torture

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-25 08:33am

Pat Buchanan (archive)
(printer-friendly version)

March 10, 2003

The case for torture

Can torture -- the infliction of intolerable, even excruciating, pain to extract information from war criminals -- ever be justified?

Civilized society has answered in the negative. No, never. And torture is everywhere outlawed. Regimes that resort to it deny it, lest they be judged barbarous. Routine torture marks the regime that uses it as unworthy of rule or even respect. And rightly so.

But that does not address the moral question, a question that has arisen with the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad. Among the crimes to which this monster has been linked are the plot to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific, the truck-bomb massacre at the U.S. embassies in Africa, 9/11 and slashing the throat of Daniel Pearl.

When Muhammad was seized in Pakistan, found with him was a treasure trove for CIA and FBI investigators: a computer, disks, tapes and cell phones with data pointing to planned new atrocities.

Muhammad is not talking. Yet, if he can be forced to talk, the information could save thousands. It was said to be two weeks of torture that broke the Al Qaeda conspirator who betrayed the plot to blow up those airliners. And if ever there was a case for torture, this excuse for a human being, Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, is it.

Thus, the question: Would it be moral to inflict pain on this beast to force him to reveal what he knows? Positive law prohibits it. However, the higher law, the moral law, the Natural Law permits it in extraordinary circumstances such as these.

Here is the reasoning. The morality of any act depends not only on its character, but on the circumstances and motive. Stealing is wrong and illegal, but stealing food for one's starving family is a moral act. Even killing is not always wrong. If a U.S. soldier had shot Muhammad to save 50 hostages, he would be an American hero.

But if it is permissible to take Muhammad's life to save lives, why is it impermissible to inflict pain on him to save lives?

Is the deliberate infliction of pain always immoral? Of course not. Twisting another kid's arm to make him tell where he hid your stolen bicycle is not wrong. Parents spank children to punish them and drive home the lessons of living good lives. Even the caning of that American kid in Singapore that caused a firestorm was not immoral.

Civil War doctors who amputated limbs without anesthesia on battlefields inflicted horrible pain. Why? For a higher good: to save the soldier's life, lest he die of gangrene.

But if doctors can cut off limbs and open up hearts to save lives, and cops may shoot criminals to save lives, and the state may execute criminals, why cannot we commit a lesser evil -- squeezing the truth out of Muhammad -- for a far greater good: preventing the murder of innocents.

Before America had its vast prison system, petty criminals were locked in stocks in the town square as humiliation. Others were flogged. Barbaric, we now say. But was flogging immoral?

Today, many believe that public caning of young criminals, and their return to society for a second chance, would be far better for them and us. It might be a superior deterrent to crime than dumping them into the animal cages that are too many of American prisons, where young offenders face sexual abuse and are exposed to the daily example of how incorrigible criminals succeed and fail.

Who would not prefer a thrashing that might even put one in a hospital for a week to spending years in such a prison?

In short, while the instant recoiling that decent people exhibit to the idea of torturing Muhammad may mark them as progressive, it may also be a sign of fuzzy liberal thinking.

Many of these same folks are all for war on Iraq. Why? To rid the Middle East of a tyrant and his weapons of mass destruction. When John Paul II argues that, with inspections underway, such a war does not seem necessary, or thus moral, Ari Fleischer instructed the Holy Father that this war has to be fought to keep Saddam from giving horrible weapons to terrorists.

But if it is moral to go to war and kill thousands to prevent potential acts of terror on U.S. soil, why cannot we inflict pain on one man, if that would stop imminent acts of terror on U.S. soil? There is no evidence Saddam has murdered Americans, but there is a computer full that Muhammad has and has hatched plots to slaughter more.

What will history say about people who hold Harry Truman to be a moral hero for dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but recoil in horror from painfully extracting the truth out of one mass murderer to stop the almost certain slaughter of their own people?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patb ... 0310.shtml

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-25 08:36am

If you can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that torturing him would save lives due to information he has in his possetion. Let's say there's a nuke in NY city, a Hydrogen bomb, with 48 Hours to go, then torturing a prisoner to extract disarming sequence/location of bomb is justifiable. Under nomal circumstaces, no.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-03-25 08:37am

That article is full of "These are moral!" examples which quite clearly aren't.

