New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | December 6, 2005

Cathy Young puts the thumbscrews to torture apologists.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← The Feds' Rotten Report Card | Main | "the nadir of his presidency" →

See all 74 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|12.6.05 @ 10:30AM|#

You know, I've been critical of some Cathy Young articles. But when she refrains from bending over backward to step on everybody's toes, and instead just calls it as she sees it, the result is damn good.

That last paragraph was especially good.

Warren|12.6.05 @ 10:45AM|#

I too have been an occasional critic of Ms. Young, but am grateful for every word of this article.

Of all the atrocities the Bushies have perpetrated upon this country, abandoning due-process and embracing torture scare/depress me the most. There can not be enough backlash over this.

|12.6.05 @ 10:49AM|#

I'll have to jump on the bandwagon here as well. I don't normally care for much of what Cathy Young writes, but this was a well thought out and intelligent piece.

It's just too bad that in the yaer 2005 we as a country have to even have these types of discussions.

|12.6.05 @ 10:58AM|#

Finally, a voice of reason, at Reason, no less!

Speaking as a commissioned US military officer, there simply isn't ANY instance where torture is justified. For that matter, with what I've read about the effectiveness of torture, I don't see how any rational human could draft an intellectually defensible rationale for torture. In my view, there is no good reason for torture, EVER.

I keep hoping that the inside-the-beltway chattering class will eventually figure that out, but I'm not holding my breath...

|12.6.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Not actually knowing anyone like you, Allen, the inside-the-beltway chattering classes simply assume that you would support torture and despise anyone who differed.

Cathy Young's work has really nosedived over the past year or so, but this was a very good piece.

|12.6.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Cathy Young is at her best when she takes a stand.

Note that I didn't say "takes a side", I said "takes a stand." In this piece she took a stand, instead of making sure to fire at both sides. And the result was really good.

|12.6.05 @ 11:15AM|#

Allen,
I'm with you.
Torture is always cloaked in secrecy, but common sense ought to tell all us that torture doesn't work.
We don't use common sense because our thinking is clouded by revenge.

|12.6.05 @ 11:16AM|#

On the one hand, some people think torture is a bad thing and if we allow it, it will be detrimental to the ideals for which our country stands. On the other hand, people who say this have been accused of hating America and sympathizing with terrorists. While there's no way to say for sure which one is right, it's not too difficult to imagine a plausible situation wherein the "let's allow torture" attitude could conceivably come back to bite America on its collective ass. But it is also plausible to imagine that this will never happen at all.

Warren|12.6.05 @ 11:25AM|#

I think the "Cathy is usually too wishy-washy" point has been sufficiently made. (Besides, it's the hair that really bothers me) Save the criticism for the next poor product which pours from her pen. Now is the time for praise and support.

Well done Cathy Young

MP|12.6.05 @ 11:30AM|#

Torture is always cloaked in secrecy, but common sense ought to tell all us that torture doesn't work.

Your absolutist position is not justified. Cathy's article points to the 'ticking time bomb' position, which is where I think it is clear that extreme tactics are justified.

Ever see Dirty Bomb?

VM|12.6.05 @ 11:37AM|#

thanks, Cathy!

to win any faux war on anything, keeping the moral high ground is essential.

you'd think that those fucking fundies with their uber-attention to "morality" and phrases such as "moral equivalent" would realize that.

but no. the power of their imaginary friend compels them.

|12.6.05 @ 11:41AM|#

If we start with a "'thou shalt not torture" absolute, we are likely to be vigilant about lapses from this commandment, limiting them only to absolute necessity.

I agree with the article, but even if the US proclaims a "no toture" policy I'm not sure if it really would make much of a difference. The absolutism of "Thou shalt not kill" hasn't really prevented much unnecessary killing by our "Judeo-Christian" government and society, has it?

Dave W.|12.6.05 @ 11:41AM|#

I hope Cathy follows this up with a FOIA or 2. The more we know about the torture, the more comprehensive and accurate can be our ongoing discussion. To investigative journalism!

|12.6.05 @ 11:41AM|#

We don't use common sense because our thinking is clouded by revenge.

No, we don't use common sense because we're clouding our minds with the same goddamned groupthink as the terrorists we're so proud to be fighting. The terrorists, after all, were right about one thing: "Americans" have, indeed, done some crummy things in the Third World. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for these people to hate "Americans."

