On the Morality of Torture

[Touring Mars]

Perhaps I should have said "By sanctioning torture and guaranteeing impunity to those who administer it no matter what, you are tacitly condoning all potential injustices and abuses of power before the fact."

Your suggestion that "pronouncing an innocent man a mass murderer for the purpose of torturing him" is arguably a rare event (although it does happen, I'm sure) - a more realistic scenario is torturing someone suspected of involvement in a major crime or of planning one, with the view to either preventing the crime from happening or preventing a recurrence, only to find that the suspect is not (directly) involved at all, but yet the interrogators are not held to account either way... I'm sure we both agree that this would mean that an injustice has been visited upon that person, but by adopting a policy of allowing torture in the first place, one effectively caused that injustice to occur. Whereas, by explicitly banning the use of torture under any circumstances, such injustices are avoided.

The idea that you can have a policy that allows the truly guilty to be tortured while guaranteeing that injustices will not occur (and those responsible be held to account if they do) is pure wishful thinking. Some argue that the occasional injustice is a price worth paying, but I don't think it is...

A member of your family is kidnapped and being hidden in a location known only to the kidnapper. In seven days your family member will die unless the kidnapper discloses the location. You call the Police and they interrogate the kidnapper. He says he will never let you know where they are. The only option is for the Police to use torture methods to get him to reveal the location. Would you refuse the Police authority to do so and let that family member die?

And if the police had the authority to legally torture suspects without fear of reproach, you'd had better hope the kidnapper hadn't recently watched the film Fargo, and implicated you as the mastermind behind the kidnap... your wife is kidnapped, and you go to the police. The police investigate and arrest a suspect - let's assume they get the guy who actually did kidnap your wife. He's a skilled conman and a devious criminal extortionist - at first, he tells them nothing, but they start to torture him and so he tells them that it was you who set the whole thing up, that you paid him to kidnap your wife in an attempt to extort money out of her family, and that you only went to the police to avoid suspicion... the police now arrest you as a suspect. You have nothing to tell them, because you haven't done anything. However, the police have the authority to torture you without fear of punishment... Now, the bad guy gets found out eventually, and the police kick the crap out of him for it - but you've had your balls used as an ashtray for the last 48 hours too. However, because the police are allowed to torture you - especially if they think that torturing you might save someone's life - you can do nothing about it, and have no basis for appeal (since it's sanctioned by law). And while the police have been stubbing out their Marlboro Lights on your family jewels, they could have been looking for your wife, who is no better off regardless of (or perhaps even as a direct result of!) what the actual kidnapper said...

 

[Solid Fro]

Ehm, where did I read that the CIA and the American government got the evidence of him being involved in 9/11 through torture? During a raid a harddisk was found with all the plans and whatnot. As one of the leaders in Al-Qaida, you don't need to use torture to proove this man was a part of the 9/11 attack planning. You do know that the CIA and FBI are better at detective work than anyone else? Even if there are reports that the CIA tortured him, it's not the torturing that brought him to court to face his punishment.

It's a war zone, not a crime scene.

Also, what is it with you and your hatred against Obama? Keep your Obama nonsense to the presidential thread, and keep yourself on-topic.

Hatred? No, it's my opinion.

Maybe I should have voted for Obama, so then everyone would be my friend and like me! Oh noez! I have to be liked!

Not everyone is on his n*ts.

 

[Danoff]

Your suggestion that "pronouncing an innocent man a mass murderer for the purpose of torturing him" is arguably a rare event (although it does happen, I'm sure) - a more realistic scenario is torturing someone suspected of involvement in a major crime or of planning one, with the view to either preventing the crime from happening or preventing a recurrence, only to find that the suspect is not (directly) involved at all, but yet the interrogators are not held to account either way... I'm sure we both agree that this would mean that an injustice has been visited upon that person, but by adopting a policy of allowing torture in the first place, one effectively caused that injustice to occur. Whereas, by explicitly banning the use of torture under any circumstances, such injustices are avoided.

An intentional injustice is unacceptable. Unintentional injustice can be ok. We have thresholds of evidence that must be met before we're willing to take someone's rights away. Now, nothing can be known 100% for certain - but the evidence threshold is set high so that very few mistakes will be made.

Now, I'm fine with having a discussion about what the threshold of evidence needs to be, but it actually sounds like you've conceded the point that torturing someone guilty of mass murder is acceptable. We're just left discussing the implementation of that policy.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Why? how many lives were saving torturing those involved!?

Have you got an example where torturing alone, has saved thousands of lives?

But Dick Cheney said we did, and he never lies so it has to be true!

Some of you have forgotten.

I haven't forgotten...

