anything written by Andrew Sullivan or Glen Greenwald.
Thanks for your answers and your clarification of your position. (Sorry to make you repeat yourself.)
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1 isn't a strawman. Rather, it's designed to determine your rationale for advocating torture. It's clear from your answers that you advocate torture not only for the purpose of gatherng intelligence, but also for punishing those who are presumed to be guilty. (Your comparison to incarceration of family members is telling.) Otherwise, you would advocate using any means that would produce accurate intelligence quickly, including abusing innocent family members. I can understand the emotional appeal torturing someone like bin laden to get revenge, but I still disagree that it's appropriate. Most people who advocate torture do so on the utilitarian ground that torture provides accurate intelligence, but I suspect that their motives are really the same as yours, so thanks for your honesty.
Your answer to question 2 begs further questions: Would you torture rank and file members of the terrorist group? Or just the higher command figures? It seems like you want to restrict torture to only a few very highly placed terrorists, but from a practical point of view, it's hard to know where to draw the line if you are torturing to get info on organizational structure, operational methods, etc. So you end up torturing far more people than you expected to when you started. (I recommend Savage War of Peace about the French-Algerian War, if you haven't yet read it.)
Your answers to question 4 are interesting:
"I also think that the actions of the CIA outside the U.S. should not be interpreted as tightly constrained by law, given that its main purpose is to violate the law."
The CIA was not created to be above the law and in fact is highly regulated. It's main purpose is to gather intelligence, not to violate the law. CIA employees sometimes break the law, and when they break the laws of this country, they should be held accountable.
"As I said in a previous post, if Iran captured a U.S. spy near one of its nuclear facilities, it would be fully justified in torturing him for information in order to protect its country from attack."
At least you are logically consistent. As a practical matter, a spy might expect to be tortured by a rogue state like Iran or North Korea. But even spies get the legal protections of the CAT. Furthermore, even though the US has faced existential crises and total wars (like the Civil War or WWII) in the past (the "war on terror" is neither), US policy makers have always prohibited torture. I don't see any reason why torture should be permitted now and indefinitely into the future (even after al qaeda is "defeated," there will be other enemies).
"I believe that the U.S. should reserve torture as an option in specific cases, and that we should break our own laws if necessary."
Do you mean that we should re-write our laws against torture to allow it in certain circumstances? Or that the President should issue a secret executive order allowing torture in certain circumstances? Either way, you have to regulate when and how it's done to give the interrogators some sort of guidance as to what is acceptable. How is that different from choosing torture as an official policy? If, on the other hand, torture is not formally regulated and legalized, then you ask interrogators (and their superiors who order the torture) to accept the risk of prosecution. If there is no threat of prosecution, then saying that "we should break our own laws if necessary" is meaningless because you have effectively decriminalized torture whenever the President orders it.
That's all for now. I doubt I have changed your mind, and I am sure you haven't convinced me, but at least I understand where you are coming from.
"It's clear from your answers that you advocate torture not only for the purpose of gatherng intelligence, but also for punishing those who are presumed to be guilty."
ReplyDeleteMy position has nothing to do with torture as a punishment, but only as a method of interrogation.
"Otherwise, you would advocate using any means that would produce accurate intelligence quickly, including abusing innocent family members."
No, again, that's a strawman or an inability to recognize the differing status between a known terrorist an an innocent. It has nothing to do with punishment.
" I can understand the emotional appeal torturing someone like bin laden to get revenge, but I still disagree that it's appropriate."
My position has nothing to do with revenge, although I have nothing against revenge per se.
" Most people who advocate torture do so on the utilitarian ground that torture provides accurate intelligence, but I suspect that their motives are really the same as yours, so thanks for your honesty."