But the Americans who died in the World Trade Center were not the Americans who did crappy things to the Third World! Unfortunately, the terrorists are too blinded by hatred to see that.

And now we're doing the same fucking thing--nineteen "Muslims" attacked us four years ago, so now we're fighing back against "Muslims" (but not the ones who actually hurt us). One thing Cathy Young did NOT mention in her article here is the way the apologists pretend that any individual memeber of a group is responsible for all sins committed by anyone in the group--"Stop feeling sorry for the Abu Ghraib prisoners! These are the same people who brought down the World Trade Center!"

Sure they are. Same way the Americans who died in the World Trade Center were the ones propping up corrupt despotic governments, and the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis all killed Christ, and all white Americans belong to the Klan and all black Americans idolize Farrakhan. Uh-huh. No individuals here, right?

|12.6.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Please, enough of America's moral compass being directed by chickenhawks who have ODed on episodes of "24". And please give us more helpings of Monohanded Cathy Unleashed.

|12.6.05 @ 11:42AM|#

but even if the US proclaims a "no toture" policy I'm not sure if it really would make much of a difference. The absolutism of "Thou shalt not kill" hasn't really prevented much unnecessary killing by our "Judeo-Christian" government and society, has it?

So would you recommend rescinding the laws against murder, on these grounds? Of course not.

VM the peevish moose in a deer|12.6.05 @ 11:47AM|#

Jennifer, re: December 6, 2005 11:41 AM

BRAVA!!!!!!

but this group think characteristic is a core component of cult members (i.e., fundamentalists of all stripes). this is why many fundies don't want science taught - they fear anything that would cause their chickenshit fake beliefs to weaken. they are afraid of knowledge and wisdom, for with those two things, they will lose their grip on their control. you know, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

(Henry: good 24 reference)

Dan|12.6.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Somebody needs to explain why it�s not okay to extract information by causing physical suffering, but it is generally considered okay to get information by causing psychological suffering (especially since psychological distress often produces physical discomfort and physical pain obviously causes psychological distress).

|12.6.05 @ 11:57AM|#

I think Cathy Young is right on how an absolute ban is best, despite the possibility of a ticking time bomb. I can accept that, if we should ever find ourselves in that very unlikely scenario, the law will be disregarded. And if Jack Bauer is successful, he'll probably be honored rather than prosecuted. OK, fine. Push far enough and you can find an exception to anything.

But, short of that unlikely scenario, violations should be punished. And that's much easier to do with a blanket ban.

On a slightly related note, anybody catch the story of Khaled El Masri in the Sunday Washington Post? German citizen, traveling to Macedonia in December of 2003, zero terrorist connection, but his name is similar to that of somebody on a list. Local authorities catch him, hand him to US. CIA decides to send him to a secret prison in Afghanistan, rather than waiting to find out if he is who he claims to be. Eventually they figure out that he is who he claims to be, but in the mean time he's been beaten and malnourished. Due to the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding his capture (not to mention that the man has seen secret facilities and met the people who work there), it takes some time to negotiate the details of how he'll be released. In May of 2004 he's released. His wife assumed that he had either died or left her, and had moved back to the Middle East to be with family. Now he's in Lebanon, unemployed, nobody trusts him, and he's generally miserable.

Yeah, that one really worked well.

There's a reason for due process. Anybody can be a victim of mistaken identity, even with due process. But with due process he could have called a lawyer to gather paperwork and witnesses who could verify his identity. And he'd be held in a regular jail, which may not be nice but is probably not as bad as the place he was sent to instead. All of this mess could have been avoided if they had simply followed the regular procedures of either the US, the country he was captured in, or the country that he's a citizen of. But he was removed from all of those processes and sent to a shadowy world.

Finally, it would be easy to say that the system worked in the end, since he was released. Yeah, well, as I said in the previous paragraph, it could have worked a lot faster, with a lot less trauma for an innocent man and his family, if he had been granted access to ordinary legal procedures.

|12.6.05 @ 12:03PM|#

|12.6.05 @ 12:14PM|#

The terrorists, after all, were right about one thing: "Americans" have, indeed, done some crummy things in the Third World. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for these people to hate "Americans."

