Some of our most influential public intellectuals are debating whether the United States should torture or not — and it’s a fascinating and important argument, because so much is at stake for the principles of our nation. Here’s a series of arguments for those wanting a more in-depth, philosophical debate about the issue.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer recently wrote in the Weekly Standard that torture is sometimes useful and might be necessary in extreme situations (the ticking time bomb scenario) and we should therefore regulate it in our laws; fellow conservative Andrew Sullivan — one of the blogosphere’s severest critics of the administration’s torture policy — responds here.
And Slate magazine founder Michael Kinsley weighs in with another rejoinder to Krauthammer. He argues that “morality does not require us to build a general policy on torture around a situation that is not merely unlikely in real life, but different in kind from the situations we are likely to face in real life. What we would do or should do if this situation actually arose is an interesting question for bull sessions in the dorm, but not a pressing issue for the nation.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
19 Comments
I’m not even sure the “ticking time bomb” situation justifies torture. Even slight nodifications to the premise lead to some nasty results.
For example, what would prevent a foreign government from torturing enemy airmen to try to get information about future bombing campaigns, especially if these campaigns involved bombing without precision weapons like the US has? WWII-like bombing campaigns against population centers comes pretty close to fitting the definition of an imminent threat to great numbers of people. And most countries today don’t have “smart weapons” like the US does.
Or consider another WWII situation. Scout planes were sent over Japan to photograph potential targets for the A-bomb. What if one of these scout planes had been shot down? Japan was fully aware of US attempts to build a nuclear weapon. Would they have been justified in torturing the reconnaissance crews to discover their mission? It’s true that the reconnaissance crews were ignorant of the mission, but the Japanese wouldn’t have known that or cared. They had seen Germany subjected to bombing of its population centers and could fully expect the same, nuclear weapons or not.
It’s pretty easy to come up with situations where torture might appear to be an ethical alternative based solely on the presumption that the information so obtained might save tens of thousands of people. Unfortunately, the arguments can be turned around and used against us. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I notice that those “Thinkers” that are in favor of torture are from the same camp that thought we need to invade Iraq. The Weekly Standard is nothing more than a rag for the Neo-cons.
I honestly do not know why Bush held out so long? Since the administration’s torture policy did not have Americans doing the torture.The McCain policy did not say we will quit taking the prisoners to countries that will torture them for us. It said WE will not torture. There for it does not apply to what the U.S. was doing.G.W. could have said,” sure, not problem!” and looked to be a hero.Instead he looks to be infavor of torture. Appearences G.W. that is what the American voters look to or have you forgotten?
Brian,I like your posts, but this one is off base. Citing example, such as the ones you did, Have very little to do with the “ticking bomb” scenario. The Japanese DID torture prisoners. Most other countries, ruled by despots or dictators, DO torture, as the Germans did.
I disagree with that premise, or most any premise for that matter, for using torture. But, should a terrorist act be detected, such as capturing a known terrorist, and having him or her flaunting the fact that there is a dirty bomb about to go off in “your town USA”, what would you propose the government do? Millions of lives at stake, and an entire city taken off the map for maybe hundreds of years because of radiation. What do you do? Protect one man or risk the death of millions?
J M Walker,
These ‘what if’ terrorist / torture fantasies are a red herring. They’re designed to lower the threshold for discussions of terrorism. If you’ll allow it in case X, why not in case Y, and so on.
I think Repubicans are floating torture because, as has proven to be the case with illegal surveillance, they want to employ it domestically against their political enemies. Do they even try to cloak their fascist intentions?
I take a hard line on this issue. In all cases, torture is unequivocally a mistaken course of action. It doesn’t achieve its intended results, and it boomerangs against those who use it.
And writerdog, you’re absolutely right. Nothing in the McCain ‘anti-torture’ legislation disallows the use of torture by our allies. Moreover, the Pentagon is revising its directives to field troops to include torture techniques. Nice end run around Congress: typical of this regime.
Thanks JM..I read, enjoy, and take your posts seriously as I do those of the majority of bloggers.
Yes, the Japanese did torture and as far as I know we didn’t, thank the Gods.
But, are you saying that during the Cold War, for example, if a Soviet overflight of the US had occurred and we shot the plane down, we MIGHT have been justified in torturing the pilot because we suspected the overflight to be part of a plan for a Soviet strike? In which case our overflights of the USSR and Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis were essentially for the same reasons..in which case Francis Garry Powers could have legitimately been tortured.
If you allow torture for ANY reason then you grant that same right to your opponents. If the suspicion of “bad” activities is the qualification for torture, then our opponents will have a carte blanche..and I fear for my own safety if I mistakenly say “Hi, Jack!!” at a US airport.
