Torture to fight terrorism?

[thatsmell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

interesting article...

[whollymoly]

I've still never heard a good definition of torture.

But I can say that one can envision circumstances in which almost anything might be justified.

Say, for example, a captive terrorist has knowledge of the location of a nuke about to be set off. I'd Jack Bauer THAT guy's *ss in a heartbeat

[Red_Laxfan77]

I've still never heard a good definition of torture.

But I can say that one can envision circumstances in which almost anything might be justified.

Say, for example, a captive terrorist has knowledge of the location of a nuke about to be set off. I'd Jack Bauer THAT guy's *ss in a heartbeat

even though I haven't seen a full episode of "24" yet. If I absolutely knew that even a single life, much less 100's+, depended on information from a terrorist, I doubt that I would have too many long term issues with using whatever means necessary to save those lives. I think you stated somewhere that you were a philosophy major at Syracuse. IMO, any nation that allows capital punishment and/or views prison as justice and not primarily for the reform of the individual (the majority of countries), has philosophical inconsistency problems with an absolute ban on torture to save "innocent" life. Prison itself could be viewed by some as a form of individual torture. Please correct me if I am off base, please.

Some of the situations described in this article aren't obviously the same situation that we agree on. I also don't believe that the US Military should have the lead role in that process. The CIA should be the primary agency associated with difficult situations, and extreme measures should be limited, controlled, and have some degree of accountability.

IMO, the US is putting an undue burden on our intelligence services to stop terrorist attacks. This almost singular reliance on intelligence gathering can make illegal wire taps, random torture, invasion of civil rights, etc seem the only path to individual and national security. At the same time we seem resolute in refusing to properly review visa applicants and follow up periodically. We also have a similar policy about anyone that has illegally immigrated to the US. I am not for mass deportations of people working hard to support their families or forcing people to return to their native country and re-apply. That is an unenforceable political straw man. However, we do need to know who is here and if they have known criminal issues. The immigration green card quotas also need to be realistic and market driven. I lean conservative and don't really like it much, but a national ID (not a cheap Social Security card that a 5th grader could produce) card is one of the solutions.

It is hypocritical (and philosophically inconsistent) at best for the Bush Administration to want some lenient view of wiretaps and forceful interrogation, but essentially oppose any change to our open border and lax visa enforcement policy of the last 50+ years. Quite frankly the political morass that we now face makes it more likely that the real outcome could be loss of many of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties in the name of future security. IMO, we could be only another 9/11 or mega-9/11 away from the real limitation of individual rights in America.

[whollymoly]

I've still never heard a good definition of torture.

But I can say that one can envision circumstances in which almost anything might be justified.

Say, for example, a captive terrorist has knowledge of the location of a nuke about to be set off. I'd Jack Bauer THAT guy's *ss in a heartbeat

even though I haven't seen a full episode of "24" yet. If I absolutely knew that even a single life, much less 100's+, depended on information from a terrorist, I doubt that I would have too many long term issues with using whatever means necessary to save those lives. I think you stated somewhere that you were a philosophy major at Syracuse. IMO, any nation that allows capital punishment and/or views prison as justice and not primarily for the reform of the individual (the majority of countries), has philosophical inconsistency problems with an absolute ban on torture to save "innocent" life. Prison itself could be viewed by some as a form of individual torture. Please correct me if I am off base, please.

I'm wit ya on all that. Prison distinctly IS a form of torture, in many circumstances. I think the lame justification offered for that is that in those cases the torture is "earned", that they are examples of "justice" - i.e., state-approved retribution/vengeance.

Some of the situations described in this article aren't obviously the same situation that we agree on. I also don't believe that the US Military should have the lead role in that process. The CIA should be the primary agency associated with difficult situations, and extreme measures should be limited, controlled, and have some degree of accountability.

IMO, the US is putting an undue burden on our intelligence services to stop terrorist attacks. This almost singular reliance on intelligence gathering can make illegal wire taps, random torture, invasion of civil rights, etc seem the only path to individual and national security. At the same time we seem resolute in refusing to properly review visa applicants and follow up periodically. We also have a similar policy about anyone that has illegally immigrated to the US. I am not for mass deportations of people working hard to support their families or forcing people to return to their native country and re-apply. That is an unenforceable political straw man. However, we do need to know who is here and if they have known criminal issues. The immigration green card quotas also need to be realistic and market driven. I lean conservative and don't really like it much, but a national ID (not a cheap Social Security card that a 5th grader could produce) card is one of the solutions.