[Typical NRO Warpig]
You're... you're... BLAMING AMERICA you filthy terrorist sympathizer! 3000 Americans died on 9/11 and you dare spit on their memories? God knows that Americans are sinless creatures fighting for freedom and morality in a heathen world! We've never killed innocents because there are no innocents in the Global War on Communism... I mean, Terrorism. The only people who say otherwise are those treasonous liberals who think that we should sit down and chat with Osama Bin Ladin rather than blowing his brains out on sight!

Don't you remember 9/11???
Don't yo support our troops???
Why do you hate Mom, Apple pie, Jesus, and America???
[/Typical NRO Warpig]

|12.6.05 @ 12:17PM|#

Dan has a good point. I like the article, but the author does some arbitrary (though arguably and reasonably correct) line-drawing about what constitutes torture.

She is disgusted that WSJ approves of waterboarding as "not really torture" but then implicitly endorses Israeli-style "torture-lite" tactics such as sleep deprivation.

Why can she set the guidelines but the WSJ can't? I would argue that sleep deprivation is also a form of torture. Don't cede Ms. Young the moral high ground simply because she on a different point on the "what is acceptable conduct" torture spectrum.

|12.6.05 @ 12:33PM|#

The Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," does not prohibit the taking of human life. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has ever taken the time to read that part of the Old Testament in which the Ten Commandments were handed down (Exodus). Death was the prescribed, indeed, commanded punishment for any number of offenses as are enumerated in the books of Exodus, Levicticus, and Deuteronomy.
I remember reading many years ago (in a Playboy article I think) that the original Hebrew phrase today would more accurately translate as "you shall not commit murder." Apparently the confusion arose because at the time of the King James Translation, the word kill meant roughly what we moderns mean by the word murder, while in the sixteen hundreds the word slay had the meaning that we now ascribe to kill.
Now before any Christians rush to tell me how the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament let me just note that Christians whether Roman Catholics or Protestants have never been particularly averse to dealing death when it suited their purposes.

|12.6.05 @ 12:41PM|#

"I like the article, but the author does some arbitrary (though arguably and reasonably correct) line-drawing about what constitutes torture."

Not to speak the unspeakable, but so does everyone else. You included. The word "torture" unlike the word "oxygen" cannot exist without subjectively drawing a line somewhere...

|12.6.05 @ 12:50PM|#

I consider sleep deprivation to be torture as well, and I wouldn't let it be allowed. How is this as a definition of torture: "anything which is guaranteed to cause physical or psychological pain or suffering?"

The key word here is "guaranteed." Thus, before someone splits hairs by saying "Well, being imprisoned is a psychologically unpleasant experience, so should we outlaw that, too?" here's one difference (tossed off the top of my head): it is possibly, if treated humanely, to adjust to being in prison, and still have a not-too-bad time of it; nobody can adjust to being waterboarded, or allowed to sleep only an hour every two days, or chained to the ceiling for forty-eight hours at a time. Such things are guaranteed to cause suffering, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the person to whom they are being done.

|12.6.05 @ 12:54PM|#

...nor can the words "cruel" and "unusual."

I often see the argument "But that's subjective!" coming from libertarians when the issue is zoning or obscenity - that is, as a retort to someone who wishes to prohibit something a particular libertarian doesn't like to see prohibited.

But now that the issue is something that libertarians want to see prohibited, something whose exact definition contains a subjective element, I'll be crouching behind my blind - Jane Goodall style - and shooting tape for my documentary.

|12.6.05 @ 12:54PM|#

would you recommend rescinding the laws against murder, on these grounds?

No, you're right, of course not. I'm just skeptical that the government taking an official position that we don't torture would actually prevent torture. The government breaks laws and ignores the Constitiution in open society every day. Having an official "no torture" policy with hazy, evolving disclaimers in the fine print won't make much difference in closed, secretive activities conducted by the CIA and the military.

|12.6.05 @ 12:57PM|#

I think the better way to define torture is by the intention of the actor - if the predominant purpose of the action is to cause pain, psychological or physical, it's torture. If, on the other hand, the predominant purpose is, say, preventing the person from committing further crimes, it is not torture. It may still not be justifiable on other grounds, but it is not "torture".