Brian,No, not at all. I don’t, and can’t, justify the use of torture in your example. The thing to remember is terrorists don’t operate on the same playing field as do legimate armed forces. Example: The suicide bombers.
CF seems to think that my example is a red herring. I don’t believe so. That scenerio has every chance of happening on our, or some other countries, soil. These are fanatics we are fighting. They don’t care who they take out, so long as their promary objective is reached. That changes the playing field rules to a certain extent.
I don’t believe the same rules of the Geneva Convention apply to the war on terrorism for just those reasons. However, and let me make myself clear on this point, I do not condone the use of torture, but what do you do when faced with a scenerio as I have exampled? In a case such as that, the call to extract information in any way possible should come from way high up, with that person being held fully accountable for the results: Multiple American deaths, on American soil, with the long shot ability to MAYBE stop it from happening, calls for extreme measures. Torture being one of them.
In that case one mans rights do not, in my mind, supercede the rights of many. In that case, if it was known that the individual had information that could stop the act, and nothing was done, than who would you hold accountable? Remember, Bush was blamed by many on the left for doing nothing to stop 9/11. It seems to me that the left wants it both ways: Damned if you do AND damned if you don’t.
J M Walker,
When has the hypothetical scenario you outline ever happened?
More to the point, who benefits from insisting that such improbable examples are the paramount consideration in developing policy concerning torture?
Finally, I reject the setup of this problem as a simple, quantitative decision between the good of one and the good of millions. The problem is different, as I see it, and has to do with the means one employs to reach some end. If one employs torture as a means to any political end, one diminishes the value of that end. In practical terms, to employ torture in defense of a free society actually diminishes the value of that very society. By introducing torture as a social practice, you diminish the very society you were concerned to defend.
If your objection is that I paint the President into a corner by damning him if he does or doesn’t (a characterization I reject, by the way), my answer is pretty obvious: the President has done and goes on doing far greater damage to America by his unconstitutional actions on ‘my behalf’ than by any such inactions. Frankly, it’s getting to where I feel safer taking my chances with the tender mercies of an Osama Bin Laden than with the unchecked dictatorial powers of the American Presidency.
Finally, as I understand them, the left’s objections against pre-9/11 Bush for ‘doing nothing’ have to do with the bungling of the police functions among various agencies due to a misplacement of priorities. If one thinks the Administration screwed up in its police functions, what would be the logic for then writing them a blank check to wage a war without end, unchecked by the laws of the state or the laws of war?
JM,
Can I ask where you’d draw the line. For example, some nutjobs and serial killers have held people captive in secret locations and allowed them to die. The police oftentimes have known or suspected the individual. Should they have been allowed to torture the alleged perpetrator to extract the location of the victim? What if they were mistaken and their suspect was really not the guy?
If you don’t allow this, what is your criteria for allowing torture. A terrorist with 1 hostage? 2 hostages? 100 hostages? 1,000,000 hostages?
I understand the impetus to torture in the “ticking time bomb” scenario, and I’m not sure if I agree or diagree with it.
But I do think that sometimes concepts are more important than people. Righteous wars – for freedom, for an end to tyranny, etc. – are good examples. We send people to die for the concepts we believe in…sometimes whether they want to go or not.
I believe the concept of a society enlightened by reason, justice, fairness, law – a type of society fast fading from some parts of the world – is really important. Resorting to the kind of barbarism that torture really is dims the lights just a little bit more. Would I do it, however, in the hopes of saving 1,000,000, or 100, or 1? I’m not sure.
I can’t imagine that other methods aren’t at least as effective as torture but don’t require us to brutalize the suspect…I’m sure that sodium pentathol and the other “truth drugs” the government has experimented with probably work to a certain degree, as do things like sleep deprivation, denial of food, maybe hypnosis, etc.
The reason we’re having this discussion about “torture” is really all about bringing the United States down to the level of Facility 1391 in Israel. That building, which has now been airbrushed off all maps of Israeli including the road leading up to it, is where the methods for the “torture” that were seen in Abu Graib prison in Iraq were developed using untold numbers of screaming Palestinians.
Charles Krauthammer, who is always mistakenly billed as a conservative, is actually an “Israel can do no wrong unconditional Zionist supporter,” and, judging from his writings is hardly a reliable source for anything other than Israel’s world conquest disguised by whatever suits the moment.
Our constitution forbids cruel or unusual punishment. Our Founding Fathers included that stipulation so the Charles Krauthammers of this world could not bring these United States down to the reprehensible, disgusting and immoral level on which Israelis, or those of their ilk, choose to live.
