Torture must be all or nothing
Once we conclude that it is acceptable to torture some detainees in some situations, I think there will be only the briefest of pauses before we conclude that we must torture all detainees in every situation. Here's why.
With regard to torture, we have been told that only detainees possessing certain information have been or will be tortured, and then only as an enhanced technique, after ordinary interrogation methods do not succeed.
But how is it determined whether a detainee has torture-worthy information? Was he named by another detainee? Condemned by an enemy or rival?
And how is it determined when a not-tortured detainee has divulged all the information he has?
If an interrogator is not getting results, then torture must follow. How can an interrogator tell the difference between a detainee that has torture-worthy information but is just holding out, and a detainee who has no useful information, without torturing him? If we are allowed to torture, then we must eventually torture every detainee to be sure we have exhausted his knowledge. And if we are going to torture him anyway, then why bother with preliminaries?
Even a detainee who spills his guts immediately must be tortured, because he might just be trying to put one over on the interrogator by pretending to be cooperative.
If we don't know which detainees have torture-worthy information, we must torture all of them.
And if it is acceptable to torture detainees, what distinction can be made for ordinary criminal defendants or suspects? How long would Scooter Libby have withstood waterboarding before he gave up Dick Cheney? How long would Cheney have held out before he admitted that he ordered Scooter to blow Valerie Plame's cover?
Torture must be an all-or-nothing proposition. Either every one of the detainees must be tortured, or none. I don't see how it can be otherwise.
Interesting that you posted this today...because yesterday I probably would not have disagreed with your stance.
Today I do.
In the abstract I do not support torture!
But, if an individual is detained and there is absolute proof he/she was/is involved in planning and implementing terrorist activities - that all other interrogation activities were not successful in learning the time and place targeted, I'm not so sure I wouldn't condone torture as last resort.
However, I support the use of truth serum drugs before physical torture when and only when there is solid evidence that provides the validity of the individual's participation/knowledge.
But, let me state - the issue is truly about the ability of those 'in charge' to discern on a factual basis and judgment of individuals responsible for making the decision. Therein lies the nut as they say.
There is, sadly, no good or right answer when and if any of us are confronted with this scenario. Specifically when it's our family/loved ones who are discovered to be the subject target.
Would you be on the side of the angels if it was known to be you and yours were the target or would you give the devil his due and endorse any option to save your loved ones?
May 10, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you have absolute proof they have proof, then you got that proof from somewhere. Use that. This argument is a way to get you thinking torture is ok. That person has a mother, a father, children. Suppose that person was your own child or relative or friend. And the absolute proof was wrong. Or maybe it was right. Why use torture? Try persuasion. And torture can produce lies just as much as not.
May 10, 2009 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thera -
Hypothetical example:
Person detained has an explosive device with diagram of where to place on plane and disposable cell phone. Cell phone records show calls to another disposable cell only hours before. Impossible to trace. Notation only with that days date on diagram and the number four is circled.
Time is of the essence. No other clues and he/she refuses to give needed data. Thousands, if not more, of lives are at stake. I vote for truth serum first, physical 'torture' as it were last.
If it were my child? I raised my children to accept responsibility for their actions. I told them, 'Unless someone has a gun to your head, a knife to your throat - you have feet that can walk away and can speak the word 'NO'. Do not ever attempt to blame others for your actions. Be prepared to accept the consequences.'
We should not and cannot apply different standards or demand lawful obedience dependent upon who they are in our family and/or country. Equality is a double edged sword. We all must be accountable equally for our choices without exception.
May 10, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is unconstitutional! Cruel and Unusual? It is against national and international law.
See Jade below.
I part company with you on this. This is why we have the Rule of Law.
You're buying the right wing spin, just like they want you to. After that, it opens the door. And where is the line drawn?
I'm sorry. We all have to die. But no one should ever be tortured.
May 10, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - no one should ever be tortured.
However, I consider random violence - as in bombing planes and destroying lives - the ultimate in torture. And I am not endorsing random violence as in torture such has been done.
But, the truth is, that the majority, if they had to choose between the option of saving their loved ones, would endorse sacrificing a criminal's 'rights' for their loved ones lives. As I stated in post, to be adamant in the abstract is easy - but if one was confronted with this choice - and especially if it's up close and personal, people have a totally different judgment call.
As I said, I don't believe there is any good or right response. And generalities are seldom, if ever, applicable to all persons or matters.
How about truth serum?
May 10, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since people might make that choice, as well as even murdering someone who harmed their child, that's why we have the rule of law. To prevent the ones who've lost a loved one, however that happened, from being the ones to mete out punishment.
We all have our rage. We all could potentially "lose it" - and we need to have laws to restrain ourselves when that happens.
I don't want you in jail for torturing. We need you here! :)
May 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Maybe . . .
You should take the time to research the clinical studies of the use of Sodium Pentothal as a "truth serum" and find out how effective or ineffective it's use is . . .
It all sounds so feasible in the movies.
~OGD~
May 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geneva, and maybe CAT, also forbids the use of drugs meant to alter the mind.
However, is it possible for info coming from them to be influenced? Hypnosis can be!
May 10, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, I should. I'm just throwing things out there as alternative options. Hypnosis?
It's just a quagmire full of nothing but horrors.
Guess I need to order that magic wand and hope that works (tried the twitchy nose thing and not so good results).
May 10, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magic Wand. They sell them at Amazon! But toy ones...
May 10, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Moral bearings?
I guess they can be checked at the door.
~OGD~
May 10, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once torture is used, you've lost all ability to form an alliance with the person. And you'll never be sure after that if any info they give is accurate.
Right from an official declassified report, JPRA-Memo (25 July 02):
May 10, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to recommend this because it brings the discussion of torture to its pinnacle. And as I read this, I must admit, I found myself chuckling a bit. (That could be residual laughter from the WHCAD last night.) I don't know if you meant this to be satire, but it is and it is brilliant.
It takes us back to the inquisition, the rack, drawing and quartering, the stake... How do you know the one you've believe is possessed by the devil is possessed by the devil unless you torture them to the point that the devil begs for mercy, and even then is the devil just messing with your mind? It is akin to medieval times when merely killing your enemy was not enough. You had to torture them, draw and quarter them, disembowel them, cut off their heads, and mount the heads on a pike, burn the bodies and then they were dead. Just in case you drown them, too, just to be sure.
How do you torture some and not all? How much torture is the right amount of torture?
Recommended highly!
May 10, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 10, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would also say that if we allow our soldiers to torture under certain circumstances, we must then allow other countries to torture our American soldiers under similar circumstances.
May 10, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade: Not satire, but maybe ambiguous. Torture is always wrong and should never be done. I just don't think I have seen anyone follow this through to its logical conclusion: all torture all the time. It is not a slippery slope but a cliff.
Perfect knowledge exists only in hypothetical situations. What if the proof that a detainee has "ticking time bomb" information is slightly less than absolute? What if the evidence is marginally less than solid? I think interrogators and their superiors will err on the side of caution, and torture if it is allowed. Who will leave any stone unturned?
It is fantasy to think that torture makes us safer. Torture makes us evil and kills our country's soul.
May 10, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink