Inside Outside U.S.A.

In an interesting interview with USA Today, CIA Director Porter Goss says:

"This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work," Goss said. "We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information, and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture."

Goss "declined to describe interrogation methods exclusive to the CIA," McPaper reported, although he did brag about how

CIA interrogators use "a variety of unique and innovative ways" to collect "vital" information from prisoners

One of those "unique and innovative ways" is the practice of "water boarding," in which:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Such water boarding elicited the "vital" information from Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi that "Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons." As a CIA-sourced ABC News investigation reports, "al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment."

The administration's position is now crystal clear. "We do not torture," we water board; we do not use Soviet-style imprisonment/interrogation tactics, we just secretly use former Soviet facilities and Red Army false-confession techniques. And if some detainees die in the process, well, bad apples and all that.

It's easy to get distracted by the semantics and immorality of it all, but the ABC News story suggests a very pragmatic rebuttal to the administration: By whatever name or euphemism, water boarding seems like one of the worst methods possible of obtaining quality information. And treating water-boarded data either as a strong basis for policy, or as a prop to make a political argument, seems unwise at best.

Comments

[Hakluyt]

Given what they taught at what was once called the "School of the Americas," I don't think this is some sort of new, Bushdid it first policy. Which makes me wonder why all the sudden moral outrage over this subject?

[matthew hogan]

From the good old days of Empire-building in the Phillipine Insurrection comes this:

http://www.spanamwar.com/philippinetorture.htm

The following description by Sergeant Charles S. Riley of the Twenty-sixth Infantry describes a method used to obtain information from Filipino prisoners. It was called the "Water Cure."

"The syringe did not have the desired effect and the doctor [Dr. Palmer Lyons, an Army contract surgeon] ordered a second one. The man got a second syringe and that was inserted in his nose. Then the doctor ordered some salt and a handful of salt was procured and thrown into the water. Two syringes were then in operation. The interpreter stood over him in the meantime asking for this second information that was desired. Finally, he gave in and gave the information they sought, and then be was allowed to rise."

But is it torture? Discuss.

[Les]

Indeed, in the 80's, the CIA made torture manuals for the Contras and other Central American terrorists we were helping out. The CIA has had "unique and innovative ways" to "collect" information since it was the OSS.

[Lowdog]

Fuck, only water boarding? Why the outrage?!? 🙂

Of course the CIA has been using torture techniques since it's inception, but I think the reason it's a big deal in the media and whatnot now is because the administration brought it out into the light and tried to get everyone to say, "hey, as long as it's the bad-guys, it's ok" or something.

What this administration is thinking, I have no idea. They're easily the most incompetent that I remember, although I do sometimes wonder if it's better to know the fucked up stuff they're (the government) doing, or only be able to speculate.

[anonymous coward]

I'm wary of calling water boarding "torture." I think the much more accurate term would be "terrorism."

[gaius marius]

i suspect two things, gg:

1) its employment on a vastly greater scale than ever before; and

2) a horrifying change in tack, from trying to hide it to trying to justify it and indeed legalize it.

it was evil that it went on at all even in dark corners in the name of our amoral state; but what is it when it becomes the national policy practiced out in the open?

[Number 6]

This isn't germain to the topic at hand, but students at SERE school get waterboarded as part of the training. Whether or not the technique produces worthwhile results is, of course, a different question.

[thoreau]

gaius-

Along with what you say, when torture becomes an open, admitted policy, we go from amoral to immoral.

[Hakluyt]

What makes torture immoral?

[ChicagoTom]

I agree with gaius and thoreau. It's one thing to do it occasionally and in secret while publicly rejecting it, and quite another to openly justify and in effect cheer the use of torture as the proper means to some end.

National Journal had an interesting article on the subject.

[Mike]

What makes torture immoral?

Perhaps it's the fact, repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere, that it's ineffective *and* abusive. It harms a human being without any significant chance of helping the cause in a meaningful way.

It's amazing how far Republicans have fallen that they can defend this and still sleep at night.

[a]

Another point to consider, is the fact that this administration is doing it in the name of spreading democracy and freedom.

[Hakluyt]

Mike,

Well, in some circumstances it might indeed be effective. If that is the case, then one has to put on one's "rule utilitarian" hat and figure out if there is a general rule against torture and then discern whether there are exceptions to said rule. Its likely the case there are indeed exceptions to such a rule.

[Matt Welch]

Hak -- Some fellow anti-torture person somewhere recently made what I thought was an excellent point: If all torture was really, truly illegal, then you would drastically *increase* the likelihood that torture would be used in those exceedingly rare cases where you could make an argument that it was "necessary." Basically, if there truly was some quasi-Ticking Time Bomb scenario, the interrogator would simply break the law, and if he was ever caught & convicted, he'd probably be pardoned.