I am arguing on utilitarian grounds within certain well-defined limits. There is no logical reason that a utilitarian argument has to be unlimited and cover things outside the scope of the argument itself. My argument applies only to known terrorists. That's it. As soon as you talk about torturing an innocent, it's a strawman with regard to my position. I use the example of imprisonment only because it should make the same point. For example:
One argument for criminal penalties such as imprisonment is that they deter crime. If imprisoning a criminal deters crime, then imprisoning his entire family too would probably be more effective at deterring crime, right? So according to your logic, one can't make a utilitarian argument in favor of prison as a deterrent, if one doesn't also advocate the greater deterrent of family imprisonment.
"Your answer to question 2 begs further questions: Would you torture rank and file members of the terrorist group? Or just the higher command figures?"
That's more of a technical question. I'd have to say it would depend on the individual and situation. In general though I think it should be restricted to special cases, like a leader who would have significant knowledge worth resorting to torture.
"The CIA was not created to be above the law and in fact is highly regulated. It's main purpose is to gather intelligence, not to violate the law. CIA employees sometimes break the law, and when they break the laws of this country, they should be held accountable'
Gathering intelligence, and the things that are done in the service of that goal, often break all sorts of laws and are by their very nature often illegal. That is one reason CIA actions within the U.S. are highly restricted. They should not be crippled by legalistic restrictions. We might as well just shut it down.
"US policy makers have always prohibited torture. I don't see any reason why torture should be permitted now and indefinitely into the future (even after al qaeda is "defeated," there will be other enemies)."
The U.S. has utilized torture at various times throughout its history and will do so again. The CIA has a notable involvement with torture throughout much of its existence. We just didn't talk about it publicly. WW2 is a bad example since it involved war between nation states. No one is advocating the torture of soldiers for information.
"Do you mean that we should re-write our laws against torture to allow it in certain circumstances?"
No, I think that's a bad idea. That would make it more likely to be used when not necessary. I'm not sure what the actual legal framework would be, something like outlawry in old English common law. Certain individuals, by the nature of their actions during wartime should be considered outside the law and not entitled to its protections. For example, it was long customary to summarily execute certain categories of so-called unlawful combatants.
"at least I understand where you are coming from."
From your comments I'm not sure you do.
Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDelete"One argument for criminal penalties such as imprisonment is that they deter crime. If imprisoning a criminal deters crime, then imprisoning his entire family too would probably be more effective at deterring crime, right? So according to your logic, one can't make a utilitarian argument in favor of prison as a deterrent, if one doesn't also advocate the greater deterrent of family imprisonment."
Your analogy is wide of the mark because:
1. You confuse sufficiency and necessity (imprisoning the family may be sufficient, but not necessary, to deter);
2. Deterring crime is not so important that it justifies punishing the innocent, even if doing so were necessary to deter crime.
But I also reject your analogy b/c there are other reasons to incarcerate criminals than deterrence--like taking violent criminals out of society or rehabilitating petty criminals so that they do not commit crimes again. Incarcerating a criminal's entire family has no logical relation to either. You say you believe that the only justification for torture is to gather fundamentally critical intelligence and suggest that you would use torture only if other methods failed to produce it. But if you torture a detainee and that detainee still won't talk--and the intelligence he is believed to possess is critical enough to justify torture in the first place--then I don't see why you would draw the line at torturing his innocent family members if doing so made him talk (i.e., it's both necessary and sufficient to achieve the stated goal). Can you exlain why you wouldn't do that, when you've already violated a peremptory norm by torturing the detainee? You've already suggested the answer: the detainee deserves to be tortured b/c he is guilty, but his family doesn't because they are innocent. That's why I believe your justification of torture is based as much on the pleasure of punishing the guilty as it is on the need for gathering intelligence (and your argument doesn't make sense otherwise).
"Gathering intelligence, and the things that are done in the service of that goal, often break all sorts of laws and are by their very nature often illegal. That is one reason CIA actions within the U.S. are highly restricted. They should not be crippled by legalistic restrictions. We might as well just shut it down."