Of course, you can get some sophists who will argue the "Clockwork Orange" scenario - using torture to "rehabilitate" a person, but if you get down to nuts and bolts, it is clear that the intent of the action is to cause pain which will cause the person to reform. Therefore, it is torture.

|12.6.05 @ 1:02PM|#

methinks that once again, Joe, in his race to look down his nose at libertarians, is missing the entire point.

Tell me joe, when someone advocates limiting government power because the calls are subjective, does that argument change in any of the subjects you brought up? Or is it entirely consistent, unlike people who want government to make subjective calls in some areas, but not in others?

|12.6.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Having an official "no torture" policy with hazy, evolving disclaimers in the fine print won't make much difference in closed, secretive activities conducted by the CIA and the military.

And having an official "no murder" policy won't make much difference in the closed, secretive basements of serial killers, but at least the laws make it easier to put those sons-of-bitches away, or even execute them, when their crimes come to light.

|12.6.05 @ 1:17PM|#

I also think anyone, military or civilian, who mistreats a prisoner so badly that the prisoner dies from it should be eligible for the death penalty. After all, in many civilian death-penalty cases, the reason a killer was sentenced to death rather than life in prison was that he did not merely kill his victims; he tormented them first.

If a penalty is good enough for American civilians who are powerless in the eyes of the law, then it's more than good enough for those invested with the power to act as Official American Authority Figures.

|12.6.05 @ 1:24PM|#

quasibill,

huh? Does what change, exactly?

I would pleased to answer any question I can understand. You're query is a syntactical mess, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

|12.6.05 @ 1:27PM|#

I consider sleep deprivation to be torture as well, and I wouldn't let it be allowed.

Gee, I'm all for it, but you'll certainly upset every law enforcement agency in the country (world?) who routinely use sleep deprivation and other psych methods in questioning of criminal suspects.

|12.6.05 @ 1:33PM|#

you'll certainly upset every law enforcement agency in the country (world?) who routinely use sleep deprivation and other psych methods in questioning of criminal suspects.

Which says nothing in favor of the thesis "Sleep deprivation is a good thing," but instead supports my misanthropic belief that "Human societies are like ponds--the scum often rises to the top."

|12.6.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Gee quasibill, it looks like joe can't tell the difference between thinking that the state should not be able to torture people, take their land, restrict their speech etc and thinking that the state should be able to torture people, take their land, restrict their speech etc.

|12.6.05 @ 1:44PM|#

...when their crimes come to light.

I agree. Although having the governemnt investigate itself for an act it doesn't really consider a crime committed on a secret military base in Hypocristan, and catching and prosecuting someone in the US who has committed what everyone agrees is a crime will have very different results.

|12.6.05 @ 1:47PM|#

Dan|12.6.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Here�s another question: does interrogation (the art of getting somebody to tell you something that they would rather not) require torture of some form, or at least the threat of it?

|12.6.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Here�s another question: does interrogation (the art of getting somebody to tell you something that they would rather not) require torture of some form, or at least the threat of it?

Our country has successfully managed to survive and thrive (while prosecuting crimes and fighting wars as necessary) for two centuries without it--you tell me if we need it.

|12.6.05 @ 1:58PM|#

I agree. Although having the governemnt investigate itself for an act it doesn't really consider a crime committed on a secret military base in Hypocristan, and catching and prosecuting someone in the US who has committed what everyone agrees is a crime will have very different results.

All the more reason to limit the power of the government, and fight for transparency and accountibility.

|12.6.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Well, joe, Isaac certainly understood my point, so perhaps the problem is in the reception and not in the origination?

|12.6.05 @ 2:02PM|#

If we start with the premise that torture is sometimes acceptable, there's no telling how low we're going to go on that slippery slope.

But if we declare torture is never acceptable and broadcast it to the world, the next time we capture a couple of terrorists they can comfort one another with this gentle reminder, "Don't worry; all they can do is mess with your head."