In a legal atmosphere where extra rendition, bounty hunters, secret prisons, water boarding and god knows what else are actively pursued & condoned, torture (or physically damaging interrogation, if you prefer) will become an ends to itself, won't be given adequate oversight, will be applied on the non-guilty, and will be used in the vast majority of cases for reasons having nothing to do with timely life-or-death situations.

[gaius marius]

as a rule utilitarian, gg, i would think you would see that establishing a widespread torture state for those few instances where torture may be useful would violate the maxims of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

but as to what makes torture immoral -- the question of the basis of morality is and will always remain unsettled. a dedicated relativist can poke holes in any ideological definition.

but i would submit that a healthy society is only possible with a consensus as to what morality is and how to live morally.

and i would further suggest that the common codes of morality in civilizations worldwide and throughout history -- which have vastly more in common than not -- are the product of long experience and distributed wisdom. they may not stand ideological inspection or even scientific validation. that does not mean the moral code expounded in the new testament or the quran isn't valid.

[Mike]

Hakluyt,

Yes...in some cases it might be effective. But how do you know which cases are which? That's why I like Alex Tabarrok's economic argument, here:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/11/torture_terrori.html

Basically, torture should be illegal because that makes people much more careful about how they use it. If you *know* it's illegal and you *know* you could be prosecuted for doing it, you might not use it to get your jollies and save it for the real ticking time bomb scenerios.

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest should be in jail right now. Instead we are waiting for them to veto a bill banning this disgusting abuse of power.

Matt,

Yea...and then we're going to start debating what constitutes a ticking time bomb. The imorrality of torture apologists knows no bounds.

[thoreau]

Whatever case might be made for the highly selective use of torture in extreme cases, the case that most torture apologists make boils down to either "Yeah, but what if this scene on TV comes true?" or "Dammit, we were attacked, time to kick some ass!"

[scape]

I'm wary of calling water boarding "torture." I think the much more accurate term would be "terrorism."

Janet Reno calls it "S&M"? Who's your momma?

[slightlybad]

While in general I tend to agree with Matt Welch's position above, I would like to see a working definition of torture. I think that Andrew Sullivan et al apply a much broader definition than what I would consider torture.

Is waterboarding torture? It's effectiveness seems to come from scaring captives into thinking they're going to drown, but it doesn't actually result in drowning or permanent physical harm? The threat of imminent death, rather than the physical abuse, seems to be the motivating factor. If we threatened to shoot prisoners (w/out doing so of course) if they didn't tell us what we wanted to know, would that be torture?

What about things that cause physical discomfort, but not any long term harm. A frequent technique of U.S. interrogators has been to force prisoners to stand/kneel in uncomfortable positions for a long period of time. Torture?

What about mental stress caused by turning one's religious beliefs against them? The whole fake menstrual blood, abuse of the Koran, etc. really enraged some people. I can see that it may not be a good idea because of the PR consequences in the ME, but is that torture.

I frequently feel like we're talking past each other in this debate because each side means different things by the term. I think most of us would agree that snipping of toes with wirecutters, burning people, putting out eyes, stuff like that is definitely torture, but what about the above stuff? What about interrogators striking detainees? At what point is that torture?

[Jennifer]

Stopping the flow of oxygen to the brain counts as torture. Waterboarding counts.

[clarityiniowa]

I don't oppose torture, per se. I just wish the CIA would do something creative, like inviting prisoners to enjoy a Pauley Shore movie marathon, the Courtney Love/Hole boxed CD collection or an evening out with Doris Roberts from "Everybody Loves Raymond."

[slightlybad]

Jennifer -- but why? I mean, it certainly has the potential to cause harm, but what if it doesn't through skillfull application? Why is it torture? I'm not really trying to argue that its not either, but we seem to have this arbitrary line where people define torture as "things I'm uncomfortable with". I just think, particularly if you're going to enshrine some of this in law, that you should at least have a working definition.

[Mike]

It's effectiveness seems to come from scaring captives into thinking they're going to drown

Actually, you have it wrong: because people think they're going to drown, they'll say anything. The threat of death is what makes it *ineffective*.

How about we agree that anything Bush would have deposed Saddam for doing is torture. Or would that be too much for the moral relativists in charge to agree to?

[AML]

I hear Clint Black is working on a sequel to "Iraq and Roll." The tentative title is "Let's go fuck a PUC."

[Apostate Jew]

How's this for a utilitarian rule?