I also haven't forgotten that many operatives, both in the CIA and from other countries, without torturing anyone that we know of, not only suspected Bin Ladin's plans to attack America, but that they also suspected the attack(s) would involve commercial airlines, and they even knew of at least two of the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks that had already entered America, as well as suspects enrolled in commercial airline pilot education programs... months before the attack.



I also haven't forgotten the declassified document from the CIA, that until it was released, the White House continued to claim never existed, that clearly showed that the President and Vice President were informed in a President's Daily Brief by the CIA of an imminent attack on the US by Bin Ladin a full month before the attack, which even mentioned the claim from an operative that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack an American plane.



I also haven't forgotten about the fraudulent and even forged documents that the White House used to help push Congress to go to war against Iraq, including the one that Robert Richer, CIA's Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations, at first denied, but in transcripts that were later declassified and released in August of 2008 showed that he did in fact claim that the documents the White House used to "prove" or at the very least suggest that Saddam Hussein was linked to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and that that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad, but also claimed Niger had supplied Iraq with yellowcake uranium was, and as we all know now, totally fabricated. Furthermore, in that transcript Robert Richer clearly says the "order" and authorization of the forgery came directly from the White House.



You know what else I haven't forgotten, that after seven years, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, including brave American and International soldiers, and despite torturing "enemy combatants" for several years... yet the Bush Administration still couldn't even find Bin Ladin, let alone bring him to justice.

Instead we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money in a war in Iraq that has so far cost the lives of of over 4,000 Americans, and countless thousands of civilian lives, based largely on false information, against a sadistic dictator... who just so happened to be one of Bin Ladin's arch enemies, and who Al Queda had already declared a Jihad against for the murder of countless Muslin extremists in Iraq in order to maintain his power.

So what did we get for all that money and all those lives? We removed a horrible person from power... but we also removed from power the guy that was killing the Muslim extremist terrorists in his country... who are now in position to eventually take control of that country without fear of being tortured and killed by Saddam... go figure.

Yeah, I haven't forgotten any of that.



You know what else I haven't forgotten about?

That the then Secretary of Defense and not yet puppet master, Dick Cheney, made the following explanation on April 15, 1994 on exactly why the US should not invade Iraq after Desert Storm:

"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it – eastern Iraq – the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

Yeah, I know Rush Limbaugh for years denied Cheney ever said that... too bad for him it was recorded...




So what changed you might ask?

Well the following year he became CEO of Halliburton... you know, the company that just four years later, gave Cheney a $36 million severance package when he left to become VP of the United States... the same company that continued to pay Cheney deferred compensation, and who's stock options grew from only a couple hundred thousand dollars to over $12 million during the Iraq war... the same company that was given several multi-billion dollar contracts for work in Iraq, including an extremely controversial $7 billion dollar no-bid contract by the Bush Administration to "re-build" Iraqi oil and commercial infrastructure that was granted to Halliburton's then subsidiary company, KBR... the same company that was found among many other gross improprieties to have been overcharging the US for fuel costs.. which led to Halliburton's immediate decision to sell of that subsidiary to avoid prosecution... the same company who just a few months later was awarded yet another $150 billion dollar contract by the Bush Administration.

Yeah... I haven't forgotten any of that.



I also haven't forgotten that Halliburton has spent a large amount of their profits from the Iraq war to build their new headquarters in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and that former CEO of KBR and current Chairman and CEO of Halliburton, David J. Lesar supposedly moved to Dubai to avoid possible legal prosecution.


No... I have not forgotten any of that. Thanks for the reminder though on how unbelievably awesome the last eight years have been and how the US Government has done such a bang up job protecting us from the axis of evil, and making the world a better place... not to mention insuring the continued growth and prosperity of our amazing economy... and not adding trillions of dollars to our National debt... yeah... awesome job!

🤬

 

[Touring Mars]

it actually sounds like you've conceded the point that torturing someone guilty of mass murder is acceptable. We're just left discussing the implementation of that policy.

I am totally opposed to torture in any shape or form, or whatever excuses torture apologists care to make. My point is that a discussion of policy on torture falls at the first hurdle - that it doesn't make sense to fair-minded people and rightly so. For me, discussing the morality of torture per se is for the birds, unless you can establish that 'policy' can match that (so-called) morality too, otherwise the entire process is tainted.

 

[Solid Fro]

I haven't forgotten...

No, I believe you have forgotten.

I am sorry that I disagree with you.

 

[Touring Mars]

No, I believe you have forgotten.

I believe you are using the wrong word - when you say "Some of you have forgotten", you are making a very strong but factually incorrect statement - no-one is forgetting 9/11, or that terrorists pose a genuine and serious threat. But however terrible 9/11 was, there's no denying that it was used and continues to be used as a convenient justification for some extremely aggressive policies (esp. foreign policy) that have thus far produced very little of what was promised. Indeed, Dick Cheney continues to cite 9/11 as justification for using torture against suspected terrorists. I do not deny that "preventing another 9/11" is an admirable (indeed an essential) aim, but I don't think that the Bush administration went about achieving that aim in anything like the right way...