I would counsel everyone to watch the last forty minutes of "Apocalypse Now" when time permits.

|12.6.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Much depends on the definition of torture. Coercive techniques are used by practically all intelligence gathering agencies (CIA included)worldwide. The practical effect is that at certain thresholds of pain some individuals lose the ability to lie. One of the most common techniques is to pull body hairs very slowly. More physically damaging techniques are useless because they result either in unconsciousness or death. My point is that when people are confronted with the question "is it okay to torture someone in order to save innocent lives?" their first reaction is no. But substitute "pull body hair" with torture and the response changes. I also believe that if a person's child was missing they might consider torturing (coercing) individuals if that would lead to them getting their child back.

|12.6.05 @ 2:08PM|#

I can see all sorts of scenarios where I, personally, might be enticed to torture someone. I can see all sorts of scenarios where I could see one of our agents torturing someone. But what I don't get is how it's acceptable for us, as A NATION, to say that torture is ok. As A NATION, we should say that torture is illegal. Anyone caught torturing someone should be sent to trial. If, during the course of the trial, evidence comes to light that the torture was a) effective and b) saved lives (for instance), the jury could simply nullify the conviction. Maybe even be instructed as to the possibilty of jury nullification (something they don't do in normal procedings, although they probably should).

But for it to be US policy that it's ok to torture should not be condoned.

|12.6.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Our country has successfully managed to survive and thrive (while prosecuting crimes and fighting wars as necessary) for two centuries without it--you tell me if we need it.

Jennifer, I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. Our country has a rather sorry record on this account (just not quite as bad as most anywhere else*).

I'm not defending torture, I just believe it's important to keep the historical (hysterical) record straight (just as I would defend Dubya against charges that he eats kittens for breakfast).

*Hey great slogan: "USA,USA, just doesn't suck as bad as everywhere else". :)

Now, I will add that one reason we are better is that we have enshrined certain principles as the supreme law of the land, and to a great extent when violations of these principles come to light there is loud public denunciation of the violators.

|12.6.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Isaac--Well, at least without an official policy calling for it. When has it ever actually saved us?

|12.6.05 @ 2:21PM|#

But now that the issue is something that libertarians want to see prohibited, something whose exact definition contains a subjective element, I'll be crouching behind my blind - Jane Goodall style - and shooting tape for my documentary.

Looking at the intentions of the interrogator is no way to go about this--torture as a hate crime?

Torture may contain subjective elements, but that doesn't mean we can't circumscribe an interrogator's actions--they're very concrete. I like the prohibitions on the treatment of Prisoners of War under the Conventions, and I remain convinced that we would be much better off if we had treated detainees as if they were entitled to those protections regardless of whether they were entitled to them.

We've fought conventional wars without any official policy enabling interrogators to forcibly extract information from prisoners. We've decided that whatever we got from them wasn't worth getting if what it took to get violated our principles. In our fight against crime, here at home, we've decided that whatever information we got by treating accused and, indeed, convicted criminals in such a manner wasn't worth getting if, again, it required us to abandon our principles. I fail to see why the interrogation of detainees is any different.

...Whatever information we got from them wouldn't be worth violating our principles. I think we should stop trying to think of novel ways to forcibly extract information from terrorists and just come to terms with that.

|12.6.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Has there ever been a single torture-averted "ticking time bomb" scenario averted in American history thanks to torture?

I mean a real one, not one on TV or in a novel or as part of folklore.

MP|12.6.05 @ 2:26PM|#

Has there ever been a single torture-averted "ticking time bomb" scenario averted in American history thanks to torture?

As if that information would be publicly known.

|12.6.05 @ 2:26PM|#

not to get into your assertions about the usefulness of torture, which are contra everything I've ever read, but:

"I also believe that if a person's child was missing they might consider torturing (coercing) individuals if that would lead to them getting their child back."

Fine. But, if you torture an innocent person, you are the criminal. No "oh, well - you were only doing your job," or "oh, well - your heart was in the right place." You get held accountable individually.

Unlike our unaccountable government bureaucracy which rewards mistakes and lionizes "doing something," even if the something is wrong...

|12.6.05 @ 2:34PM|#

As if that information would be publicly known.

As if that information wouldn't be trumpeted from the rooftops by the officials pushing for torture. "Our prison camps are saving European lives."

|12.6.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Fine. But, if you torture an innocent person, you are the criminal. No "oh, well - you were only doing your job," or "oh, well - your heart was in the right place." You get held accountable individually.

All right, I'll compromise and settle for that--torture is allowed in certain discrete circumstances, but if you torture the wrong person it's the same penalty as if a private person tortured some random innocent person. Harsh.

|12.6.05 @ 2:43PM|#

All right, I'll compromise and settle for that--torture is allowed in certain discrete circumstances, but if you torture the wrong person it's the same penalty as if a private person tortured some random innocent person. Harsh.