Torture tends to increase the number and ferocity of your enemies as it tends to decrease the number and steadfastness of your friends.

[Hakluyt]

Matt Welch,

That may be the case, but that doesn't answer my question concerning the morality of torture.

gaius marius,

as a rule utilitarian, gg, i would think you would see that establishing a widespread torture state for those few instances where torture may be useful would violate the maxims of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

That's not rule utilitarianism though - or rather the "greatest happiness principle" doesn't fully explain rule utilitarianism.

Mike,

Well, I could just as persuasively argue that if you make it wrong except in circumstances X, Y, & Z people will be as equally dissuaded from using torture.

__________________

I'd have to see the rule first before I could make up my mind. A rule which states that "all torture is immoral" seems to be impractical on its face and to forclose moments when the greatest good would be thwarted.

[slightlybad]

Mike, I didn't mean to suggest that you actually get effective information -- I'll leave that question to others. It is effective in getting people to talk.

I also don't remember any talk of Saddam waterboarding anyone as a rationale for war. People in the plastic shredder yes, waterboarding no.

[Hakluyt]

Mike,

Then what would you say of incidents where the threat of torture caused a truthful admission?

[Hakluyt]

It seems unlikely that we can live without torture, thus we are confronted with the issue of whether we want to create rules to regulate it or whether we want to simply deal with it on a act by act basis and let the courts or whoever decide if it was justified.

[Eric the .5b]

If all torture was really, truly illegal, then you would drastically *increase* the likelihood that torture would be used in those exceedingly rare cases where you could make an argument that it was "necessary."

[Otherwise]...torture ...will become an ends to itself, won't be given adequate oversight, will be applied on the non-guilty, and will be used in the vast majority of cases for reasons having nothing to do with timely life-or-death situations.

So, is your argument really that before the Clinton and Bush years, torture was given adequate oversight, was never applied to the innocent, and was only used in life-or-death situations?

I think the only benefit of publically forbidding torture is to make it somewhat harder to use. And actually, I think the discussion of torture gives us a chance blindly claiming we don't torture doesn't - we can go further in trying to ban it.

[Mike]

Then what would you say of incidents where the threat of torture caused a truthful admission?

Dumb luck?

[joe]

slightlybad,

How about beatings on the soles of the feet, or bamboo shoots under the fingernails? Neither results in death or permanent harm, unless they're done wrong.

[Jeff]

To me, this torture debate is similar to exterminating unarmed, captured POW's shortly after a battle. It has happened in every war that American troops at some point in the conflict killed enemy soldiers after disarming them (often in response to stories, accurate or not, that the enemy had done the same to Americans). There are credible stories that toward the end of WWII, Ike, after liberating the German concentration camps, had his officers stop worrying so much about whether the hundreds of thousands of German POW's in US custody in Europe were getting 3 meals a day, or any. For myself, it's hard to have sympathy with the Germans soldiers of that time, and certainly, I can understand any soldier, having watched his friends killed, getting out of hand with an enemy who just moments before was doing its best to kill him. Even so, no one would argue that such killing was "right" in the abstract, or that such treatment should become official policy. And the remarkable thing about the US is how little of this sort of abuse there is in our history. And the reason it seldom happens is undoubtedly our consistent teaching of the rules of war and our strong policies against that sort of behavior. That we are now arguing openly about whether the US should use torture seems as incredible to me as arguing about whether we should have a policy of exterminating enemy troops, even when they surrender. Sure, we have undoubtedly tortured people in the past, but only in relatively rare exceptions to a clear rule. Throw out the rule, and we don't have to guess what happens.

[joe]

...and waterboarding doesn't result in people thinking they're about to die. It results in people feeling like they're about to die, and having the involuntary physical responses knows as "struggling for your life."

[Heather]

Given the moral outrage directed at human beings engaged in condoning / committing torture, one can only wonder, where is the moral outrage against the eternal torments of hell?

[thoreau]

Jeff says it best.

[Hakluyt]

Mike,

Perhaps its more than dumb luck. Perhaps torture, when combined with a lot of other things (like good intelligence on the individual being tortured or threatened with torture), will lead to productive outcome.

[slightlybad]

Joe, to me, yeah, that's probably torture, although I can't honestly tell you why. It really is more of a gut reflex. What do you think about having people kneel in an uncomfortable position for hours on end? That certainly ends up being quite painful -- torture?

I'm really not pro-torture, but we need to know what torture is before we start calling it legal/illegal. Otherwise, we end up with the equivalent of Potter Stuart's pornography law -- "I know it when I see it."

[thoreau]

Torture totally works for Jack Bauer. So maybe we shouldn't rule it out in real life either!

