This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.
George Paine discusses the case for torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He concludes that it would be wrong to torture KSM (or turn him over to countries that would torture him), and that doing so would make us soulless monsters. I couldn't disagree more.
Before I get started, I should make a few things clear. When I refer to torture, I'm talking about actual torture - not what passes for torture, such as sleep deprivation or being forced to stand for hours or anything like that. I do believe there are methods of torture that are always unacceptable, particularly forms of torture that involve hurting relatively innocent third parties (e.g., torturing a guy's kids in front of him). And I believe that torture is only acceptable as an unusual tool to extract information that one knows the subject has. I won't defend torture used as punishments, to extract confessions, or to reveal information a subject might have. Further, torture is an extreme measure that should only be used in extreme situations. Torture the guy to find out which preschool he's hidden the nuke in. But not to find out what he did with the car he stole last night.
I've encountered three arguments against the use of torture. I will answer two of them and discuss the third.
The first argument is what I'll call the Lord Of The Rings (LOTR) argument (since LOTR has actually been explicitly referred to by those using this argument). The good guys in LOTR were unable to use the One Ring to combat evil, without themselves being corrupted. In essence, if we torture people, we are sinking to the level of terrorists and dictators and are becoming monsters like them.
The flaw in this argument is its unstated assumptions. The first of these assumptions is "Torture is always monstrous". This makes an honest debate about torture impossible, as it defines the debate as being about whether or not the USA should act monstrously. I reject this assumption. I agree that torture is sometimes (or even usually) monstrous, but - unlike Sauron's One Ring - torture is not inherently monstrous or evil.
The second assumption is that torture is THE defining characteristic of terrorists and dictators. This is an example of the Undistributed Middle fallacy: "Terrorists and dictators torture people. Fred tortures people. Therefore, Fred is a terrorist or dictator." This does not necessarily follow. This argument lumps all methods and motives of torture together.
A similar case can (and has) been made against engaging in military action to stop terrorism. "Terrorists kill people. Our soldiers kill people. We're just like the terrorists." This is ludicrous.
If it can be grasped that not all torture is the same, then it should be comprehensible that not all torturers are the same. The willful, careful infliction of physical pain on a subject to extract vital information is entirely unlike harming someone's child in order to get a confession. When we use the same term to refer to each and pretend that no distinction exists, we are being dishonest.
The second argument against using torture as an interrogation technique is that torture is immoral. George elsewhere writes "It is morally wrong to torture another human being for any purposes." Unsuprisingly, I disagree with this argument as well.
If KSM had been injured in his arrest attempts, nobody would have cried foul. If he'd been horribly wounded by a grenade during the war on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, nobody would have complained. If he'd been killed, few would consider that immoral. And if he were to be tried, convicted, and executed for his crimes, the majority of Americans would likely think this was just.
We can shoot him in a war. We can chunk a grenade into the hole where he's hiding. We can drop a daisy-cutter on him. We can cause him inordinate amounts of pain and injury during combat. We can shoot or hurt him while arresting him. We can tie him to a gurney and inject him with poison.
We can hurt or kill him accidentally-on-purpose, or we can kill him on purpose. We just can't hurt him on purpose.
What?
I do not understand the moral calculus that permits us to hurt and kill the enemy in war, or kill the enemy when they are captured, but does not let us hurt the enemy when they are captured.
Further, what is the alternative? Is it less moral to torture KSM, or, by our lack of resolve, to permit another massive terrorist attack? To be fair, George accurately points out "we cannot possibly know how many lives would be saved by the torture", which is true in some cases. We can't know that torturing KSM would stop another big terrorist attack, or that said attack would be successful if we didn't torture KSM. But other situations are conceivable in which torture would be the only way to stop an impending attack. We can't conclude that torture will never or always be the only realistic way to stop an impending attack, so we must conclude that theoretically it will sometimes serve this purpose. And in those cases, I believe that failing to use any means necessary to stop said attack would be immoral.
The third argument, and the most powerful one to me, is that torture is unnecessary and ineffective. It is asserted that intense interrogation and milder forms of torture (using sleep depravation, "truth serum", etc.) will yield just as good, if not better, information. It's also asserted that a subject will make up information to get physical torture to stop.
I'm not capable of judging the accuracy of these statements. If they are true, it indicates to me that serious physical torture is an ineffective interrogation technique and should not be used, for the same reason that laying one's hands on the subject and humming in an attempt to psychically discern his thoughts ought to be avoided. It doesn't work. We should use effective interrogation techniques, and discard ineffective ones. What's effective and ineffective might vary from situation to situation.