I prefer don't torture someone unless you think a) it's worth going to prison for or b) you think you can convince a jury of your peers to let you go.

MP|12.6.05 @ 2:52PM|#

As if that information wouldn't be trumpeted from the rooftops by the officials pushing for torture. "Our prison camps are saving European lives."

Uh-huh.

Bush: We can use torture. It worked in saving Miami from getting nuked just last week.

Miami: Wha-wha-what?!?

I'll compromise and settle for that--torture is allowed in certain discrete circumstances, but if you torture the wrong person it's the same penalty as if a private person tortured some random innocent person.

Context! If a jury is presented with credible evidence that the torturer reasonbly thought his victim was a party in a 'ticking time bomb' situation, then I'd say the penalty should be far milder (if any).

|12.6.05 @ 3:06PM|#

Actually, my position is pretty close to Ken's, whether my post clearly explained it or not.

Going to trial on criminal charges is being held accountable for your actions. However, I would add that, in a minarchy, all references to your job as a government employee would have to be excluded. You are nothing more than an individual, any mention of being an agent of the government will necessarily improperly prejudice a jury, just like it currently does whenever a cop goes rambo and fires 36 rounds at a kid who's pulling out his wallet.

|12.6.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Context! If a jury is presented with credible evidence that the torturer reasonbly thought his victim was a party in a 'ticking time bomb' situation, then I'd say the penalty should be far milder (if any).

Well. . . . okay, maybe milder, in certain cases. But MASSIVE compensation to the victim in ALL cases, and definite, severe jailtime if the victim dies or is permanently damaged.

|12.6.05 @ 3:17PM|#

"Uh-huh.

Bush: We can use torture. It worked in saving Miami from getting nuked just last week.

Miami: Wha-wha-what?!?"

Exactly. I would want to know that there was a threat. How can I possibly vote for rational policy if I don't know the inputs? How can I possibly fairly evaluate the performance of my government if I don't know?

And to think that this current scare-mongering administration wouldn't love to publish just such information is tremendously naive..."mushroom clouds," "WMD," "another 9/11," etc., etc.

|12.6.05 @ 3:26PM|#

Did anyone else read the report that the reason Jose Padilla wasn't charged with the dirty bomb plot was because the testimony against him was obtained by way of torture? Indeed, it looks like the guy that pointed the finger at him was subjected to waterboarding.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/24/news/padilla.php

This may be evidence to the contrary--that rather than saving Miami, torturing people makes people make baseless accuasations. ...but then I don't know the details--for all I know, Padilla is as guilty of the dirty bomb conspiracy as could be.

|12.6.05 @ 3:42PM|#

In his book Manhunter John Pascucci claims to have done just that in the 1980's in LA I believe.

I don't have access to the book, and its been a number of years since I read it, but I recall that the scenario was that someone had planted a bomb with the intention to kill a bunch of school-kids arriving at school for the morning. Just hours before the blast was supposed to go off, during an unrelated investigation the U.S. Marshalls serendipitously found out about the existence of the bomb. They new who planted it, and the scheduled detonation time, but had no dea as to the location. They were able to torture the information out of the bomb planter. However, the torture was aided by the implicit threat that they were going to torture the hoodlum to death if the bomb would have gone off and killed its intended victims.

Now, of course, the fellow who told the tale was booted out of the Marshalls for misconduct, and might have been lying to puff himself up.

Perhaps someone can research the incident further and check out these claims.

|12.6.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Ken, this: "Torture may contain subjective elements, but that doesn't mean we can't circumscribe an interrogator's actions--they're very concrete." avoids the question - which concrete actions should be allowed, which forbidden, and how do we tell the difference?

The problem with the government agent debate is that certain government agents are supposed to commit acts, like putting their hands on someone, locking his hands behind his back, and shoving him against his will into the back of a car, that would be crimes for an ordinary person. Like the Rodney King tape - it probably wasn't the first blow that violated the law, the crime only started to occur part of the way into the beating.

|12.6.05 @ 4:19PM|#

joe, many here might agree that it might have been better if the concept of a citizen's arrest had become fully developed before it was essentially abandoned. However in the early days of civilian policing it was considered that policemen had no more rights than ordinary citizens, but simply more duties.