[Scott]

What if the insurgents decided to "crucify" US soldiers but they used ropes and stopped short of killing anyone, using the standards that anything goes as long as it causes no permanent physical harm and mental stress associated with religious beliefs is OK, that would not constitute torture. Do you see where this kind of reasoning can go? I am ashamed to be an American when torture is a valid way to spread freedom and democracy, it is like some Orwellian interpretation of Stalin.

[Geek, Esq.]

Waterboarding is torture, under US law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

[Heather]

Scott,

These days, using "Owellian" to butress one's position is akin to using "Hitler". Both have become meaningless.

[Mike]

Perhaps its more than dumb luck. Perhaps torture, when combined with a lot of other things (like good intelligence on the individual being tortured or threatened with torture), will lead to productive outcome.

Yes, yes, yes. And I'm being sucked into the "when is torture OK" debate when we started with "why is torture immoral". I'm going to back out of this by saying this:

Torture is wrong. Most reasonable, honest people can tell the difference between torture and not-torture. It should be illegal. And if some good, honest, moral person, acting in the best interests of the country and humanity, decides to do it in a rare case that keeps a hijacker from killing thousands, I'll accept it as the reality of life in a scary world.

[Hakluyt]

Anyway, I don't accept the blanket that torture is simply immoral. In some cases, rare they may be, it may be moral to torture.

[Hakluyt]

Now, what happened at Abu Ghraib was clearly immoral in part because it was torture for apparently no purpose except for good old clean sadistic fun.

[rob]

"Stopping the flow of oxygen to the brain counts as torture." - Jennifer

By that definition, my sister holding her breath in a 6-year-old's fury counts as torture.

I think that there's a lot of outrage about actions that aren't technically torture, and that compared to real torture, it's a bit silly. But then I'm also "evil" and "stupid" according to some of the folks who disagree with me.

[Scott]

Orwellian has not become meaningless, merely prophetic. Everyday, the doublespeak multiplies.

Spreading peace = Starting wars
Freedom = Indefinite detentions
Democracy = removal of chosen leader and installation of puppet government

[rob]

I'd rather be tortured per Scott's "Crucifixion" scenarion than actually beheaded, as is what actually happens about as statistically often as US detainees are abused...

[joe]

Let's all give rob a hand for reasoning the crime of rape out of existence.

[Eric the .5b]

Democracy = removal of chosen leader and installation of puppet government

I get your first two, but which "chosen leader[s]" have we removed?

[Jennifer]

"Stopping the flow of oxygen to the brain counts as torture." - Jennifer By that definition, my sister holding her breath in a 6-year-old's fury counts as torture.

If somebody else stops her from breathing, (as opposed to something she does to herself) you're absolutely right.

[Rick H.]

Obviously, Rob's the only one here who's willing to defend our most cherished values. Some of you people act as if smothering a six-year-old girl is unpatriotic!

[Stevo Darkly]

Given the moral outrage directed at human beings engaged in condoning / committing torture, one can only wonder, where is the moral outrage against the eternal torments of hell?

That's actually a theme that's explored in the SF book Inferno, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. (Only the slightest of spoilers follows.)

Two protagonists find they are in Hell, much as Dante described it. Toward the end of the book, they think they may have found a way to escape from Hell and get to Heaven. But the path involves a confrontation with Satan -- who turns out to be an enormous and hateful but helpless and pitiable creature, frozen in a lake.

Satan tells one of the protagonists something like, "When you see your God, ask him what sort of God He could possibly be, that He could take lessons in morality from Vlad the Impaler."

The point being that, no matter what the denizens of Hell (like Vlad, for example) did while on Earth, no matter what atrocities they committed, eventually the sufferings they inflicted on their victims stopped. But the suffering in Hell goes on and on for all eternity -- it's completely disproportionate. So how can it be moral for God to condemn any sinner there?

It turns out there is an answer. And it's compatible with Christian morality, IMO. But if I tell you, it gives away too much of the ending of the book.

[A Citizen of Rob's America]

No need to hold your breath, little Iraqi girl. I'll hold it for you!

[Matt Welch]

So, is your argument really that before the Clinton and Bush years, torture was given adequate oversight, was never applied to the innocent, and was only used in life-or-death situations?

No.

[David C.]

I've mentioned it before on a different thread, but once again... Torture hasn't been employed as a method of interrogation for thousands of years because it is ineffective. Pretending torture doesn't work in order to discredit it is idiotic. No it doesn't always work, and neither does any other method of interrogation. And it often produces false results if used to seek information that cannot be independently verified. But there are times when it is probably the most effective method, particularly if the information needed is specific and verifiable.