Homeland security is important, but it was never the sole aim of the Neo-Conservatives to simply protect mainland America from terrorism - not even remotely. This is evinced by Bush's nonchalant attitude towards capturing Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, or indeed anyone involved in the attacks on 9/11. The sad truth is that the quagmire in Iraq that Cheney accurately (and astonishingly - see above) predicted is alot closer to becoming a reality and has undoubtedly provided Al-Qaeda (or atleast militant Islamists) in the region with a glorious opportunity that they really shouldn't have been given. More ominously, the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran and left America in the uncomfortable position of needing Iranian support in stabilising Iraq... The best we can hope for now is that Obama can achieve a graceful exit from Iraq without precipitating a civil war and to refocus on Al-Qaeda operations elsewhere (specifically in Afghanistan/Pakistan).

 

[YSSMAN]

I think I owe you a candy bar Touring Mars...

I don't have anything to add to what you wrote there, nicely done!

 

[FoolKiller]

I have so far sat back watching this in an attempt to see where this would head. I saw it going one of two ways: Is torture ever OK, or is the current waterboarding issue OK, aka is it torture?

I see where it has gone, so now I feel confident in answering, and will add my own on the other part.


Is there ever a moral argument for torture? No. I do not agree with it, I do not think it should be used in interrogation, and I think it violates the principles that Americans should all abide by. Sure, we have a death penalty (which I support), but even then it is supposed to be quick and painless. We do not allow cruel and unusual punishment of our own citizens. So, definitely torture should not be allowed in domestic cases. Similarly, we should not be using it on anyone, foreign or domestic, claiming a nationality or not. Torture is nearly as immoral as you can get in my opinion, as it mat reveal some information, may, but at what cost to ourselves? What bit of our own self-respect, soul, whatever do you have to give up when you do something like that?

Now, before someone tries giving me one of the "if your loved one was..." scenarios I will address it, and their fallacy, now. If my wife's life were at risk you can bet I would be calling for everything you can do to that guy to save her. But the problem is that I would be reacting with my emotions not my brain. If it were someone else saying that about saving their loved one I would say no, because then I stop to think with my head.

The fallacy here is that you are asking them to base a decision on a high-stress, emotional reaction. The same people I see bringing up these what ifs are the same ones that I see accusing liberals of basing their socialized program decisions on emotion. Thinking with my brain and going by principals, not emotions, I do not support my taxes going to pay someone else's healthcare so that they can live, and similarly, going by my principles, not emotions, I do not support the notion of torturing someone with the hope that it will allow someone to live.

Principals do not change, but in a high-stress, emotional situation we will often react outside of our principals because we lose our ability to think clearly. Allowing someone under that kind of strain to make a decision that affects the life and well being of another human being is ridiculous at best, and thus that what if situation is similarly ridiculous.

Regarding the forfeiture of his own rights: That is why we use imprisonment and the death penalty as punishment. Tacking on torture is based on the assumption that he knows something, but you don't know what he may or may not know. Has it worked in some instances? Sure. But what if the next guy truly doesn't know anything new because you caught him right after the last thing he worked on was completed/stopped? See, I can play what ifs too. You would be torturing him for nothing.

To me torture as an interrogation tool is like punishing crime before it happens. You are assuming they know something, and you may even have evidence that they do, but how far do you go until you decide that they have told you everything they know or have to assume the evidence is incorrect?



All of that said, when I think about waterboarding it does not make me think of what I typically picture in my mind as torture. To me torture is the kind of physical trauma that can leave permanent scarring and disability. So I am not completely sure that I find what has been done to be torture, and as such I am not against it. I always assumed that was why waterboarding was used, as it was not torture, but did create the mental panic that torture can cause.

And I think the outcome of this politically will be ultimately determined by how whatever court may be involved defines waterboarding. Until President Obama took office waterboarding was acknowledged but not as torture. Now, we have suddenly performed torture, but it is still waterboarding. I would hate to see people sentenced to jail for performing or ordering acts that were not being seen as torture at the time now that there has been a shift in the political climate. And I ultimately believe that is why the president has not been going after this as strongly as people want. He doesn't want to create political prisoners just because it is a controversial subject.

 

[Danoff]

We do not allow cruel and unusual punishment of our own citizens.

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this requirement. I'm not saying one can't be provided, I'm saying I want to hear it.

Regarding the forfeiture of his own rights: That is why we use imprisonment and the death penalty as punishment. Tacking on torture is based on the assumption that he knows something, but you don't know what he may or may not know. Has it worked in some instances? Sure. But what if the next guy truly doesn't know anything new because you caught him right after the last thing he worked on was completed/stopped? See, I can play what ifs too. You would be torturing him for nothing.