Yes, as you say, CIA actions within the US are highly regulated, and those that occur outside the US are not, with very few exceptions. So, that's why I say if CIA employees break laws in this country, they should be held accountable (as opposed to breaking the laws of other countries--if they get caught, they could be prosecuted in the courts of those countries, but generally not in US courts). If they get caught doing things in other countries that are illegal under US law, and US statutes give US courts jurisdiction to prosecute those acts, then they should be prosecuted in US courts. Under US law, US courts have jurisdiction to prosecute torture committed by US citizens anywhere in the world. Therefore, US courts should proescute CIA employees who commit torture and the policy-makers who order or conspire with them to do it. I don't think that's excessively legalistic, but rather a reasonable prohibition on a crime that has been fundementally prohibited under Anglo-American law since the 17th Century. I believe that the CIA is able to operate without resorting to torture (and I believe most CIA analysts and clandestine agents would agree).
"1. You confuse sufficiency and necessity (imprisoning the family may be sufficient, but not necessary, to deter"
ReplyDeleteIt's also not necessary to torture innnocent people in order to torture the guilty. The analogy applies.
"2. Deterring crime is not so important that it justifies punishing the innocent, even if doing so were necessary to deter crime."
How is that even relevant? No one is justifying actions against the innocent. You are trying to bring in something out of the scope of the argument. Apples & oranges.
"But I also reject your analogy b/c there are other reasons to incarcerate criminals than deterrence"
Agreed, but you missed the point, which was the regarding a specific utilitarian argument. Obviously other arguments bring in other reasoning.
" You say you believe that the only justification for torture is to gather fundamentally critical intelligence and suggest that you would use torture only if other methods failed to produce it."
No, that's not the justification at all. The justification is above all the individual in question -- a known terrorist leader. By virtue of his status/category, using extreme methods such as torture are justified.
"I don't see why you would draw the line at torturing his innocent family members if doing so made him talk "
Because torture wouldn't be justified against an innocent person. Again, this is very, very simple. I am making a utility argument that is limited in scope, as are most utility arguments. The argument does not apply at all to innocent persons, because they do not fall into the category of persons for whom torture is a justifiable method of interrogation.
"and your argument doesn't make sense otherwise"
It does if you discard your strawman and understand the difference between a guilty person and an innocent person. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to grasp that things can be done to the guilty that can't or shouldn't be done to the innocent.
"So, that's why I say if CIA employees break laws in this country"
I agree. I don't want the CIA running wild inside the U.S. I'm talking about actions taken abroad, such as when interrogating people at secret prisons, or other overseas locations.
"Therefore, US courts should proescute CIA employees who commit torture"
The actions of a secret intelligence agency should remain secret and not be exposed in the U.S. court system. If CIA agents violate their own rules, it should be handled administratively.
"I believe that the CIA is able to operate without resorting to torture (and I believe most CIA analysts and clandestine agents would agree)."
For the most part yes. I'm not arguing that it should be a common practice, only that it should be retained as an option in certain circumstances for a certain category of enemy. It should not be made into a legal issue at all.
"It's also not necessary to torture innnocent people in order to torture the guilty. The analogy applies."
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point and doesn't make sense in the context of your analogy (which is that it's sufficient to imprison the criminal to deter crime, and not necessary to imprison his family to deter crime).
"2. Deterring crime is not so important that it justifies punishing the innocent, even if doing so were necessary to deter crime."
"How is that even relevant? No one is justifying actions against the innocent. You are trying to bring in something out of the scope of the argument. Apples & oranges."