The main arguments against torture are moral, not utilitarian. In my opinion, there are times when torture is justified -- and I mean real hardcore torture with fire, knives, electricity, etc. But even then the question becomes, who does the torturing? Do we really want the U.S. government creating, maintaining and employing a corp of professional torturers?

[joe]

What David C. said.

Hey, rob, how would you like your daughter to be recruited by the Interrogation Corps?

[rob]

Let's all give joe a hand for making a completely unbelievable connection.

As for the rest of you guys who are pretty funny (as opposed to joe), I was merely pointing out that Jennifer's definition of torture was WAY too broad. As for the actual question of whether waterboarding is troture or not, I'd submit that it's not. I'd also submit that, compared to actual torture, it's probably not very effective.

Which brings me to note that once again, the argument that makes the most sense on this thread goes to David C.'s repeated point, which few on this board ever seem willing to face: torture (and lesser harsh treatment) CAN be used to obtain useful information.

There are people, like Mike, who argue that this is not the case: "Actually, you have it wrong: because people think they're going to drown, they'll say anything. The threat of death is what makes it *ineffective*."

But the reality is that it can be effective, as David C. notes. It's a sad fact of human existence, and no philosophical posturing or mental effort to argue around it will change that.

Which brings us to the the other side of the argument, which Mike also makes: "if some good, honest, moral person, acting in the best interests of the country and humanity, decides to do it in a rare case that keeps a hijacker from killing thousands, I'll accept it as the reality of life in a scary world."

Just as an aside, before old what's-his-name shows up on this thread, I'd like to agree with Hakluyt that "what happened at Abu Ghraib was clearly immoral in part because it was torture for apparently no purpose except for good old clean sadistic fun."

[G. Gordon Liddy]

I have heard that a pair of needle nose pliers can be used to get the information, if they are applied to the right areas.

[rob]

Actually, joe, the Interrogation Corps just left my place. I think they're on their way over to your house. They were saying something about karma, but I don't pay much attention to that New Age stuff.

OTOH, I bet that if they find their way through your city planner-designed street layouts, when they arrive you'll find yourself wishing you'd purchased a gun for home and self defense...

Is it just me, or are you even crankier today than usual?

[Homer Simpson]

Torture?
That's not America.
That's not even Mexico.

[Seamus]

"Anyway, I don't accept the blanket that torture is simply immoral. In some cases, rare they may be, it may be moral to torture."

And is rape sometimes moral, too? Maybe in a "ticking time bomb" scenario? Threaten to rape Osama's sister before his eyes if he doesn't reveal the location of the bomb? (Stipulate for purposes of the hypothetical that the sister is a member of al-Qaeda herself and was captured just before she blew up a school bus full of kinds on a field trip.)

[Seamus]

That's "kids," not "kinds".

[joe]

Actually, if you accept the moral reasoning of "ticking bombers," better one raped, terrified, completely innocent girl who doesn't know what's happening, than a mushroom cloud.

[Ken Shultz]

The main arguments against torture are moral, not utilitarian.

I've been studying Roman architecture and planning. Some of the roads they built could still be used today--talk about overbuilding! No one would build anything like that today, the labor costs would be prohibitive.

...but then the Romans didn't have to worry much about labor costs. They had slaves. As I continue to study Roman history and culture, I become increasingly persuaded that slavery had a sort of "moral hazard" impact on Roman society. If there were more efficient uses of labor and other resources, and, surely, there were, then the downside of slavery went beyond questions of morality.

I have little doubt but that torture, were it to become legal and acceptable, would have the same kind of effects. What's the torture equivalent of overbuilding roads due to negligible labor costs? Does it have to do with law enforcement?

One of the non-morality benefits of living in a society that doesn't tolerate that kind of coercion is that you get to live in a society that doesn't tolerate that kind of coercion. Does anyone else see any tangible benefits to living in a society that abhors torture?

[Captain Awesome]

Joe's right on with this. By the ticking time-bomb logic we should be throwing virgins into volcanos. Better to kill one innocent than let the wrathful gods punish us all. This whole discussion of torture makes me rather ill. I was under the impression that the reasons torture was so popular throughout history was that it was fun for the sadistic and yielded information, any information you want just put the words in the poor souls mouth and he'll say it. Plus we're not even talking about confirmed terrorists with any knowledge here. We're talking about picking up random human beings and making their life hell. This is difinatively unamerican. And we should be at least trying to follow Tobarroks margin utility proposition where it's prohibitively expensive to torture and therefore is conserved for the most sure cases. If a soldier has to consider his whole future is on the line with his actions, maybe we won't see it as fun 'n games so often.