...and what is the problem with doing just that? If his crime is bad enough, where is the moral wrongdoing in torturing him?

 

[Omnis]

Punishment is not retribution. That's the problem with legal systems monopolized by state.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this requirement. I'm not saying one can't be provided, I'm saying I want to hear it.

Because we are not animals and punishment is never about revenge or retribution, but rehabilitation and/or removing a dangerous element from being able to interact in society. We could go all Old Testament and play eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, but I don't think theft requires cutting a hand off.

You have to draw a line to say at what point you are going beyond just being rehabilitative and protective of your society.

Add on to that fact that sometimes people are wrongly accused, or in the case of an overpowering government, it is used to silence those who would stand up for their rights. Prison terms are recoverable, and a wrongful death sentence can't be recovered from but it guarantees that person did not receive any undue suffering.

...and what is the problem with doing just that? If his crime is bad enough, where is the moral wrongdoing in torturing him?

First, define a crime that is bad enough to require torture as punishment (note my previous personal definition of torture) when it is not used as an interrogation tool.

But, if you can torture him then you already have the ability to follow traditional punitive measures and interrogation tools. The only case of a criminal needing torture to reveal information that I can think of would be in the case of a sociopath who wants to see the potential victim suffer/die. And then you have to wonder how effective torture will be. He is sick and twisted and it is highly likely that no amount of torture will fix that.

Seriously, you could get me to hesitate on the idea of torture to save hundreds or thousands, but as strictly punitive. No, you can't show me a crime deserving of it, including torture of an innocent.

 

[Danoff]

Because we are not animals and punishment is never about revenge or retribution
but rehabilitation and/or removing a dangerous element from being able to interact in society.

How about as a deterrent?

We could go all Old Testament and play eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, but I don't think theft requires cutting a hand off.

Eye for an eye would prescribe loss of property rights in response to theft.

You have to draw a line to say at what point you are going beyond just being rehabilitative and protective of your society.

I completely reject the notion that we remove the rights of criminals for the purpose of rehabilitation. It is no person's duty to convince any other person to respect human rights. We incarcerate criminals for two reasons, as a deterrent, and for protection from that individual. Any punitive aspect of criminal justice can be linked to deterrent.

Add on to that fact that sometimes people are wrongly accused, or in the case of an overpowering government, it is used to silence those who would stand up for their rights.

Well that second point has nothing to do with the discussion.

Prison terms are recoverable, and a wrongful death sentence can't be recovered from but it guarantees that person did not receive any undue suffering.

What about their loved ones? Do they not suffer unjustly? This point about torturing the wrong guy is all about practicality and none about principle. I'd rather discuss principle first. We can talk practicality when we agree on the important stuff.

First, define a crime that is bad enough to require permit torture as punishment (note my previous personal definition of torture) when it is not used as an interrogation tool.

I'll respond to the modified quote. The intentional torture of an innocent person would be sufficient to warrant torture in response due to the reciprocal nature of rights.

Seriously, you could get me to hesitate on the idea of torture to save hundreds or thousands, but as strictly punitive. No, you can't show me a crime deserving of it, including torture of an innocent.

You offer torture as the single irrevocable human right. Why?

 

[Northstar]

I am against torture, but not because I think the act itself is wrong but the fact that it has to cause mental problems for those administrating the torture. I highly doubt that any of the people doing the torture like doing it unless they are screwed up in the head. They probably also suffer from Post traumatic Stress Disorder similar to what soldiers returning from war suffer from.

 

[niky]

How about as a deterrent?

Versus capital punishment? How would it be more of a deterrent? If a fanatic is ready to die, they're not thinking: "Being in pain would really suck if I fail to kill myself, wouldn't it?"

I completely reject the notion that we remove the rights of criminals for the purpose of rehabilitation. It is no person's duty to convince any other person to respect human rights. We incarcerate criminals for two reasons, as a deterrent, and for protection from that individual. Any punitive aspect of criminal justice can be linked to deterrent.

Incarceration is a way to protect society from criminals first, deterrent, second.

Well that second point has nothing to do with the discussion.

It does because incarceration is reversible. Torture is not.

qWhat about their loved ones? Do they not suffer unjustly? This point about torturing the wrong guy is all about practicality and none about principle. I'd rather discuss principle first. We can talk practicality when we agree on the important stuff.

And here's the thing: Where is the evidence regarding the practicality of torture? There are centuries of evidence that torture as an interrogation tool is flawed because tortured prisoners will admit to anything or say yes to anything to end the torture. Even if saying "yes" means death.

I think the question is inextricably linked to the idea of practicality, simply because we are only discussing this in relation to interrogational torture.

Also, in the event of the death of a loved one, many, many victims' families will tell you that while they do feel a sense of fulfillment upon the arraignment/execution/etcetera of a murderer, that it never makes up for the loss. The psychological scars are there, the trauma is still there, and no amount of retribution will bring back the dead.