Of course it's relevant. Using your analogy on crime and deterrence, assume that imprisonment of the criminal is not sufficient to deter crime. Assume that imprisoning his family, however, would be sufficient. Nevertheless, we do not imprison someone's family b/c in the moral calculation of contemporary American society, deterring crime is not so important as to justify punishing the innocent (i.e., our criminal justice system is not based purely on the utility of deterring crime--other competing values like basic fairness and due process have precedence). Here, we are talking about gaining intelligence that may save the lives of innocent Americans from a terrorist attack. You think that this goal is important enough that it justifies torturing the detainee, but not so important that it justifies torturing his family. Why is that? Why does your moral calculation change? Because is not immoral to torture the guilty detainee, but it would be immoral to do that to his family. In other words, the detainee deserves to be tortured and should be punished because he is morally culpable.
"I'm not sure why it is so difficult to grasp that things can be done to the guilty that can't or shouldn't be done to the innocent."
It's not at all difficult to grasp if one of your motives is to punish someone you believe to be guilty--as I said at the beginning, I understand that. It is difficult to grasp if your only motive is to gain critical intelligence.
"That's not the point and doesn't make sense in the context of your analogy (which is that it's sufficient to imprison the criminal to deter crime, and not necessary to imprison his family to deter crime)."
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not my analogy, shich has nothing to do with necessity. My analogy is that the criminal is guilty and the family is innocent. We accept that certain types of treatment are permissable for the guilty, that are not permissable for the innocent. Again, you are ignoring the difference between guilt and innocence.
"Why does your moral calculation change? Because is not immoral to torture the guilty detainee, but it would be immoral to do that to his family. In other words, the detainee deserves to be tortured and should be punished because he is morally culpable."
My moral calculation changes because I see a terrorist as an entirely different category of person than an innocent person who may be related to him.
You are fixated on this idea of punishment, which has nothing to do at all with what I am arguing. I'm not viewing torture as punishment. I see it as merely a type of interrogation method -- but a harsh and brutal one. Given that it is a harsh and brutal method, its use should be restricted to those individuals for whom harsh and brutal methods would be justifiable.
If another man came up and spit on me I would feel that punching him in the face was a justifiable method of responding. If a little kid spit on me, my method of dealing with it would be have to be different. An adult punching a kid in the face is not a justifed response.
"We accept that certain types of treatment are permissable for the guilty, that are not permissable for the innocent."
ReplyDelete"Given that it is a harsh and brutal method, its use should be restricted to those individuals for whom harsh and brutal methods would be justifiable."
Exactly. We accept that the guilty should be punished for their crimes, and the innocent should not. Again, you are fixated on guilt and innocence, not which techniques will produce reliable intelligence.
"My moral calculation changes because I see a terrorist as an entirely different category of person than an innocent person who may be related to him."
That's exactly my point. The essence of your argument is that terrorists deserve to be tortured.
"I'm not viewing torture as punishment. I see it as merely a type of interrogation method -- but a harsh and brutal one."
You may believe that, but the logic of your argument doesn't support it. Torture is punishment inflicted on those who are presumed to be guilty terrorists and who are resistent to other interrogation methods. That's why you think it's ok to torture someone who is "guilty," but not ok to torture the guilty's innocent family members who do not deserve to be punished. I understand that you believe that torture should be related to intelligence gathering. But in your argument the difference between who gets tortured and who does not ultimately depends on whether the subject of the torture is guilty of terrorism, not whether the torture will yield reliable intelligence.
I'll add that for the purposes of this exchange, I've accepted your assumptions that torture yields reliable intelligence (instead of false evidence) and that it is always possible to determine who is guilty.
"Exactly. We accept that the guilty should be punished for their crimes, and the innocent should not. Again, you are fixated on guilt and innocence, not which techniques will produce reliable intelligence."
ReplyDeleteWhether it will produce reliable intelligence is a different question. And again, I'm not talking about punishment. I'm in favor of summary execution as punishment for terrorists, not torture. The only reason to use torture is if it may be necessary as a means to gain intelligence.
"That's exactly my point. The essence of your argument is that terrorists deserve to be tortured."