It is hypocritical (and philosophically inconsistent) at best for the Bush Administration to want some lenient view of wiretaps and forceful interrogation, but essentially oppose any change to our open border and lax visa enforcement policy of the last 50+ years. Quite frankly the political morass that we now face makes it more likely that the real outcome could be loss of many of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties in the name of future security. IMO, we could be only another 9/11 or mega-9/11 away from the real limitation of individual rights in America.

Umm...you don't want the military fighting terrorism, but you also think it's too much for intelligence agencies ? Who does that leave ? I guess you're saying it leaves a strong border patrol and immigration cops, but those have very limited scope.

[Paesan33]

I've still never heard a good definition of torture.

But I can say that one can envision circumstances in which almost anything might be justified.

Say, for example, a captive terrorist has knowledge of the location of a nuke about to be set off. I'd Jack Bauer THAT guy's *ss in a heartbeat

even though I haven't seen a full episode of "24" yet. If I absolutely knew that even a single life, much less 100's+, depended on information from a terrorist, I doubt that I would have too many long term issues with using whatever means necessary to save those lives. I think you stated somewhere that you were a philosophy major at Syracuse. IMO, any nation that allows capital punishment and/or views prison as justice and not primarily for the reform of the individual (the majority of countries), has philosophical inconsistency problems with an absolute ban on torture to save "innocent" life. Prison itself could be viewed by some as a form of individual torture. Please correct me if I am off base, please.

I'm wit ya on all that. Prison distinctly IS a form of torture, in many circumstances. I think the lame justification offered for that is that in those cases the torture is "earned", that they are examples of "justice" - i.e., state-approved retribution/vengeance.

i completely disagree with you on this one- prison and torture are distinct. prison is a result from a wrongful act within your own system; torture is a means extricating information whether or not the person has done any wrong.

i do agree with Redlax though, that at some point, the utilitarian principle of "the greater good" is served by the minimal torture of one.

[Red_Laxfan77]

I've still never heard a good definition of torture.

But I can say that one can envision circumstances in which almost anything might be justified.

Say, for example, a captive terrorist has knowledge of the location of a nuke about to be set off. I'd Jack Bauer THAT guy's *ss in a heartbeat

even though I haven't seen a full episode of "24" yet. If I absolutely knew that even a single life, much less 100's+, depended on information from a terrorist, I doubt that I would have too many long term issues with using whatever means necessary to save those lives. I think you stated somewhere that you were a philosophy major at Syracuse. IMO, any nation that allows capital punishment and/or views prison as justice and not primarily for the reform of the individual (the majority of countries), has philosophical inconsistency problems with an absolute ban on torture to save "innocent" life. Prison itself could be viewed by some as a form of individual torture. Please correct me if I am off base, please.

I'm wit ya on all that. Prison distinctly IS a form of torture, in many circumstances. I think the lame justification offered for that is that in those cases the torture is "earned", that they are examples of "justice" - i.e., state-approved retribution/vengeance.

Some of the situations described in this article aren't obviously the same situation that we agree on. I also don't believe that the US Military should have the lead role in that process. The CIA should be the primary agency associated with difficult situations, and extreme measures should be limited, controlled, and have some degree of accountability.

IMO, the US is putting an undue burden on our intelligence services to stop terrorist attacks. This almost singular reliance on intelligence gathering can make illegal wire taps, random torture, invasion of civil rights, etc seem the only path to individual and national security. At the same time we seem resolute in refusing to properly review visa applicants and follow up periodically. We also have a similar policy about anyone that has illegally immigrated to the US. I am not for mass deportations of people working hard to support their families or forcing people to return to their native country and re-apply. That is an unenforceable political straw man. However, we do need to know who is here and if they have known criminal issues. The immigration green card quotas also need to be realistic and market driven. I lean conservative and don't really like it much, but a national ID (not a cheap Social Security card that a 5th grader could produce) card is one of the solutions.