I'll respond to the modified quote. The intentional torture of an innocent person would be sufficient to warrant torture in response due to the reciprocal nature of rights.

I actually find no problems with that. As long as there is solid proof. But torture used as a tool to extract the truth is a flawed, flawed tool.

 

[YSSMAN]

How about as a deterrent?

I think there have been plenty of arguments otherwise that torture was used as a recruitment tool in Iraq and Afghanistan (and like Pakistan and Iran, etc) to rally people against the Americans. When these people are already operating on the belief of martyrdom, I don't see how torture would be any kind of deterrent whatsoever, particularly in the face of anger, and the money that is often made by people in service of these radical groups.

I would think that in general, if you're willing to put on the uniform and fight for your ideals (regardless of the country, religion, etc), chances are that the threat of torture by your enemy is not a primary concern, especially one that would deter action by your military unit, or even yourself. Suddenly I am reminded of The Smashing Pumpkins song "God and Country."

 

[FoolKiller]

How about as a deterrent?

If all we wanted was a deterrent then we would just shoot all criminals immediately after trial. Bam, done and no one wants to mess with the law, or do anything that could even appear that way. Torture is not required in order to have a deterrent, and no legal punishment is purely a deterrent because fear is not enough to make people behave.

Eye for an eye would prescribe loss of property rights in response to theft.

I thought it was called taxes...sorry.

OK, but do you promote the notion of doing to a criminal exactly what his crime is always? Kill a murderer? Rape a rapist? Take from a thief?

I completely reject the notion that we remove the rights of criminals for the purpose of rehabilitation. It is no person's duty to convince any other person to respect human rights. We incarcerate criminals for two reasons, as a deterrent, and for protection from that individual. Any punitive aspect of criminal justice can be linked to deterrent.

I'll meet you halfway and say that there is a goal of rehabilitation, but it rarely works. But so far neither does the deterrent, even in the case of a death penalty.

Well that second point has nothing to do with the discussion.



What about their loved ones? Do they not suffer unjustly? This point about torturing the wrong guy is all about practicality and none about principle. I'd rather discuss principle first. We can talk practicality when we agree on the important stuff.

Fine, we can strike this all from the discussion for now.

I'll respond to the modified quote. The intentional torture of an innocent person would be sufficient to warrant torture in response due to the reciprocal nature of rights.

And what benefit would that torture serve? Where does it even make sense except to be retribution? So, now the victim feels justified or whatever? How does this have any more effect than incarceration or a death penalty? And unless you can give more examples where torture is a permissible punitive response you appear to just be supporting retribution-style punishment, which should never be a basis for a legal system.

Now, stepping away from the principals for a second, if we were to accept this retribution punishment case it is not even practical or feasible as the cases of people torturing others (you will have to clearly define where it goes from abuse to torture) is so few that it is not reasonable to have someone on staff who has the personality to be able to do such a thing. I mean, you could have one guy for the whole country and he would still only be called on once a year, if that. Sure, you could have him doing another job primarily, but would you want to? No sane person wants to work with the guy who willingly tortures as a career.

You offer torture as the single irrevocable human right. Why?

Because it is unnecessary as a punitive measure. Revoking rights of criminals is to make it so that they can no longer violate the rights of innocents. Torture is not required. You can do the same thing while maintaining civility and respect for their humanity, and without the need of having sadists on your staff.

If the only way to enforce the law is to act worse than the criminals then the problem is more than likely the law itself.

 

[Danoff]

Versus capital punishment? How would it be more of a deterrent? If a fanatic is ready to die, they're not thinking: "Being in pain would really suck if I fail to kill myself, wouldn't it?"

...actually I'm confident that though would cross their mind.

Incarceration is a way to protect society from criminals first, deterrent, second.

Agreed.

It does because incarceration is reversible. Torture is not.

Please explain how incarceration is reversible.

Where is the evidence regarding the practicality of torture?

Principle come first, then implementation. Torture may well be acceptable in principle but not be practical.

I actually find no problems with that. As long as there is solid proof.

Glad to see we're in agreement.

Because it is unnecessary as a punitive measure. Revoking rights of criminals is to make it so that they can no longer violate the rights of innocents. Torture is not required. You can do the same thing while maintaining civility and respect for their humanity, and without the need of having sadists on your staff.

You may be right. Torture may not be practical. It may be a bad policy for a nation to have - but morally speaking I don't see a problem with it as a response for some crimes.

If the only way to enforce the law is to act worse than the criminals then the problem is more than likely the law itself.