[Happy Jack]

I don't think it actually rises to the level of a "ticking time bomb", but I have to believe we really, really want to catch Zarqawi and Zawahiri (plus bin Laden if alive).

If torture is so useful, how will we know a bomb's location if we can't even find these guys?

The CIA missed the true size of the "missile gap", plus they had no idea of the shape the USSR's economy was in before it collapsed. We're supposed to trust them to get it right?

[Stevo Darkly]

I have heard that a pair of needle nose pliers can be used to get the information, if they are applied to the right areas.

This is true. I have used them to obtain information on a floppy disk that was halfway jammed in a slot in computer.

Torture? That's not America. That's not even Mexico.

"This is not America."

-- Mexican police chief in The Falcon and the Snowman

[Rick H.]

Actually, if you accept the moral reasoning of "ticking bombers," better one raped, terrified, completely innocent girl who doesn't know what's happening, than a mushroom cloud.

Agreed, this seems to be the reasoning of a lot of folks who watch way too much "24." How many ticking-timebomb scenarios actually occur, with a perp in custody and known to have lifesaving information? This is science fiction, not policy. It's like basing interstate traffic rules on a close reading of the freeway scene in Matrix: Revolutions.

Also, the argument that torture is practiced because it's "effective" doesn't hold up. People do all sorts of evil things for complex, human, illogical reasons. Serial sex killers don't necessarily kill for political purposes, and medieval Inquisitors may not have had religious duty as their primary motivation.

[Shawn Smith]

Stevo Darkly,

But the suffering in Hell goes on and on for all eternity -- it's completely disproportionate. So how can it be moral for God to condemn any sinner there?

My guess (I haven't read the book, and I probably won't) is that once you are in Hell, you're cursing God at some point, and each curse earns you another century (a hundred years is as a day to God, and such). Satan appears to be doing that in the statement you described.

Just a guess, and I can't even guess J.K. Rowling's surprises, so I could be completely wrong, here.

[Shawn Smith]

Oh, just one other thing--if morality is defined by God, and not some external code that God lives by, then, of course it's moral.

[Ken Shultz]

But the suffering in Hell goes on and on for all eternity -- it's completely disproportionate. So how can it be moral for God to condemn any sinner there?

I was raised in a denomination which holds that hell isn't eternal, but oblivion is.

[A Torture Apologist]

It's like basing interstate traffic rules on a close reading of the freeway scene in Matrix: Revolutions.

Are you saying that traffic cops don't need to be prepared to deal with dreadlocked supernatural beings fighting people who drive against traffic?

[jf]

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

What's the source for this definition? As hard as I try, I can't imagine it being realistic, which means either I'm missing something, or else the actual definition of "water-boarding" is something far worse.

I can only come up with one realistic situation where honest-to-God real torture would be justified: Capturing a suicide bomber either right before he commits the act or in case his bomb malfunctioned somehow. He's already chosen to forfeit his life by the very nature of the act he had planned, so I'd accept him being giving a choice: talk, or start losing digits. For every bit of information that wasn't accurate, another digit. Once you've hit all 21, start playing really rough.

Before I'm taken too seriously, the argument that nobody should be trusted with the power to commit torture ultimately wins out, which is why only The Wolf should be allowed this assignment.

In addition, I don't believe in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario.

[Stevo Darkly]

Shawn Smith: Re: Inferno and your first post on it -- you're pretty darn close. Essentially the residents of Hell condemn themselves. One thing you notice in the book is that just about every person in Hell spends his or her time in self-pity or rationalization or complaining how unfair it all is, that what they did on Earth really wasn't that bad. And (almost) no one says, "I was a bad person, and I do deserve to be here."

It's sort of like one theory of prisoner rehabilitation I've read about. Those who continue to self-justify their crimes can't be rehabilitated; first, they have to admit they did something wrong and deserve punishment.

Also, in the book, the protagonists discover that there is (apparently) an escape route from Hell to Heaven. But it involves persistence of another kind, and a willingness to confront the worst things about yourself, at least in metaphor. If I'm any more explicit, I'll spoil the ending for anyone else out there.

It was an oddly reassuring and hopeful conclusion to a story that was a bit dark and down, being about Hell and all.

Oh, the thing that whatever God does is by definition moral... that idea doesn't enter into the story. One of the protagonists is (was) a science fiction writer and resolutely tries to explain what's going on around him in hard-science-fictional terms -- he persists in literally believing "There must be a logical explanation for all this." The idea that whatever God does is moral is a bit too subjective and arbitrary to fit into the book. (I have a rather hard time accepting that idea myself, although I kind of see what you mean.)