It is hypocritical (and philosophically inconsistent) at best for the Bush Administration to want some lenient view of wiretaps and forceful interrogation, but essentially oppose any change to our open border and lax visa enforcement policy of the last 50+ years. Quite frankly the political morass that we now face makes it more likely that the real outcome could be loss of many of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties in the name of future security. IMO, we could be only another 9/11 or mega-9/11 away from the real limitation of individual rights in America.

Umm...you don't want the military fighting terrorism, but you also think it's too much for intelligence agencies ? Who does that leave ? I guess you're saying it leaves a strong border patrol and immigration cops, but those have very limited scope.

Wholly,
I am throwing out my thoughts and requesting that other informed people respond. If I thought I had all the answers and the qualifications to back it up, I would be working for some highly regarded think tank. I really enjoy the water cooler discussion due to the number of intelligent people with varied backgrounds. Sometimes it devolves into political rant, but normally there are insightful thoughts and also viewpoints expressed by humor that are worth considering.

Military intelligence and military police (many of whom are part time National Guard or Reserves) questioning prisoners and using sleep deprivation, noise, threats of turning them over to more ruthless interrogators is probably as far as most of the military should go. Forceful means (including hypothermia techniques, water boarding, etc) should be reserved for those specifically trained for it and will have confidence that the subject is nearly certain to be affiliated with a terrorist organization. My view of Abu Ghraib was that the CIA attempted to use the National Guard and Reserves to minimize their manpower requirements for Iraqi operations. IMO, that also explains why no military officers besides the overall commanding officer, a general, were touched by the scandal. The CIA may need more people, but they should have to get off their a&& and justify them. Hopefully laziness or being too politically sensitive explains CIA behavior.

Concerning border issues, my point is that we compartmentalize the stated terrorism issue at our own risk. Border security and visa control is a legitimate first line of review. Bush's declared war on terrorism should be consistent with the stated threat and the legal variances requested. My biggest issue to date involves Bush Administration consistency.

Please comment.

[2badknees]

The "Gentleman" from the Shin Bett made a good point: the ploy that almost always works is the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine. The key to that is that it takes time to establish the "roles" involved.

The key to the process is that anyone who has just been subjected to the stress of combat, then captured, is very likely to be psychologically "dislocated" at the very least. As the adrenaline rush of "fight or flight" subsides, you tend to crash. That kind of fatigue is exploitable, in both ways...either piling on, and increasing the stress by sleep deprivation, and coming on hard, which may cause the weaker guy to crack. Add to that stress by making the guy believe that you are about to turn him over the the "pros" at the game, (having a big, silent guy in the room in what appears to be the uniform of a nation like Egypt or Israel is a classic), and you may get something going.

Or, you can react in a way the bad guys don't expect. You have to remember that these guys tend to believe their propaganda about us...they know that we will heat them and eat them at the very least. So good interrogators will make use of that. Giving a guy a quick cigarette, some water, etc, and giving him a pat on the back "Man, you guys put up one hell of a fight..." can get the guy to talking. Again, the big guy in the odd uniform in the room, giving you dirty looks as you make nice with the prisoner can help, too.

Neither approach involves physical "torture", but it sure does involve psychological manipulation. That is the name of the game. How much manipulation is required, and how close that comes to "torture" is really the nub of the question. As "the sheriff" noted, the threat of physical harm may always be in the background, even if not used.

With really tough dudes, it is very likely that they will lie to you, or worse yet, telll you what they think you want to hear, if tortured. Which, of course, does you no good whatsoever. Now you have to sort the crap from the useful, wich takes more time. Much better to prey on their fear of the unkown and their cultural beliefs if you want to pressure them. Usually works. Or so I was told by some guys in the business.

[a fan]

Much better to prey on their fear of the unknown and their cultural beliefs if you want to pressure them. Usually works. Or so I was told by some guys in the business.

If I ever get around to having dinner with you and Frau, I'll be careful to not break any Emily Postian mores! "Hey 2bad, who's the quiet guy in the corner?" 2bad responds, "never mind him, would you like more potatoes?"

At the same time, I'd like to tell you today where the location of my Gin stash is BEFORE we schedule the dinner. No need for the rough stuff with me! No sirrreeee!