I don't see how this is worse than the criminal. If someone steals $5 from me, gets caught, has to give me my $5 back and has to pay an additional $5 in punitive damages, how is that worse than the original offense? For one, you're taking $5 from someone who has already been caught violating the rights of others. But even if you ignore the intent, the violation of rights, and the entire morality of the problem, you're still doing just exactly to them what was done to you - certainly not worse.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see how this is worse than the criminal. If someone steals $5 from me, gets caught, has to give me my $5 back and has to pay an additional $5 in punitive damages, how is that worse than the original offense? For one, you're taking $5 from someone who has already been caught violating the rights of others. But even if you ignore the intent, the violation of rights, and the entire morality of the problem, you're still doing just exactly to them what was done to you - certainly not worse.

So, are you saying that the only crime that would permit torture would be torture of an innocent?

You appear to be going down this retribution line of reasoning and then it only leads to torture as a punishment and deterrent for one single crime.

But then it does bring up cases of rape, etc. If we go with a purely retribution system there is a lot of stuff you have to ask good people to do to criminals.



But getting back to revoking rights, something has occurred to me. Yes, we revoke the rights of liberty, and in some cases life, but during those punishments we do not allow one prisoner to violate the rights of another. It happens but it is not sanctioned in any way. We do not completely revoke their rights. We only remove the legal rights that allow them opportunity to violate the rights of the innocent. If a prisoner is found to violate the rights of another prisoner they are again punished, and possibly even face further charges via the legal system.

I think that it is an important point to note that we do give criminals rights from accusation through punishment. There is a whole set of rights designed specifically to allow criminals to defend themselves. If punishment were purely about revoking rights it would be done the moment the guilty verdict comes in.

Why do we do this? Because at the end of the day they are still human. They may not be a shining example of humanity, but they are humans nonetheless.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm willing to accept that torture may be morally justifiable in some very rare/extreme cases, but with some very big provisos - I've already stated my opinion/preference with regard to the use of torture (i.e. against it, even in principle), but even though I am willing to accept that it can be morally justified in rare circumstances, moral justification shouldn't be equated or confused with being legally allowed...

My own feeling is that even if torture can be morally justified in certain circumstances, even then, certain forms of torture would remain immoral, due to their inability to achieve the desired 'morally justified' aim i.e. gratuitous violence/mutilation, rape/sexual assault, torturing to death etc.. Therefore, any method of torture that offered no realistic possibility of achieving a 'moral' outcome should be considered immoral - and hence there is no good reason to create a provision in law for such acts to be allowed to be carried out...

I don't believe that the 'reciprocity of human rights' means that if someone commits a crime against you, you are morally justified or legally allowed to commit the same crime against them. You may be morally justified to demand compensation, and it may be morally justifiable for you to expect that person to have their right to exist in civilized society revoked (i.e. by imprisoning them) for their crime, but it doesn't mean that you'd be legally (or morally) justified to break the law yourself, simply to settle the score - that would be vigilantism... it would simply demonstrate that you had the same lack of respect for the rule of law as the criminal, and you would deserve to be punished accordingly.

Similarly, if a specific method of torture contravenes domestic or international laws, then it is a crime, no matter if the outcome of the torture had a moral purpose or not (let alone that it actually achieved that outcome). That's where you have to draw the line, IMO - by setting a standard or a legal precedent that declares certain activities unlawful under any circumstances. Torture may be morally justified in a very small number of specific cases, but certain torture methods remain unjustifiable. Adopting a policy that allows the systematic use of torture (regardless of established guilt) or the arbitrary application of illegal methods should be considered criminal, and hence morally unsound...

 

[Danoff]

So, are you saying that the only crime that would permit torture would be torture of an innocent?

No, there are worse crimes that would still be deserving. That is the smallest crime that I can think of that would justify torture.

You appear to be going down this retribution line of reasoning and then it only leads to torture as a punishment and deterrent for one single crime.

I don't want to be misunderstood. My reasoning has nothing to do with retribution - only with what you can justifiably expect from other peoples' behavior toward you given your own actions.

But then it does bring up cases of rape, etc. If we go with a purely retribution system there is a lot of stuff you have to ask good people to do to criminals.

I don't see that we'd have to ask them. But it might be justifiable for those acts to be permitted.

Yes, we revoke the rights of liberty, and in some cases life, but during those punishments we do not allow one prisoner to violate the rights of another.

Nor do we allow those criminals the right to violate the rights of innocent people. In short, violating someone's rights does not permit you to violate rights again. So criminals must observe our rights, but we need not observe all of theirs. (ie: they can't kill a guard or another prisoner, but we can lock them up)

We only remove the legal rights that allow them opportunity to violate the rights of the innocent.

That's not the only thing our justice system does. It also penalizes criminals by seizing property, their right to vote, in some cases we force them to perform labor, and in rare cases we remove their right to life.

Why do we do this? Because at the end of the day they are still human. They may not be a shining example of humanity, but they are humans nonetheless.