[Shawn Smith]

Thanks for the info, Stevo. It sounds like that theory of rehabilitation you mention has a strong proponent in Dr. Phil "You can't change what you don't acknowledge" McGraw. Not that what he says would convince anyone on this forum, but there it is.

As for the second post, I have heard that argument put out by some of the more fire and brimstone fundies out there, and I just couldn't resist adding it when I read "how can it be moral for God to condemn any sinner there."

[Happy Jack]

It's odd that I haven't heard any former CIA guys clamoring for the right to torture.

On the otherhand, those against seem to be coming forward.

[Red Diamond Jim]

I AM NOT A TORTURE "APOLOGIST". I OPENLY ADVOCATE IT! THOSE WHO MERELY "APOLOGIZE" FOR TORTURE ARE SISSY AT BEST. THOSE WHO FIND TORTURE TO BE INHERENTLY IMORAL ARE THE EQUIVELENT OF VAGINAL DISCAHRGE!!

[Bernard]

It's one of those irregular verbs. I use unique and innovative techniques to gather vital information; you cause some concern to human rights watchers; they are heinous torturers who invite invasion.

[Hakluyt]

rob,

The Israelis have found that their methods do help in discovering both real-time as well as strategic information.

Ken Shultz,

Heh. You know, the Romans didn't credit the testimony from tortured slaves.

One of the non-morality benefits of living in a society that doesn't tolerate that kind of coercion is that you get to live in a society that doesn't tolerate that kind of coercion.

I don't think such a society has ever existed though and likely never will. Clearly we're willing to tolerate some level of torture committed by the government, as long as we don't generally have to know about it.

[Hakluyt]

The real question that needs to be asked is this:

Who Would Jesus Torture

[Hakluyt]

What this debate reminds me of (imperfectly certainly) is the exchange between Gorgias and Plato in Plato's dialogue, The Gorgias. Here we have some arguing that some transcendtal truth concerning torture exists, whereas others are arguing that such a truth doesn't exist and that therefor we must muddle our way through and create rules regarding its use.

[Hakluyt]

Ken Shultz,

BTW, you might be interested to know that the Japanese (during WWII at least) also overbuilt the rail lines, railroad bridges and airstrips they constructed in their empire (in Burma and China for example). Most of those were built with some type of slave labor.

[quasibill]

"Clearly we're willing to tolerate some level of torture committed by the government, as long as we don't generally have to know about it."

Well, maybe you are, but I'm not.

"Who Would Jesus Torture"

Exactly. Every "values" voter who supports torture is a hypocrite that would make John Kerry blush.

"Here we have some arguing that some transcendtal truth concerning torture exists, whereas others are arguing that such a truth doesn't exist and that therefor we must muddle our way through and create rules regarding its use."

Or that since there are no objectively definable and supportable rules concerning it, the government should not force anyone to support it through taxation.

[crimethink]

iirc, Thomas Aquinas wrote that the possibility of eternal separation from God and all his gifts (hell) is necessary if there is to be a possibility of eternal union with him (heaven) for an eternal soul exercising free will. Once a soul has rendered itself unfit for union with God, by dying in sin, there is no place else for it to go but where there is no trace of God. Remember the inscriptions on the gate into hell in Dante's Inferno? One read, "Eternal love created me." This is a paradox, but it is not irony.

And, yes, I know that many if not most here do not believe in God or souls, but I'm just saying that the notion of a loving God creating a place where those he loved will suffer beyond comprehension is not ipso facto absurd.

[crimethink]

Aquinas also wrote that the task of the theologian is not to prove that the tenets of Christianity are true, but to prove that they are not absurd. It is to that lower but achievable standard that I hold myself in my discussions of my faith in this forum.

[Hakluyt]

Aquinas,

Aquinas was involved in a lot of question begging regarding issues of free will, the omniscience of God, etc.

[Aquinas Triumphant]

Screw you Hakluyt. You know that pain in your gall bladder? Better have it looked at, not that it'll do any good... heh heh! HA HA HA!

[Hakluyt]

Aquinas Triumphant (crimethink),

Thanks kook.

[gaius marius]

It seems unlikely that we can live without torture, thus we are confronted with the issue of whether we want to create rules to regulate it or whether we want to simply deal with it on a act by act basis and let the courts or whoever decide if it was justified.

does this qualify as the end of any aspiration and therefore the apex of decadence, gg? 🙂

[Hakluyt]

No.

[gaius marius]

funny. could have sworn that was the last breath. 😉

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

If the practice of torture is somehow a proxy for determining decadence, then the 12th century was more of an apex than today (at least for the West).