Indeed, I find it liguistically significant that some now refer to ordinary citizens as "civilians" (I refuse to do so) as though they stood apart from and were governed by different rules than policemen. Our rights and liberties have suffered as a result of this sloppy use of language and its acceptamce.

|12.6.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Can someone please define what we are talking about? Somewhere between putting terrorists up at the Ritz, and slowly dismembering them via the most painful techniques imaginable, we have to draw a line.

Young seems to put it between sleep deprivation and locking people in the freezer for an hour. I have no idea why, really, as one can be worse than the other. It all seems pretty arbitrary to me, especially the bit about "psychological" techniques being ok. Being put into a place with an uncomfortable but non-dangerous temperature is just as psychological as sleep deprivation. So is "water-boarding".

We need to have this discussion, but few people are asking the right questions. How uncomfortable can we make prisoners before we have crossed a line into unacceptable terrority?
How do we decide which techniques are acceptable in which situation?

|12.6.05 @ 4:53PM|#

avoids the question - which concrete actions should be allowed, which forbidden, and how do we tell the difference?

In regards to domestic policy, the rules for answering those same questions evolved from certain principles, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the right to be from compulsory self-incrimination among them.

The rules for which concrete actions should be allowed in regards to war prisoners evolved from similar, if not the same, principles. I think the actions that were allowed and forbidden under the Conventions for POWs made for good policy.

So let's not ignore the big question. Should we try to force information out of war prisoners as a matter of policy? My answer is no.

...Libertarians are fairly consistent regarding questions of coercion.

|12.6.05 @ 4:55PM|#

"Can someone please define what we are talking about?"

Admitting that this needs to be defined short circuits the ability to strike a self-righteous pose over the issue, which is what these threads are all about...

MP|12.6.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Libertarians are fairly consistent regarding questions of coercion.

Not when it comes to questions about how to conduct a war. Libertarian philosophy does not even remotely attempt to answer war conduct issues.

|12.6.05 @ 5:17PM|#

Where's the psychic probe when you need it?

Anthony Gregory|12.6.05 @ 5:19PM|#

I was pleased by this article, especially the conclusion. I would say that torture should never be legalized. In the highly improbable event that some military official tortures an actual terrorist and actually saves 10,000 innocent people from a ticking time bomb, then commute his sentence after the fact, or pardon him. But don't ever make it a legal act.

|12.6.05 @ 5:48PM|#

by the way...

One of the false assumptions torture apologists seem to employ with regularity is a rather cowardly one. It assumes that protecting the American people from terrorist attacks is the single most important function of government. ...Even if the only options were torture or a terrorist attack, I'd rather take my chances with a terrorist attack and keep my liberty, my principles, etc. intact.

I hope you find that sufficiently self-righteous JDM.

|12.6.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Ken Shultz - that's what I'm talking about. First you make my point better than I did (I prefer don't torture someone unless you think a) it's worth going to prison for or b) you think you can convince a jury of your peers to let you go.) and then you wrap it up most likely better than I would have(see Comment by: Ken Shultz at December 6, 2005 05:48 PM).

|12.6.05 @ 6:25PM|#

"I hope you find that sufficiently self-righteous JDM."

Yes, and sufficiently meaningless.

|12.7.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Isaac, I've got a lot of sympathy for the points you make about the police being civilians. I personally believe that the shift from urban police from militaristic occupiers to members of the communities they work in (under the rubric "community policing") during the 1990s in places like Boston was important for both crime reduction and re-establishing the proper relationship between the state and the public.

But, as with most things libertarian, I think your comments are better taken as useful criticism, as a cautionary note, than as the basis of a system. Police need to be able to get down to business. They need to be able to keep the peace, and that requires that they can exercise force in a way that ordinary citizens cannot.

|12.7.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Ken,

But then we're still left to answer, what is cruel? Should the same definition be used in reference to an enemy soldier, an accused felon, and a terrorist?

|12.7.05 @ 10:26AM|#

But, as with most things libertarian, I think your comments are better taken as useful criticism, as a cautionary note, than as the basis of a system.

joe, that is exactly how almost everything I say is intended. Provoking reflection is my mission, not conversion to a cause.