We do it not because they are human, but because it is necessary to enforce human rights. We take away only those rights justifiable by their actions.

moral justification shouldn't be equated or confused with being legally allowed...

Quite right. However I believe you confuse these two a number of times below.

My own feeling is that even if torture can be morally justified in certain circumstances, even then, certain forms of torture would remain immoral, due to their inability to achieve the desired 'morally justified' aim i.e. gratuitous violence/mutilation, rape/sexual assault, torturing to death etc.. Therefore, any method of torture that offered no realistic possibility of achieving a 'moral' outcome should be considered immoral - and hence there is no good reason to create a provision in law for such acts to be allowed to be carried out...

I'm not sure I understand what the moral outcome is here. Obtaining information? I don't think you can justify the use of torture for any ends. You have to justify the use of torture based on the crimes committed.

I don't believe that the 'reciprocity of human rights' means that if someone commits a crime against you, you are morally justified or legally allowed to commit the same crime against them.

It is morally justifiable to commit the same action (it is no longer a crime) against them, but you may not be legally allowed to do so for practical reasons. One practical reason is the need for due process for establishing guilt.

...but it doesn't mean that you'd be legally (or morally) justified to break the law yourself, simply to settle the score - that would be vigilantism...

...which is a practical concern, not a moral one. You're morally justified in taking action, but the law may forbid it.

it would simply demonstrate that you had the same lack of respect for the rule of law as the criminal, and you would deserve to be punished accordingly.

Not he same lack, but definitely a lack of respect for the law - and yes that is a punishable offense.

Similarly, if a specific method of torture contravenes domestic or international laws, then it is a crime, no matter if the outcome of the torture had a moral purpose or not (let alone that it actually achieved that outcome).

And yet when we're discussing issues of morality I don't think current conventions should go unchallenged. I agree that if you break the law you have committed a crime. What I do not agree with is that if you break the law you have committed an immoral act.

Case in point - marijuana use.

Torture may be morally justified in a very small number of specific cases, but certain torture methods remain unjustifiable.

Why?

Adopting a policy that allows the systematic use of torture (regardless of established guilt) or the arbitrary application of illegal methods should be considered criminal, and hence morally unsound...

As stated above, criminal!=morally unsound. It might simply be practically unsound. Legality can't be used to determine morality (there have been some very immoral laws).

 

[FoolKiller]

No, there are worse crimes that would still be deserving. That is the smallest crime that I can think of that would justify torture.

So, you don't believe that lifelong imprisonment or the death penalty are enough for certain crimes? Or would this torture punishment be tacked on to their other punishment. You know, strap them into the chair, then take a blow torch to them before you flip the switch?

I don't want to be misunderstood. My reasoning has nothing to do with retribution - only with what you can justifiably expect from other peoples' behavior toward you given your own actions.

Then please point out other crimes that would justify it, because the only one you mentioned screams retribution by itself.

I don't see that we'd have to ask them. But it might be justifiable for those acts to be permitted.

If it was justifiable and we performed these acts on prisoners someone official has to do it as part of their job, so yes, you have to ask someone to do it. Or would forcing a criminal to rape/torture/whatever another prisoner be a part of their punishment? I am sure we could eventually develop some Star Wars device, but that still requires someone to stand by and watch it be administered in order to make sure there is not a life threatening malfunction.

Nor do we allow those criminals the right to violate the rights of innocent people. In short, violating someone's rights does not permit you to violate rights again. So criminals must observe our rights, but we need not observe all of theirs. (ie: they can't kill a guard or another prisoner, but we can lock them up)

But guards also cannot beat or kill them for no reason. Beyond their prescribed punishment we do not just randomly violate their rights even more. Similarly with monetary damages. If after monetary damages are extracted, say via a fine, we do not just get to take whatever else happens to be left in their bank accounts unless it was already obtained illegally, thus making it not theirs anyway.

There is a limit to how much rights violation can be performed as punishment because these people are still humans and most are still expected to return to society at some point.

That's not the only thing our justice system does. It also penalizes criminals by seizing property, their right to vote, in some cases we force them to perform labor, and in rare cases we remove their right to life.

Property seizure is a part of paying financial punitive damages, or because it was obtained using illegally obtained money. If a guy goes to jail for murder and that is his only punishment his property is still his property. It doesn't suddenly become public property. Well, at least not here. I forgot that you live in CA and property rights are at the whim of the government.

We remove their right to life because it is obvious that they have little hope of being a functional member of society and will continue to be a danger to themselves and/or others. Death sentences carry very strict reasonings (or should if they don't) and are not just arbitrarily handed out.

As for the loss of the right to vote: I feel it shouldn't be permanent and after a certain amount of time of proving they have fully become a functional part of society they should get it back. But the goal there is to prevent known criminals from being able to vote their own into office (there is a joke here, I'm just not able to put it in words).