The end does not justify the means. Torture should not be allowed.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-03-25 08:55am

I believe torture should only be used in under the most extreme circumstances, like what Necronlord said above.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-03-25 09:59am

Let's face it, American interrogators are already leaning on Khalid Shaikh Muhammad pretty hard. Without breaking any international conventions, they can deprive him of food, deprive him of water, and deprive him of sleep to get him to talk.

Torture isn't exactly a reliable way to get information, anyway. Victims of torture typically say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear, not the truth.

So, no, I don't think torture is really justifiable even under these circumstances.

Chemical interrogation: now that's another story. I have no problem with using sodium pentathol or other drugs to loosen the guy's tongue, assuming they're drugs you wouldn't be afraid to use for legitimate medical reasons, like pain relief or anesthesia.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-03-25 10:04am

For every action,there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If you torture somebody today,he might torture you back.And just because someone else is doing evil deeds,doesn't justify you doing bad things to him.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-25 10:06am

torture for information doesnt always work as has been stated. there are other methods, and it would be inhumane to torture someone who might have information when other means could be used.

tho im all for torture as punishment for the severely criminal (like Osama bin Laden or the true extremist fundies here in the US) who go out of their way to hurt people who've done nothing to them.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-25 01:08pm

This is just me talking, but the examples that were provided in a "THIS is moral, so why isn't TORTURE moral" context seemed rather far-fetched and only somewhat relevant. For example:

But if doctors can cut off limbs and open up hearts to save lives, and cops may shoot criminals to save lives, and the state may execute criminals, why cannot we commit a lesser evil -- squeezing the truth out of Muhammad -- for a far greater good: preventing the murder of innocents.

The doctor example is a poor one because doctors never intentionally inflict pain for their own benefit. They have nothing to gain by helping a patient live, and their methods are (usually) neither cruel nor ruthless. Also, patients give consent to go under the knife. There's a mutual desire between both patient and doctor to undergo and perform surgery respectively. People who torture others are intentionally inflicting pain, without consent, to gain information. Granted, this information saves lives, but under this logic, what is to stop me from kidnapping and torturing a Fundie under the guise of "it's for the common good?"

Police officers, if they are faced with a situation wherein the use of firearms is necessary, are at least merciful. Police are trained to shoot to kill in threatening situations. They do not take the criminal and systematically blow off small body parts (a toe here, a kneecap there, a testicle over that way...) until he either gives up or bleeds to death. They put three or four bullets in his chest and rid the world of his presence. It's quick, it's easy, and there are no other alternatives. Beyond all of this, when a police officer kills a criminal, he has to deal with mountains of paperwork, each piece of which is carefully scrutinized by some higher authority to make sure that the killing was viable. We do NOT generally accept the murder of criminals by police officers, and in fact have lengthy processes to make absolutely certain that that kind of action is both last-ditch and justified.

I'm not even going to go into Capitol Punishment. We all know Mr. Buchanan's views on that. I've got a bigger bone to pick.

Today, many believe that public caning of young criminals, and their return to society for a second chance, would be far better for them and us. It might be a superior deterrent to crime than dumping them into the animal cages that are too many of American prisons, where young offenders face sexual abuse and are exposed to the daily example of how incorrigible criminals succeed and fail.

Who would not prefer a thrashing that might even put one in a hospital for a week to spending years in such a prison?

Ah, yes, Mr. Buchanan. Let's just beat everyone! Let's take hardcore criminals who live their lives from beating to beating ANYWAY, and punish them by making them take a licking that would pale by comparison to the confrontations he sees in his daily life. Better yet, let's teach young kids that it's ok to beat people who do bad things, and breed a generation of vigilante murderers and assaultists. The irony to this is that while they are only acting as the government would itself act, they are committing crimes in doing so. And what does the government do to criminals? They beat them! Do we see a pattern yet?!?!