No. My argument is that terrorists do not deserve to have torture ruled out as an option, should it be necessary. If a terrorist is captured and cooperates, or if we extract what we believe is all available intelligence by more benign interrogation methods, then there is no reason to resort to torture as an option. I don't want them tortured just because they are terrorists. If I did, then you would be correct with your punishment hypothesis.
"You may believe that, but the logic of your argument doesn't support it."
Sure it does. Just because you mistakenly think that I see torture as a form of punishment doesn't make it so.
"the difference between who gets tortured and who does not ultimately depends on whether the subject of the torture is guilty of terrorism, not whether the torture will yield reliable intelligence."
Yes, the category of person determines whether or not torture is a justifiable method of interrogation. It should be ruled out for the innocent or the suspected. But that doesn't mean that I don't care about whether it will yield relibable intelligence. Obviously if it isn't a useful method, or necessary in a particular case, I don't want it used, regardless of whether the prisoner is a terrorist.
"I'll add that for the purposes of this exchange, I've accepted your assumptions that torture yields reliable intelligence (instead of false evidence) and that it is always possible to determine who is guilty."
Those are definitely not my assumptions. Torture is an interrogation method with severe known drawbacks. It can yield either good or bad information, as with any method, depending on the interrogator, the interrogatee, and the information in question. And of course it isn't always possible to positively ID someone as a terrorist. And if we can't, we shouldn't be resorting to torture.
"If a terrorist is captured and cooperates, or if we extract what we believe is all available intelligence by more benign interrogation methods, then there is no reason to resort to torture as an option. I don't want them tortured just because they are terrorists. If I did, then you would be correct with your punishment hypothesis."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that your only motive is to punish, but I do believe you have mixed motives.
"Yes, the category of person determines whether or not torture is a justifiable method of interrogation. It should be ruled out for the innocent."
Why is that? Your only explanation is to analogize torture of the innocent to punishment of the innocent, but insist that punishment has nothing to do with your argument.
According to you, only the necessity to gain intelligence to prevent terrorist violence justifies torture. Why doesn't it also justify other morally reprehensibe acts if those are necessary to gain intelligence? Is it fair to say you would rather risk an attack on an American city than permit torture under these circumstances? [I note that you approve of Cohen's argument that torture opponents would rather risk an attack than permit torture.]
Looking at it from the other side, why is torture "a justifiable method of interrogation" of the terrorist? The only justification you have offered is that he is guilty and has information. If a detainee has information (or if his torture would yield info from a terrorist detainee) but is not guilty, he would not be tortured. Again, whether or not you would torture depends on culpability. Guilt can only be relevant if you are at least partially motivated by a desire to punish the guilty. That's true even if you don't support gratuitous torture.
"Why is that? Your only explanation is to analogize torture of the innocent to punishment of the innocent, but insist that punishment has nothing to do with your argument."
ReplyDeleteI have all kinds of analogies I could use. That one is just the most convenient. Here's another one:
Consider two situations between people in superior and inferior positions. The superior gives an order and the inferior fails to carry it out. In situation 1) the superior is a boss, and the inferior is his employee. In situation 2) the superior is a mother, and the inferior is a young child. In situation 2) the mother might respond by physically taking hold of the child and forcibly guiding him or her to do whatever it was he/she failed to do. That's an appropriate response for a mother, but it would not be appropriate for a boss to do that with his employee, because an employee is not a child. They are different categories of person. The appropriate methods for compelling obedience differ. Just as the appropriateness of handling a known terrorist should differ from how an innocent person is dealt with.
"According to you, only the necessity to gain intelligence to prevent terrorist violence justifies torture."
Did I say that? The justification is that a terrorist, by virture of who and what he is, should not have the legal protection that prohibits him from being tortured.
"Why doesn't it also justify other morally reprehensibe acts if those are necessary to gain intelligence?"
a) I don't consider torturing a terrorist to be morally reprehensible, and b) there are degrees of morally reprehensible acts. There are situations where you could justify lying. That doesn't mean you also have to justify rape.
