Most of us in western countries agree that torture, as a normal operating policy of any government, is wrong.
Why? On what basis is torture wrong? Is it simply because a group of men got together and made a law banning it? Does something in the judeo-christian religions tell society that torture is unacceptable? How did civilized society come to the decision that only savages torture?
Paul Campos, a law professor at the Univerist of Colorado, Boulder says this:
Torture is wrong. It is always wrong, at all times, in all places, no matter what good one imagines might come from torturing a fellow human being.
It is wrong because to torture a fellow human being destroys the torturer’s own soul as surely as it destroys the body and mind of his victim.
Here is a basic truth, understood by all religions and peoples who have not yet sunk into total barbarism: Mortality is only possible if there are certain things we must refuse to do under any circumstances. You do not “balance” the costs and benefits of torturing your fellow men, because it does not profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul.
In this age or moral relativism, why should we accept this absolute position? Why is there no grey area, or nuances if you will, when it comes to torturing a terrorist? Campos makes no exception for the ticking bomb theory in his statement. Is it fair to say one’s soul would be destroyed if one could have prevented a terrorist attack by applying more agressive interrigation techniques?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating torture here. I’m just trying to understand why it’s wrong. Because it’s bad doesn’t seem like much of an answer.
Terry Says: September 28th, 2006 at 10:57 amAgree. Should it become a situation where one believes that one could save lives by inflicting harm on another person, then I see no reason to hold back.
Having said that, how about this scenario: one has captured two terrorists and one believes that one of the terrorists has information that could save lives by preventing a terrorist act. Could one put a gun to the head of the other terrorist and kill him in order to frighten the one with the knowledge into divulging the information desired?
Woody Says: September 28th, 2006 at 3:45 pmI don’t have a problem with a certain amount of torture. The enemy being tortured has information that could save many lives if revealed in time. The enemy’s life comes in second to mine, my family’s, neighbors’, and those of my countrymen. A captured enemy not revealing all he knows is a torture to me. An uncaptured enemy is willing to carry out whatever plans he has to kill his enemy - us - so, I have no cumpunction to make life easy for this enemy. Touchy-feelie interrogation will gain nothing. You gotta get and be tough.
Terry, the “shoot one to make the other talk” method probably won’t work for these guys. The want to die. They’ve got to be fatigued and denied any comfort ’till they spill the beans.
Woody
Cosrai Says: September 29th, 2006 at 7:09 amI think Campos’ last line sums it best, “because it does not profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul.” The opposing side of this coin is if you (or the group you belong to) feel it’s justified, and that torture gets you the results you want (many studies show answers gained from torture to be unreliable), then how can it be wrong?
The question, at least in my mind, is how do we as a nation feel about it. I know it’s hard to quantify an enitre nation’s feelings on a subject, but I think it’s fair to say we as a nation do have a certain culture we believe in- a mission statement, or climate, if you will. And that culture does not (at least yet) condone torture of our captives. If and when it does, then we as a nation have changed. Our enemy, and their tactics, changed us. Our culture becomes something else, and in my opinion we as a nation become something else as well.
What surprises me is that many people feel almost eager to make that change. Or else, maybe they don’t recognize it as a change. Maybe they think America can become a country that condones torture and still remain America. I just don’t see how that’s possible.
Woody Says: September 29th, 2006 at 7:46 amCos, it isn’t about feelings. It’s about doing what is right and necessary. That said, bear in mind that we are not a people who go around torturing - and, dare I say it? Yes, terrorizing - to force capitulation to our way of life AS a way of life! That is the difference between us and them. We haven’t lowered our standards, even though we’ve had to stoop to theirs.
When it comes to the rules of engagement, the enemy pretty much sets the standard. They use terror and torture because they believe it works. Using it back on them will either cause them to stop or spill the beans. Still, though, we can stick to our standards and simply wipe them off the face of the earth(the Islamo-fascist). I prefer to do the later, for that is the only way to stop them completely. If tortuous interrogation accelerates that process, fewer of us will die. I’m all for that.
Woody
Cosrai Says: September 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pmWoody,
RIght and wrong are only absolutes in the minds of those declaring what is right and wrong. Humankind did not come with a set of instructions that defines right and wrong. Religion and man-made rules of law have attempted to fill that void and create a sense of morality, and or justice, but take away those beliefs or rules and what is right or wrong becomes meaningless except in a purely humanist belief in the inherent goodness of man.
That said, what is right to one and what is right to another has no other basis than the feelings of the person declaring such. Yes, those feelings (interpretations?) of right or wrong may be based on religion, law, or culture but feelings they are nonetheless. Other people, or a society, can certainly impose their standards of right and wrong on another (as in the case of murder convictions, declarations of damnation, etc.) to maintain order or an organizational culture, but again, those are what those people making the imposition feel (consider?) is right or wrong. It is not an absolute struck in stone (other than the Ten Commandments).