Bill of Rights:Amendment VIIIExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Sorry Charlie.
This discussion is over.
CF,In the first place, I made no mention of any resident political administration, other than using Bush as an example. Don’t assume something is there when it isn’t.
In the second place, no the scene I painted has not happened. However, it IS a scene terrorists would love to impliment. To think otherwise is absurd.
Third, I qualified myself by saying I do not condone torture EXCEPT is the remote chance a scene, such as I portrayed, did appear. We are dealing with terrorists who fight by NO rules.
Fourth, you seem to be wanting to start some sort of argument based on party politics. Do so with someone else: I can’t stand either party.
Fifth, I used Bush as an example because what would your conclusion have been IF he had known about the plot, and used torture to extract the information and stopped 9/11? Who’s rights would have been violated then? The terrorists, or the people who died that day? That is not a red herring, that is fact.
CF said most of it better than me.
Brian,I heartedly agree with everything you said. Where do you draw the line, though? I think it comes down to who you are dealing with. The use of chemicals is considered to be torture. Torture is not limited to beatings, electric shock, water dripping on the head, etc. It includes emotional, verbal, mental and chemical as well. Where do you draw the line there?
I am saying that there may be that one in a million case that calls for extreme measures, including chemical torture. And in such a case, the highest authority in the land should be the one to make that call. Notice, CF, I didn’t say “Bush”, or any other politician. Whatever party holds the white house at that time.
There MUST be accountability in a case of that nature. And it MUST be made available to the public after the fact, as they DO have right to know something of that nature took place. The right of the people to know what their government is doing far outweighs the “security” issue most administrations would attempt to use as a cover. An open government is an honest government, something we haven’t had in decades.
An earlier post reminded me of an actual case. Two officers were transporting a suspect in a kidnapping. during the drive the officers started talking about how they believed the victim was now dead. And the parents should be able to give their child a desent funneral. They got the suspect involved in the discussion and played on his sense of fairplay. The suspect finally told the officers where the body was hidden.
The court rule that the officers tactics violated the suspect’s rights and the admission was thrown out. Torture?
As far as my contribution to this “bull session in the dorm.” I think it would be best to go back to the pre-Bush position. That is, we say we don’t torture, condemn it publicly – but still retain our rights to do what needs to be done based upon our best appraisal of the situation at the time.
If we have in custody some person who has vital information we think we need — I say call Andy Sipowicz. Is this the high ethical/moral road? No, it is not.
My question on this subject, is why did the Bush administration ever want to open up the discussion of torture? Doing so, seems to me to be very stupid. I honestly can’t think of any purpose this discussion would serve.
I would bet under the right circumstances even President McCain would authorize torture. He may not like authorizing it, but at least he would have the good sense to not discuss it. Nor would he let his attorney general comment on it.
If the scenario that’s never happened and has republican panties in such a bunch, the ticking bomb, ever happens, By all means, torture away. If we avert a catastrophy on the scale of 9/11 through torture, no judge or jury in the land would convict.Sit back and watch the show as the republicans shred the Constitution one small piece at a time.
XXX,I will agree with you that this administration has shredded more than the constitution. But, not being either a Republican or Democrat, the scenerio is plausible. Whether it has anyones panties in a bunch is immeterial, don’t you think? Especially if it were to happen.
In fact the odds that something similar HAS happened are not as remote as one might think. The terrorists have made in well known that they would love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
And I seriously doubt that either the terrorists or this government would advertise that such a device had been found and disarmed.
When Russia fell apart, there were and are many nuclesr weapons supposedly unaccounted for. Where are they? Who has them? The threat is real, and hardly a “red herring”.
immeterial? What is that? How about immaterial . . . cough . . . cough.
Plausible? Possibly, my friend. But is it likely? It hasn’t happened yet. But as I said before, if the “ticking bomb” scenario should play out, I would expect the authorities to torture the hell out of somebody who had information about it and face the consiquences. But as I’ve said before, if a nuclear disaster were averted by torture, no judge or jury in the land would convict.
If we knew beyond a doubt that the ticking bobm scenario was the only instance where torture would be used, I think a lot more of us would be more comfortable about it. But we know it won’t stop there, don’t we? That’s just not the way it works. And it is a party issue. It’s not Democrats campaigning for the right to torture, unless I’ve missed something.
It’s not about written law, it’s about what’s morally acceptable. Torture isn’t acceptable. And with as much flak as this country has raised over the years about countries that torture, I’m surprised that any American can countanince such a thing. Keep in mind, that’s one of the many excuses this administration used for going to war. Saddam used TORTURE.
Well guess what? So do we.