I don't mean to be politically biased, but were Mr. Buchanan to take one more step to the Right, he would fall off the face of the earth. So much for the better, I say.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-03-25 01:15pm

If we start torturing prisoners, then how can we condemn the enemy for torturing our people that have been captured? And the US does condemn such actions. so how can we take the moral high ground, if we are in the muck with the enemy?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-25 01:42pm

And another thing I just thought of: Where does Buchanan get his information of what is and is not morally right? How can he say on the one hand that it's ok for people to steal food for their own survival, and then in the same breath advocate for the decimation of another man's livlihood? That seems immoral to me.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-03-26 12:47am

I remember reading that article in school for my English class.

And no, the end does not justify the means. It lowers you to your enemies/opponents level...Or something.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-03-26 01:22am

Well, sort of unrelated, but still on the same subject. The most esquisite torture you can expose a person to doesn't even involve any pain or damage at all. It is this. Blindfold them. Gag them. Plug their ears. Tie them to a bed. Put a nutritive I.V. drip in their arm. Wait until they start screaming.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-03-26 01:51am

Tom_Aurum wrote:Well, sort of unrelated, but still on the same subject. The most esquisite torture you can expose a person to doesn't even involve any pain or damage at all. It is this. Blindfold them. Gag them. Plug their ears. Tie them to a bed. Put a nutritive I.V. drip in their arm. Wait until they start screaming.

Sensory deprivation...Nice.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-03-26 02:01am

Moral relativism, ain't it grand.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-03-26 05:27am

kojikun wrote:tho im all for torture as punishment for the severely criminal (like Osama bin Laden or the true extremist fundies here in the US) who go out of their way to hurt people who've done nothing to them.

It would:
1. Teach them nothing. Do you honestly believe that people like OBL would care if they were caught and tortured? They expect to become martyrs.
2. Be hypocritical. The US is already conducting a might-makes-right crusade, gleefully ignoring what the rest of the world thinks. This has, of course, resulted in a goodwill loss of epic proportions. Legalised torture would pale in comparison. It would make the US look as bad as any Islam fundamentalist nation, because there is no justification for torturing people.

Quite frankly, the notion of justifying torture as punishment is sickening to me, and I sincerely hope you were making a bad joke.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-03-26 03:18pm

Reminds me of a line from Resevoir Dogs. "You beat on the cop long enough he'll admit to starting the New York Fire. That doen't necesseraily make it fucking so"

Torture is never the answer. When we begin to act like our enemies the whole point of fighting against them is moot as we have become them.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-26 03:57pm

It actually REALLY reminds me of a move (the name of which I can't remember) where these homeless Irish boys were arrested for bombing a nightclub in Dublin or Belfast... I don't remember which... and the police deprived them of food and sleep until they broke down and signed confessions saying they were guilty. Then the boy's parents and whole family were arrested because they allegedly found "bomb-making material" (sink-cleaner) in a kitchen cabinet. He ends up in the same jail cell with his father who he despises. Greatest movie quote of all time:

"I wrote your name -- I wrote your Guiseppe fucking name in the snow... and pissed on it!"

I just wish I could remember the name of the movie.... Someone help me out?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-26 06:12pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:Well, sort of unrelated, but still on the same subject. The most esquisite torture you can expose a person to doesn't even involve any pain or damage at all. It is this. Blindfold them. Gag them. Plug their ears. Tie them to a bed. Put a nutritive I.V. drip in their arm. Wait until they start screaming.

