Torture works
UBlo, I sent you the video that makes clear that there are intelligence successes that come as the result of "coercive tactics" (I don't know how to attach it to the Blog). Personally, I consider it a no brainer that torture can work. I also consider it a no brainer that it doesn't always work. The clear truth is that it is a tool that works in some situations and not in others. Even the head of Human Rights Watch granted the point that torture can produce valid intelligence. However, she followed up with the very logical counter that perhaps a less "aggressive" technique could also have achieved those successes. I find that a reasonable challenge to the pro torture crowd. "Torture never yields good intel" is simply a false claim.
Again, where this discussion needs to be is "what price should we pay?". I'm not sure I'm on the pro-torture side. However, I would be intellectually dishonest to maintain it never works. I know it works, but I'm still not convinced we should use it. The woman from Human Rights Watch is correct, you must show that there is no other alternative that can work before you conclude torture is necessary. But since it does work, let's assume that there was no other viable way to get the info. Is it OK to torture then? Or should we be absolutists on this? Never, no matter what the cost.
Posts
1 comment:
Uhhhhh, ooops. I now realize when I’ve debated torture and “works” I’ve quantified the parameters in my mind, without doing it in the discussion. Totally my bad, you have no idea what my parameters are. So here they are.
As an overview, I strongly believe torture is evil. So from a philosophical point, the question for me is, “Will you do evil to save your life?” Not to stigmatize you out of the box, but in my mind, only a coward says “yes” to that question. In the past, and I’m not gluing you to a position you held years ago, or a position I’ve misunderstood, you’ve delineated between those who actually do the act, those who order the act, and those who endorse/support an act. I don’t. To me, all three are the same. So back to the question, “Will you do evil to save your life?” I say no. What I call your “imagined” price is the price of a life right now v. both the future of life and, in a religious sense, your eternal reward.
Back to “works.” Clearly torture will give you results, both positive and negative, as will “traditional” methods. For me the question is, again because I assume you would only torture if it were better than traditional methods, is it better, or in other words, “does it work?” And there’s the rub. There is no way of knowing. There are no double blind tests that show that torture is any better than traditional methods, nor will there ever be. There are, however, many studies that indicate its worse, meaning more false positives, bad information, etc.
The additional problems with torture are also very troubling. First, are you prepared to torture an innocent person? Are you prepared to torture someone guilty of a minor crime because you believe they may have information you need? What happens if you torture someone who does not have the information your torturing them for?
Furthermore, when does it stop? Assume waterboarding is acceptable. What if you believe the person hasn’t “broken” but you still believe they have information you want? Since torture “works” is it ok to go to another level? Remember, I believe you’ve made the point that it’s ok to torture to save a life, so really, what is the limit. Cutting off feet, dipping in acid, raping wives and daughters (all real world examples). Would you cut off someone’s feet if you thought they knew where a nuke was hidden in NYC? The logic that gets you to accept it, really reveals there is no limit. Furthermore, it assumes absolute knowledge on the part of the supporters of torture. One, you know the person is not innocent (after all the argument “torturing to save innocents” falls apart if your torturing an innocent). Imagine I’m a bad guy being tortured. In order to buy myself some time, I name you as a master mind, and throw in that you’re very clever and very tough. You, being innocent, are probably in for a rough time. Two, you know when they’ve “broken.” For torture to work, you have to keep at it until the person breaks, and keep increasing the torment. No bell goes off when someone breaks. What if the torturer feels that there is more information to be gained but there’s not?
Also, what is the limit of the crime, or potential savings to induce torture? To save one life? A dozen? How about other crimes? Can you torture a drug lord to learn where a shipment might be? After all, keeping all those tons of drugs off the streets may prevent some kid from getting hooked, or prevent some innocent person getting gunned down in drive-by. How about a political radical who’s actions scare the state? Someone leading marches or protests, and/or looking to overturn the political structure? A state that condones torture will, inevitably, support torture in all those cases.
I really try to stay away from real emotion when debating politics. Yes, I throw “hack” around, but, for me, it doesn’t convey any real emotion. Torture is not political. Torture is about who we are as a people. I do think its evil. I also think it’s an amazing topic in that it has a rational, practical side (does it work? does it work best?) and a powerful philosophical side.
And yes, we’ve tortured in the past. But it’s always been shady, hidden, and despised. But if we condone it, support it, advocate it after open debate in the Senate, well, this country’s crossed a dangerous line.
Post a Comment