"Is it fair to say you would rather risk an attack on an American city than permit torture under these circumstances?"
If you are asking if I would rather risk an attack than torture innocent people, then the answer is yes. There are always limits as to what is or is not acceptable. It's not necessary to support the most extreme possible actions in order to support lesser actions. Support for pulling over motorists and issuing tickets to prevent speeding doesn't imply support for confiscating the cars of speeding motorists to prevent speeding. Everything has degrees.
"Guilt can only be relevant if you are at least partially motivated by a desire to punish the guilty."
When I say "guilty" I mean it only as a categorization of person -- as in, guilty of being a terrorist. It has nothing to do with punishment.
I don't think your analogy is on point, so I won't address it.
ReplyDelete"I don't consider torturing a terrorist to be morally reprehensible."
and
"The justification is that a terrorist, by virtue of who and what he is, should not have the legal protection that prohibits him from being tortured."
Now we're getting somewhere. As I said, you believe that it is not immoral to torture a terrorist because terrorists deserve to be tortured. You believe that a terrorist forfeits his right not to be tortured because he is guilty of committing or planning certain violent acts. That's exactly my point. I know you protest, but I find it incredible that your position has "nothing to do with punishment." The only aposite analogy I can think of is the penal argument that criminals forfeit the right to liberty, the right to vote or the right to life because they have committed certain crimes.
"There are situations where you could justify lying. That doesn't mean you also have to justify rape."
Yes, but those are two very different acts, not the same act done to two classes of people. You claim that the morality of the act depends not on its nature, but on who suffers from it. Do you know of a situation that calls for raping person A, but not person B? By your logic I guess if person A is a terrorist, and person B is not.
"If you are asking if I would rather risk an attack than torture innocent people, then the answer is yes. There are always limits as to what is or is not acceptable. It's not necessary to support the most extreme possible actions in order to support lesser actions."
So, you are willing to see NYC blown up to preserve a moral principle. But I don't think that makes you a "moralistic fool."
"As I said, you believe that it is not immoral to torture a terrorist because terrorists deserve to be tortured."
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't deserve legal protection against torture should torture be necessary in order to get intelligence. That's not exactly the same as saying they deserve to be tortured.
"You believe that a terrorist forfeits his right not to be tortured because he is guilty of committing or planning certain violent acts. "
Yes, he places himself in a category of an enemy who should not be entitled to legal protections -- in other words, he is literally an outlaw (or should be).
"That's exactly my point. I know you protest, but I find it incredible that your position has "nothing to do with punishment.""
I'm not sure why, since I already explained that I favor summary execution for terrorists as a punishment, and I don't want them tortured unless it is necessary for intelligence purposes. It should be clear that my position on torture has nothing to do with punishment.
"Yes, but those are two very different acts, not the same act done to two classes of people."
The principle is the same. It doesn't have to be the same act. Arguing in favor of the justification of a lesser unpleasant act does not imply support for a greater unpleasant act, whether of a similar or different type.
The fact that I support the killing of Muslim terrorists does not mean that I support killing other Muslims.
"So, you are willing to see NYC blown up to preserve a moral principle. But I don't think that makes you a "moralistic fool."
Someone with a purely utilitarian perspective, who did not consider torturing the innocent to be inherently morally wrong as long as it was done in the service of greater good, would indeed see me as a moralistic fool.
Since I do not believe that torture itself is inherently morally wrong in all cases, or that torturing a terrorist is morally wrong in that specific case, I find people who believe that we should potentially sacrifice intelligence rather than torture a terrorist to be pretty foolish. And since I consider that foolishness to be based on moral absolutism with regard to torture, thus the term moralistic fool.
Incidentally, I realize that there is no way any argument I make about torture will have any effect on someone that considers torture inherently morally wrong in all cases. I'm not certain if that applies to you.
Btw, the last time this particular angle on torture came up, I had a 30 comment thread. We are almost halfway :).