Reopening the Torture Debate

[David Sklansky]

The situation in Iraq with missing soldiers and captured prisoners who admit they were part of taking those prisoners, reminds me of a question I think I asked a while back. But I don't remember the answers. So I am going to repeat it.

A serial killer who buries his victims alive in a coffin is captured shortly after his latest victim goes missing. He ADMITS he took her and buried her. She is still certainly alive and will be for a few more hours. He REFUSES to divulge her whereabouts. There is a horrible torture technique that ALMOST ALWAYS gets the information required. Using that technique, or torture in general, is against the law. Should it be used anyway?

For those who say no, I ask if they can produce a reason other than something vague like, "if we torture we are no better than he is."

For those who say yes, I ask whether you would be in favor of changing the law for cases like these. Or would it be better to keep the laws as they are and simply look away in these very rare cases.

Finally is there anyone out there who would be opposed to the torture for the sole reason that it is illegal? And would thus change his position if it wasn't?

[Phil153]

Yes to the torture. Yes to the law change, but only with restrictions such as requiring the governor's explicit consent and subject to post judicial/public review with years of jail time for erring. The justification is that life vs life situations, where one person was the direct cause of the threat of another, allows very wide moral boundaries. It's similar in self defence - if 4 guys attack me with knives when I'm unarmed, I can pretty much [censored] them up however I please in the course of the fighting.

I realize this opens up a whole can of worms as I'm generally opposed to torture. I'd also say no to the torture in Iraq.

[BIG NIGE]

If that bitch can't keep her wits about her enough to stay clear of a serial killer, then we can delight in social darwinism removing her from the gene pool.

[MidGe]

Only the US should be allowed to use torture amongst civilized nations. In that case it is known as "humane" torture.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes to the torture. Yes to the law change, but only with restrictions such as requiring the governor's explicit consent and subject to post judicial/public review with years of jail time for erring. The justification is that life vs life situations, where one person was the direct cause of the threat of another, allows very wide moral boundaries. It's similar in self defence - if 4 guys attack me with knives when I'm unarmed, I can pretty much [censored] them up however I please in the course of the fighting.

I realize this opens up a whole can of worms as I'm generally opposed to torture. I'd also say no to the torture in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with judicial review and jail time for the prosecutors is that the people making the decisions will never be jailed. This leads leaders to become very ideological because there are no consequences.

It's exactly what's happening in the Alberto Gonzalez case. He's the scapegoat. Everyone knows that the orders came from higher up and he is just flatly refusing to speak. So higher government officials can accuse away will-nilly because there is virtually no chance that they will be jailed. Then we end up having way too many people tortured because the 'government' believes that it is in our best interests. It's too much of a slippery slope.

So basically I say no and no. How would we feel if a foreign government came in, captured a U.S. citizen and brutally tortured him to find out some nebulous 'information' that he might know? We would probably declare war on that country.

[SNOWBALL]

Here I say yes to torture.
In Iraq I say no for four reasons.

1. It makes torture more acceptable in the rest of the world, and further reduces the ability of the US to argue from a position of moral authority
2. the captured soldiers aren't innocent. They volunteered to fight.
3. There should be a way to get the soldiers back that doesn't involve torture (like negotiating).
4. It encourages insurgents to use the same tactics.

Usually in wartime, #3 is the main reason. Even in the case of "just wars", where one should in theory do everything necessary to win them, torturing enemy soldiers will encourage the other side to torture your POWs, which will lower morale amongst your own troops.

#4 isn't as big of a reason in Iraq, because the other side doesn't run POW camps that can be inspected by the red cross.

[arahant]

The circumstances are too ideal to be useful, I think. I don't think this case is much different (in its nature, not its ethics) than the 'if you could harvest organs' type questions. So I guess my answer is 'yes, the torture is ok, but no changing the law'. Basically, I think torture is too extreme, too unreliable, and too subject to abuse to condone it under any circumstance. But then, that's why we have jury nullification.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize this opens up a whole can of worms

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be in favor of keeping the can of worms closed.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be in favor of keeping the can of worms closed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
What if you were the one about to be worm food?

How about your daughter? Your wife? The guy doing it is sitting right there and laughing in your face. Do you let her die?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be in favor of keeping the can of worms closed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
What if you were the one about to be worm food?

How about your daughter? Your wife? The guy doing it is sitting right there and laughing in your face. Do you let her die?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't accept the premise. There's got to be another way to get the information.

The thing is, I have the sense that there is something fundamentally destructive about even considering these types of hypotheticals. Our efforts should be focused on perfecting acceptable methods to achieve our goals rather than looking for excuses to violate our principles.

PairTheBoard