We as Americans have a collective sense of right and wrong that is as well only based on what we as a collecitve nation feel (interpret as?) is right or wrong. And over time, those feelings (interpretations?) have changed. Otherwise, we’d still accept slavery, discrimination, prohibition, poll taxes, polygamy, etc. as right. The same is with torture. At the present we don’t collectively feel it is right to do (otherwise the question would never come up) but that is something that is subject to change.
I don’t think the enemy in any way has to set the standards for rules of engagement. The enemy’s belief system may require us to use levels of force we might not normally resort to under other circunstances (as the resolve of the military faction of Japan caused us to drop our nukes to end WWII), but it does not mean we have to fight fire with fire. If the other side tortures we do not have to torture. If this were not the case we would have fought the Japanese with our own bands of suicidal pilots. We would have had or own version of the Hanoi Hilton. Instead, we chose to engage those forces in a way consistent with our own American culture.
Phil Says: September 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pmCosrai, it depends on your defn. of torture. What we are engaged in is sometimes referred to as torture by the MSM, but more likely is only making the captive uncomfortable. My definition of torture is inflicting great pain which to my knowledge is not practiced by the CIA or by the military and is not very effective for getting information. So to refer to it as torture is not accurate. Pulling fingernails out, burning flesh, electrical shock to the genitals, etc. were practiced by the VC on US service men and is damn sure torture. Waterboarding, temperature changes, sleep deprivation, loud music, etc is not torture. By the way isn’t that what the FBI did to the Branch Davidians just before they burned them alive in Waco? Where were you when that was going on? Getting information from combatants is one way our military uses to protect us from further attacks. We didn’t start this war, but we better finish it unless you want to convert to Islam. I say do what in necessary to get the information. I really don’t think the terrorists are intitled to Geneva or constitutional protection.
Just my $.02 worth.
3yellowdogs Says: September 29th, 2006 at 5:57 pmPlease see above link regarding torture-related article in Slate today.
Woody Says: September 29th, 2006 at 7:04 pmTo add to Phil’s commentary, we must remember that the front line enemy we fight is not on any particular front line. We must weed him out from the rest of the weeds growing on the battlefield. That requires specific and closely held intell. It’s info that must be extracted from individuals. This isn’t a war where you can send out reconnaissance flights, pinpoint the enemy and unleash Hell.
In WWII, we had better pilots, planes and weapons. We didn’t need to have suicide pilots to deliver destruction. The point is, the Japanese did what was for them an act of desperation, with hopes it would be more effective than it was. We did the same thing better, with no need to sacrifice pilots and aircraft. What we are doing now is necessary. Right or wrong, it is something we have to do. If there were a better way, we’d do it. This is a war we cannot afford to loose. The minuet you take something off the table, you give the enemy a path to victory.
Hobble a horse and he’ll lose every race, only get the leftovers from the oat bin, and never get to spread his seed among the mares. Sure, he’ll still be able to kick the mountain lions off his arse, but he’ll never outrun them, and will spend the rest of his life kicking at hungry lions ’till he can kick no more. Lions like horse meat, and they are relentless - just like terrorists. This is a war that cannot be fought with hobbles. Come to think of it, is there ever a war that can be fought with hobbles?
Woody
Terry Says: September 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pmCosrai,
Your first two paragraphs gives me the thought that without the “absolutes” and the rules set down by society we would all suffer under anarchy. Everyone would set his own rules and live and act only to please himself. Thus, if that scenario were to be followed and “absolutes” such as right and wrong set by society were ignored, you would have “tribal” war. Only those that agreed with each other in the “tribal war” would then turn on each other eventually as they found areas where they didn’t agree.
Much of what we see now is almost that way now. Sunnis and Shias attack each other; Muslim #1 kills Muslim #2 because #2 isn’t Muslim enough. They are showing to be no different than criminal gangs.
Sorry, I don’t want to live in that world. I’ll carry my weapon and protect mine from those wishing to enact their anarchy on society.
We don’t torture as the enemy does. North Vietnam beat prisoners of war when “being uncomfortable” wasn’t enough to achieve the aims they were after. Same with Korea, Japan, and Germany in prior wars. Yet the US with its treatment of prisoners during WWII inspired some prisoners to immigrate to the US.
The “interrogation methods” used by the US, even including waterboarding, doesn’t come up to the level of the treatment that has been used against us.
When was the last time a Muslim was beheaded by us (collectively)? When and where did the Christians do something near the scale of flying airplanes into buildings?
When will people wake up to the fact that those actions are EXACTLY what our enemy (Islamofascism) wants and glorifies, and that we need to be aware of their intentions? When will we (the western nations) quit trying to blame OURSELVES because we believe that our actions and policies “create” their desire to do what they do?