Your description of the silent guy in the room reminds me of when my friends and I saw Apocalypse Now for the first time in High School. We all agreed that the scariest guy in the whole movie wasn't Kurtz or Capt. Willard. It was the quiet guy who didn't say a word in the briefing room scene with Sheen and Harrison Ford......

He wasn't in uniform, which led you to wonder who in the heck he was, but then you forgot all about him until the very last words of the meeting, "terminate with extreme prejudice".

That guy totally creeped us out. Now I know why.

[whollymoly]

i completely disagree with you on this one- prison and torture are distinct. prison is a result from a wrongful act within your own system; torture is a means extricating information whether or not the person has done any wrong.

i do agree with Redlax though, that at some point, the utilitarian principle of "the greater good" is served by the minimal torture of one.

Me too. Not even necessarily always minimal.

As for prisons - they're certainly a practical necessity, regardless of how one feels about the philosophy or motivations of those in the industry regarding the application of "justice".

But what I was always taught, as a lad, that we do in our prisons is not what we do in the Supermaxes or any of the higher-security prisons for violent or repeat offenders. The physical restriction to a prison campus, with activities reasonably regimented for an inmate while he does his time in a place where practial rehab is offered and internal personal rehab is possible, just is not the way it is. The very best of those higher-level places still allow the inmates to re-create the same gang-hell they had on the outside; worse, those with insufficent funding or the wrong people in charge can be, at times and places, like medieval prisons. And the Supermaxes specifically are, definitely, in my opinion, designed torture, even if that particular word wasn't in the head of the designers at the time. Like the (long abandoned) concept behind Pennsylvania's infamous Eastern State Penitentiary in the nineteenth century - which strove, because of its fundamentalist creator, to bring inmates closer to God through a harsh, stark, and absolutely mentally empty existence - today's Supermaxes do nothing but breed insanity. Unlike the case of Eastern State, though, I don't think the designers of the Supermaxes are simply misguided. I think it is, at least in part, their intent to create a mini-hell, as a type of retribution -what they would call punishment. That's inexcusable, and it is torture. And, on the practical level, the few who make it back to the street from those come back as monsters.

As is the case with so many enterprises in life - politics comes to mind as another example, and there are plenty of others - all the wrong people gravitate to the prison industry.

It seems to be another of Ma Nature's jokes on us that the folks who are most interested in handling certain social functions always seem to be the ones who would contribute more to society if they did almost anything else.

What were we talking about, again ?

[Paesan33]

Me too. Not even necessarily always minimal.

I was trying to be nice. I advocate maximum torture as well if it will serve utilitarian principles.

As for your above commentary, i think its noteworthy that imprisonment serves more than the one purpose you mention- retribution. do we have a criminologist in the WC?

Yes, WM it serves retribution to punish a criminal by imprisonment.

however it also serves incapacitation- if youre jailed, you cannot commit crimes (yes i understand your point that they do on the inside- but its not a perfect world- its about not committing crimes in the general public). so that purpose is at least theoretical, maybe realistic.

imprisonment also serves deterrence- while this is arguable, its still there. in fact, not only does it deter the criminal before the act, but also deters from recidivism (again whether or not it works is not the point). and one more purpose of deterrence is served- deterring others in the general public from doing the same bad act.

to me, thats a whole lot of different purposes being served by imprisonment. whether they actually work in practice is not a flaw in theory but rather in practice.

[whollymoly]

Me too. Not even necessarily always minimal.

I was trying to be nice. I advocate maximum torture as well if it will serve utilitarian principles.

As for your above commentary, i think its noteworthy that imprisonment serves more than the one purpose you mention- retribution. do we have a criminologist in the WC?

Yes, WM it serves retribution to punish a criminal by imprisonment.

however it also serves incapacitation- if youre jailed, you cannot commit crimes (yes i understand your point that they do on the inside- but its not a perfect world- its about not committing crimes in the general public). so that purpose is at least theoretical, maybe realistic.

imprisonment also serves deterrence- while this is arguable, its still there. in fact, not only does it deter the criminal before the act, but also deters from recidivism (again whether or not it works is not the point). and one more purpose of deterrence is served- deterring others in the general public from doing the same bad act.

to me, thats a whole lot of different purposes being served by imprisonment. whether they actually work in practice is not a flaw in theory but rather in practice.