That's assuming they do start screaming. Part of the training I received involves a similar procedure. You'd be amazed how fast a week goes by when you've achieved zazen.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-03-26 06:21pm

Well, true Zazen would make you impervious to any form of torture. Even the most excruciating pain. But most people aren't able to find that level of awareness in themselves. And anyways, after a certain point one's psyche will start to deteriorate, from simply not being used, like a muscle atrophying. Most people able to tolerate this for weeks will also have the awareness to realize what's happening to them in the process.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-26 06:34pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:Well, true Zazen would make you impervious to any form of torture. Even the most excruciating pain. But most people aren't able to find that level of awareness in themselves. And anyways, after a certain point one's psyche will start to deteriorate, from simply not being used, like a muscle atrophying. Most people able to tolerate this for weeks will also have the awareness to realize what's happening to them in the process.

It would be human nature (to use an overly broad phrase) to be upset by such an experience. There is a point, though, at which certain types of meditative training and mental self-conditioning will allow you to overcome (or at least suspend) "normal" human reactions.

One of the things the training I received entails is threat reaction conditioning. You may have noticed on a couple of occasions, Tom, that when threatened, I don't back up -- I lunge forward, typically uttering a shout simultaneously. I have done this in training so many times that it has become a reflex -- and a very valuable one at that. When exposed to sensory deprivation, my trained reflex is to go into a state of deep meditation (some might even call it self-hypnosis) in which I disconnect my mind from the dead weight of my body. I then alternate between this state and REM sleep until sensory information returns, or until I sense an opportunity to respond in some other way.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-03-27 02:29pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:It actually REALLY reminds me of a move (the name of which I can't remember) where these homeless Irish boys were arrested for bombing a nightclub in Dublin or Belfast... I don't remember which... and the police deprived them of food and sleep until they broke down and signed confessions saying they were guilty. Then the boy's parents and whole family were arrested because they allegedly found "bomb-making material" (sink-cleaner) in a kitchen cabinet. He ends up in the same jail cell with his father who he despises. Greatest movie quote of all time:

"I wrote your name -- I wrote your Guiseppe fucking name in the snow... and pissed on it!"

I just wish I could remember the name of the movie.... Someone help me out?

It was a movie called "In The Name Of The Father" and IIRC it was about the Brighton Bomsing. It was pure Provie propaganda and not worth a shit.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-27 04:56pm

PainRack wrote:For every action,there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If you torture somebody today,he might torture you back.And just because someone else is doing evil deeds,doesn't justify you doing bad things to him.

That objection seems to be based in emotion rather than reason.

When the physical, mental or emotional discomfort of one person has a high probability of saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of others, the correct choice becomes clear.

Torture is not pretty, and it makes us umcomfortable, but when it is effective and used for a moral purpose, there is no need for conflict over its use.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2003-03-27 05:43pm

I don't understand- this isn't always about "morality", in many cases it's about survival (to whatever extent.) That is, torture may or may not lower you to your enemy's moral level, but how is that relevant when one is dealing with life and death? Sure, it's not good, but is it wrong to torture a terrorist when you have reason to believe he posseses information vital to your nation's security?

The best argument against torture is that it is unreliable- information obtained under torture may wildly out of touch with reality. I can't really say whether this is true or not, but there you go.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-03-27 06:09pm

Torture is only good if the interrogater truly believes the suspect has valueable information NOT IN THE FORM OF yes and no questions.

Such as not asking him questions if Al Queda is involved but simply things such as what he's planning to do and etc.

Since Mo here is linked to the terrorist attack/s he in his head may have further info. on future plans thus torture should be allowed.

Yes for torture when the person is justifiably percieved to have valueable information.
No for torture if your just going to ask yes/no questions.

Cyaround,
Jason

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2003-03-27 06:22pm

Raoul Duke, Jr wrote:When exposed to sensory deprivation, my trained reflex is to go into a state of deep meditation (some might even call it self-hypnosis) in which I disconnect my mind from the dead weight of my body. I then alternate between this state and REM sleep until sensory information returns, or until I sense an opportunity to respond in some other way.

Which would only work if they didnt pump you full of chemicals designed to cause serious changes in human behaviour.

Creative brain surgery would also go a long way to defeat these type of training(Direct simulation of areas of your brain can cause all types on your personality)

The question is however, are you left with someone who isnt a complete an utter basket case.