I believe that the careful, willful use of pain to extract vital information subject is known to have is a valid interrogation technique. It ought to be considered as one extreme element of a wide range of interrogation techniques. Use what works.
There are certainly methods and motives for torture that are always immoral and unacceptable. This does not mean all torture is. It is no less moral than killing or hurting someone in a war, or executing a prisoner.
A good answer, and well thought out.
This is the long answer to the Ivory Tower situations people lay out for torture, such as you mention of which preschool the nuke is in.
And I agree that reliable knowledge of what the torturee knows is really vital.
For those against torture, consider this scenario (less unlikely today than it seemed a few years ago):
We have very reliable information that there is a well-shielded nuke in an apartment in New York - which apartment, we don't know. How soon it will be set off, we don't know, but there is reason to believe it will be within the next 24 hours.
We capture the man who set the bomb. We know he knows where it is. He is willing to die to let it go off, and at least hundreds of thousands will die if it goes off, even if we attemp to evacuate (there are LOTS of people in New York).
Those of you who say torture is always wrong and must never be done allow those hundreds of thousands of people to die (along with the economic devastation of the US, which is not insignificant, as that would result in the starvation of many more thousands of even millions of people around the world).
Those of us who are willing to consider torture have a moderately good chance of getting the information out of him and saving all of that.
Now, which is the "moral" position?
Posted by: Deoxy on March 5, 2003 11:57 AMPoint by point then:
"When I refer to torture, I'm talking about actual torture - not what passes for torture, such as sleep deprivation or being forced to stand for hours or anything like that."
Have you experienced any of these things you discount as torture? Ever stayed awake for instance for 5 days straight? Or been forced to kneel on a 1" dowel for 4 hours straight? Trust me, its torture.
(LOTR argument):"In essence, if we torture people, we are sinking to the level of terrorists and dictators and are becoming monsters like them."
Your attempt to invalidate this argument by attacking errors in logic about what you presume are its tacit assumptions is not convincing. The assumption you reject is of your own making and not necessarily the assumption underlying the original proposition; that torture is inherently monsterous and evil.
My basic assumption underlying the LOTR premise is the principle that one "is" what one "does". To intentionally debase another human being by treating them as an object and removing all empathy for their condition is precisely the technique perfected, for example, by the German leadership and SS troopers during WWII. Was that not evil or monsterous?
To apply these techniques asserts that the life of that individual is comparitively valueless relative to the "ends" or "goals" of those doing the torturing. Being civilized rejects the idea that ends can ever be said to justify the means. One cannot possibly reconcile the ideas of civility and torture. Therefore, the LOTR premise can be based on the assumption that to torture someone is to debase civilization itself.
"If KSM had been injured in his arrest attempts, nobody would have cried foul. If he'd been horribly wounded by a grenade during the war on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, nobody would have complained. If he'd been killed, few would consider that immoral. And if he were to be tried, convicted, and executed for his crimes, the majority of Americans would likely think this was just."
Firstly, I don't believe a majority of Americans consider the death penalty appropriate and certainly a majority of the population of other nations disavow capital punishment as civilized.
But, to address the central thrust of your argument; there is a difference between the police shooting someone about to kill someone and shooting the person once they are in custody.
Causing physical damage to another person on the battlefield is simply self-defense given the context of the inherent hostility one armies soldiers have for one another. Further, I believe it is considered uncivilized to shoot or even beat up unarmed people. Why is that?
So which is more dangerous to the American way of life; terrorist acts or acting in ways that rebuke those principles that would define us as civilized?
Thanx for the space.
Posted by: cul on March 5, 2003 12:14 PM
Cul,
Your response to my answer to the LOTR argument is a perfect example of the assumption I was referring to! With your set of assumptions, you win. You must. It's the only logical conclusion. But this is only because you begin with assumptions equal to your conclusion!
You write "One cannot possibly reconcile the ideas of civility and torture... to torture someone is to debase civilization itself".
You've started with the premise that all torture is necessarily evil and uncivilized, then gone on to prove that all torture is necessarily evil and uncivilized.
Perhaps a better approach would be to explain why torture is always evil, making a careful distinction (as I did) among the various methods and motives of torture. Surely you aren't implying that the Nazi human experiments are indistinguishable from ripping off KSM's fingernails to find out when the next attack is.
acting in ways that rebuke those principles that would define us as civilized
This is another example. It's unfair to simply define a the willful inflicting of pain on a terrorist to gain vital information as "acting in ways that rebuke those principles that would define us as civilized". I do not concede your definition until you prove it.
All i can say is.. good job
Posted by: Jim on April 15, 2003 05:28 AM