When terrorists begin blowing themselves up in shopping malls, thus creating mass killings of innocent lives, maybe some will finally become aware of the evil that is Islam. In addition to the World Trade Center bombings, there have been isolated attacks in the US. The campus attacker in North Carolina (I think) that drove through an area crowded with students, the gunman that opened up with a weapon at the gates of the CIA, the student at OU blowing himself up (probably by accident) OUTSIDE the OU football stadium all should begin to wake us up to the fact that our time is coming to see attacks like Israel sees. Remember, the Muslims refer to Isreal and the Small Satan and the US as the Great Satan. Thus, who is their ultimate target?
What would you approve that we do to prevent more of the above?
Cosrai Says: October 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 pmPhil,
You’re talking degrees of torture. You’re saying so long as we torture less severely than the enemy then we have the moral high ground. I don’t buy that. And the Branch Davidians were not waterboarded to my knowledge. I was sitting in front of television watching when their compound caught fire. Whose fault that was is a whole other discussion, but suffice it to say that in my opinion the fault was with David Koresh. Koresh could have led his followers out of that building alive and settle his dispute with the government in the courts, but chose not to.
Woody,
We actually had worse planes in the beginning of WWII than the enemy, so I don’t see that the question is one of technological superiority. Our decision to not use suicide pilots and the Japanese decision to use them was all about differences in culture. The Japanese had a culture hundreds of years old in which the life of individual soldiers was of less importance than it was in ours.
Terry,
I think that any society can set rules and absolutes and what may be right in one society can be wrong in another. That’s the point I’m trying to make, that it is up to us, with the framework of rules and absolutes that make up our society, whether we want to torture. It’s not about degrees of torture, or what the enemy does or does not do, it’s about what do we as Americans feel good doing. To any degree, do we as Americans want to extract information from human beings using painful methods? That’s the question.
Irregardless of what they do to us, it’s about what are we going to do to ourselves if we go down that path. I don’t think we as a nation can use torture and still feel like Americans. I think we’ll lose our national identity in the process. Snubbing our noses at the Geneva Conventions is as much about keeping the American values of right and wrong alive as it is about protecting our soldiers. We’re supposed to be the good guys, and a part of our history includes being able to look down on other nations with repugnance when they have failed to uphold such things as the Geneva Conventions. That high ground is what we risk.
Terry Says: October 3rd, 2006 at 8:42 amSo, you would be able to live with the knowledge that you refused to allow those responsible for our safety from obtaining information to prevent a terrorist act after that act came about and a lot of people lost their lives? You would be able to explain to the families of those killed why it was that your “moral” beliefs was more important than the lives of the victims?
As I asked in another post, what would you approve of, or condone, to fight these terrorists who have NO qualms whatsoever of using ANY method or action to kill us?
Cosrai Says: October 3rd, 2006 at 12:14 pmYou speak as if there are no other means to counter a threat than torture. As if it is a given that lives will be lost and I must somehow be prepared to explain myself. That is just patently false and an argument that can be carried to whatever extremes you want to take it to. One could just as easily say, “if we just hammered Baghdad with carpet bombing and nukes it would save literally hundreds of American soldier’s lives?” That’s just as true, isn’t it? And follow it with “how would you explain to those soldier’s families why your ‘moral’ beliefs wouldn’t let you do it?”
Or to confine these supposed absolutes only to torture, if the use of “humane” torturing like waterboarding might save a lot of lives, then why stop there? Why not pull out fingernails, beat with clubs, cut off digits, castrate, deprivate, lacerate, electrocute, and otherwise bring our captives to near death to extract information because it might surely save even more lives? Wouldn’t this logic dictate that the more severe the torture the greater the amount of information obtained?
Please don’t personalize this issue with me. It’s not my “moral” beliefs that’s at question, it’s the continuation of a culture of “moral” beliefs this country has held for longer than either you or I have been around. And from my perspective there’s no point in phrasing your question of what I would condone with descriptions of terrorist tactics. As I’ve repeatedly stated, it isn’t about what they do, it’s about what we want to do. There’s no “I” in that statement and the tactics of the terrorists have no import on the answer.
Rabbit (Fuzzman Says: January 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pmIn general, I am a sophmore in high school and just wanted to let you all know that I found this entire forum incredibly educating. I just wanted to say thankyou for posting your thoughts and responses in an intelligent manner.
-Rabbit
P.S. Cosrai, I understand your point and just wanted to note that I believe in the different levels of torture and think that when our usual actions (The U.S.’s version of interrogation*) does not get the enemy talking (not necessarily the enemy but the person(s) being interrogated) then we need to upgrade, or even intensify our methods. I do believe however, that each person(s) being interrogated are different and that you may need to start softly and work your way to the “Tough stuff”.
Kat Says: January 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pmTorture may not be wrong, but it certainly isn’t right. Thomas Hobbes said in Leviathan “Accusations upon torture are not to be reputed as testimonies. For torture is to be used as a means of conjecture…what is in that case confessed, tendeth to the ease of him that is tortured; not the informing of the torturers… for whether he deliver himselfe by true, or false accusation, he does it by the Right of preserving his own life.” You cannot garruntee that torture will result in the information neccessary to save those thousands of lives that acceptors often mention.