[Smappy]

Suggested rule for use of torture:

In a perceived ticking time-bomb scenario, the interrogator may use any means at his disposal to extract information. However, if incorrect information is extracted, the interrogator undergoes the same treatment he subjected the detainee to.

I expect that would put a pretty high price on aggressive interrogation. It also makes the interrogator fully face the "is one unspeakably tortured innocent worth a thousand lives" question, since *he* might end up being the unspeakably tortured innocent.

Discuss

[Smappy]

Oh, and in the spirit of the "torture must work since it's been around for a very long time" logic, here's a list of other things that obviously confer a benefit, due to their longevity:

Price controls
Production subsidies
Welfare states
Chemical prohibition
Balancing of the humors through bloodletting
Astrology
Protective tariffs
Public Schools

Atheists would certainly add "religion" to the above list, while theists like myself would only add "all religions that are not my own."

[quasibill]

"I'm just saying that the notion of a loving God creating a place where those he loved will suffer beyond comprehension is not ipso facto absurd"

Not sure if this was a response to me, but if it was, I'd just make this comment - the judgment, as I understand Christianity, is God's to make, not man's. So while God may create such a place, Jesus's teaching would seem to indicate that man should not.

[gaius marius]

If the practice of torture is somehow a proxy for determining decadence

less the practice, gg, than the moral ambivalence toward the practice.

fwiw, the adoption of torture by the inquisition was a tremendous step (and rightfully) toward losing the allegiance of the faithful and sending catholicism down the path to the fracture of the reformation. any western political regime, should it choose to imitate the church of the inquisition, would also earn its similar destruction.

[Pro Libertate]

Whether or not torture works, it seems to me that its real purpose is rather more complex. A government that tortures its enemies (or its citizens) exerts a level of control that probably doesn't exist without the use of torture. It's a heck of a deterrent for obvious reasons, but it also says, in no uncertain terms, that the torturing government has no real limits on what it can do to an individual. Powerful message, that.

For citizens, knowing that your government could send you to Room 101 means that you're just thankful to have any freedom at all and less likely to agitate for more, unless life gets so bad that torture loses its deterrent value. I hope to God that the anti-torture folks in the U.S. prevail, because I'm rather nervous about the side effects of a society that tolerates torture.

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

The Church from the 5th century onward viewed torture as a legitimate tool to correct members of the faithful, etc. Indeed, even Thomas Aquinas had no qualms with torturing and/or executing those who strayed from the faith because he viewed their "betrayal" (that of apostates) as being the same as being a traitor to the political state one was allied to.

There is no glorious past when Christian virtue ruled.

[Ken Shultz]

Clearly we're willing to tolerate some level of torture committed by the government, as long as we don't generally have to know about it.

I've come out big against the practice, even in my total rejection though, I have different levels of resistance.

I'm against the practice on principle, that is, but if we have to practice it, I'd prefer it wasn't codified. ...I'd rather have it done in secret, outside the law. What are we going to regulate anyway? Is there some ethical manner in which to torture people?

It might seem a contradiction to some--I'm in favor of legalizing recreational drug use and, to some extent, prostitution. But torture is in every and all cases blatant coercion, and, as such, it violates so many of the political values I hold dear.

...the principle of cruel and unusual punishment comes to mind, the principle of not being forced to testify against myself, etc.

So here's my policy. If you think yourself justified in torturing someone, go ahead. ...just be sure you can persuade a jury of your peers.

[Smappy]

"just be sure you can persuade a jury of your peers."

Sounds like the "Bring CIA headquarters to a Red State" policy to me.

[gaius marius]

There is no glorious past when Christian virtue ruled.

not glorious nor utopian nor flawless, gg -- but there was certainly a time when christian virtue was the rule.

[gaius marius]

So here's my policy. If you think yourself justified in torturing someone, go ahead. ...just be sure you can persuade a jury of your peers.

unfortunately, that's not the high standard it sounds like, mr shultz.

[Ken Shultz]

unfortunately, that's not the high standard it sounds like, mr shultz.

My standard hasn't changed. Here, for now, I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be legal. ...and that when prosecutors come upon a case of torture, they should prosecute the culprits.

I still think torture should be prohibited as well.

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

...but there was certainly a time when christian virtue was the rule.

No, that's not true either. For someone who prattles on about scientific uncertainty you are awfully certain about the past.

Then again, you apologize for the rampant rape and murder of Germans during the reign of the Carolingians, so I really don't take your fantasies seriously. There's really very little that seperates you from any of the horrifying collectivist nightmares human beings have unleashed upon one another.