As my ex used to say: "You keep forgetting that I'm right and you're wrong!"

Ah, so...it was a memory lapse kinda thing.

In fact I acknowledge - and agree with- almost all of your points above. We just need to do prisons better, with better people. Especially on the higher-security levels.

I also have a problem with retribution as a State goal - or anyone's goal - but I know that makes me an extremist, and I don't generally like extremists, so I'll shut up.

[Paesan33]

yes then we do agree- in theory, the purposes that imprisonment serve are valid. however, sometimes, the execution falls short. in practice, these prisons dont always run according to plan.

as for torture, which i find distinct for reasons stated above, im willing to bet theres always more facts to the equation than we all know about.

[Regularjesus]

Here is an example of people who thought they had the justification to torture:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/06/kkk.c ... index.html

They had it in their heads that these boys knew where a stockpile of guns was located (at least that's the excuse) and they whipped them and then murdered them with a sawed off shotgun.

Once you start greenlighting "a little bit" of torture, who gets to make the decision that this person or that definitely "knows something" and ought to be tortured???

[Paesan33]

dennis miller put it this way: if someone has knowledge that endangers the lives of many people- and you dont torture them to get that info, thats more evil than if you did torture them.

[whollymoly]

dennis miller put it this way: if someone has knowledge that endangers the lives of many people- and you dont torture them to get that info, thats more evil than if you did torture them.

True. A tough call, but I agree. It's basically the same mindset I've always had on Iraq: on the rare occasion that you have a reasonably realistic chance to get rid of a bloodthirsty dictator, and you're the only one who can or will do that- you pretty much have to do it, no matter how difficult it might be.

On the other hand, I also admire the mindset of Buddhists, Amish etc., who won't kill no matter what - even in direct self-defense. I won't go into detail on how they arrive at that attitude here, but it's not simply silliness. There's an original Star Trek episode which pretty much explains it, actually. Star Trek speaks for me on all matters pertaining to Buddhism.

[Paesan33]

good post WM. i was not trying to put my thoughts out there at all- just phrase it differently and show what others think.

but personally- i agree with you. if i can prevent a 9-11, you bet id be hammering nails through a terrorist's toes and sticking needles into his eyes. when it comes to protecting my family and myself, im not into losing

[Regularjesus]

the problem arises when you're hammering nails and sticking needles into innocent people. Who sets the standards of what "good intel" will be? Obviously we didn't have it for the Yellow Cake in Niger.

[a fan]

the problem arises when you're hammering nails and sticking needles into innocent people. Who sets the standards of what "good intel" will be? Obviously we didn't have it for the Yellow Cake in Niger.

Yeah, this seems to be the $20,000 question, doesn't it?

It's kind of like the death penalty. What happens when we make a mistake?

[Paesan33]

the problem arises when you're hammering nails and sticking needles into innocent people. Who sets the standards of what "good intel" will be? Obviously we didn't have it for the Yellow Cake in Niger.

yeh but that goes for anything- a police investigation may be wrong (see Duke); a police lineup; criminal incarceration; heck just today there was a case where police kicked in a door of a couple making dinner and then kicked the husband in the crotch. it was the wrong apartment. things go wrong. that doesnt mean the govt cant/shouldnt investigate.

look no further than a fan's comment above- death penalty. perfect example.

[Red_Laxfan77]

thought through many of the issues posted here.

I do believe that the pacifist position of no harm, torture, or death is the most philosophically consistent position. However, I don't think that I could remain true to this ideal if I observed innocent people losing or in imminent danger of losing their lives. I suspect that many Americans have similar sentiments, which forces us into a relativistic viewpoint. Can we forcibly intervene to prevent the loss of innocent life and maintain a moral standing? This is a philosophical question faced by generations of soldiers, police, and ordinary individuals through out recorded human history. IMO, modern American/Western European viewpoint has some moral basis, but it could be naive or dishonest if it isn't consistently applied. I don't have the answers here, but I am convinced that some of the commonly accepted wisdom doesn't either.