We do it not because they are human, but because it is necessary to enforce human rights. We take away only those rights justifiable by their actions.

And I have yet to see you creating a justification for torture as punishment.

But if we did not expect most criminals to return to society I think I would buy this a bit better, but we do, and as such they are still citizens (or is it just civilians without a right to vote?) of the US. So, you have to draw your limit on how you treat humans who are going through the justice system and still treat them as humans to a degree.

 

[Danoff]

So, you don't believe that lifelong imprisonment or the death penalty are enough for certain crimes?

You're still not quite getting my position. It's not that I think torture should be required for certain crimes, but that it's justifiable.

Then please point out other crimes that would justify it, because the only one you mentioned screams retribution by itself.

Mass murder.

If it was justifiable and we performed these acts on prisoners someone official has to do it as part of their job, so yes, you have to ask someone to do it.

This goes along with my first response. You may not have any trouble finding someone who was willing to torture a criminal voluntarily - but if you did, there's nothing requiring you to do so.

But guards also cannot beat or kill them for no reason. Beyond their prescribed punishment we do not just randomly violate their rights even more.

Agreed. That is beside my point. My point is that the prescribed punishment for some crimes could justifiably include torture.

Similarly with monetary damages. If after monetary damages are extracted, say via a fine, we do not just get to take whatever else happens to be left in their bank accounts unless it was already obtained illegally, thus making it not theirs anyway.

Agreed, I don't see how this affects anything I wrote.

There is a limit to how much rights violation can be performed as punishment because these people are still humans and most are still expected to return to society at some point.

Not all are expected to return to society - certainly not someone guilty of a crime that justifies torture. I see no reason why we must be required to treat someone as human when that person has demonstrated that he is unwilling to do so for us.

If a guy goes to jail for murder and that is his only punishment his property is still his property.

It depends on his crime. Sometimes we take property as punitive damage.

And I have yet to see you creating a justification for torture as punishment.

I have justified it, quite carefully actually. I think you're getting confused with the fact that I didn't provide a motive for it - and I prefer not to.

 

[FoolKiller]

I had a whole bunch of stuff written, but after I got to the end I think I just need this for now.

I have justified it, quite carefully actually. I think you're getting confused with the fact that I didn't provide a motive for it - and I prefer not to.

Do you mean this?

So human rights must be reciprocal, which means no rights are exempt from forfeit. If someone tortures you, and you have not violated anyone's rights, that person is open to torture himself.

On a purely raw scale you may be correct, but that reads as a form of retribution. Just because someone violates certain rights, and thus may forfeit those rights for himself, does not mean you should act in kind. Having a proper respect for rights should mean that you are only willing to punitively revoke someone's rights to the degree necessary. And torture is never necessary.

Am I on the right track now? You don't personally think it should be a prescribed punishment, but because rights are reciprocal you find it justified?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

There are even better examples, but I think the example that President Obama gave last night during his Presidential address on the reason why torture is morally reprehensible and goes against much of what this country was founded on, was the example of World War II, and Winston Churchill's strong opposition to torturing prisoners for information, despite the fact that what we went through with 9/11 pails by comparison to what Britain and it's civilians went through during WWII. Frankly it was embarrassing to me to see many Americans treating 9/11 as one of the worst atrocities, when it wouldn't even make it on the Top 1000 list of historic atrocities.

Yet despite all death and destruction caused by German bombing, and despite the remote possibility that through torture, perhaps they might have been able to end the bombing and the war sooner, rather than later. They did not. Why? As Churchill put it, once you start making exceptions to ones moral high ground, it starts corrupting the character of the people.


BTW: For those that still cling to the old Bush doctrine that says they were only "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war protected by the articles of the Geneva Convention, then I suggest you read up on the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment treaty... which the US signed and ratified.

In a nut shell, there has been very little in the way of proof that torture results in accurate information that could not have been gotten any other way, but there is countless proof that torture is in human and brings down the moral character of the people who allow it to happen, including the victims.

 

[Danoff]

Do you mean this?

Yup.

Am I on the right track now? You don't personally think it should be a prescribed punishment, but because rights are reciprocal you find it justified?

Very close. The only thing incorrect is that on occasion I think it should be a prescribed punishment - but only in rare instances when there is something very positive to be gotten from it and more importantly when the criminal has done something to justify it.

As Churchill put it, once you start making exceptions to ones moral high ground, it starts corrupting the character of the people.

What exception to moral high ground are you making when you torture someone who's actions warrant such a response?

In a nut shell, there has been very little in the way of proof that torture results in accurate information that could not have been gotten any other way, but there is countless proof that torture is in human and brings down the moral character of the people who allow it to happen, including the victims.

That's a practical argument, not a principled one. It may well be morally acceptable to torture but still be a bad idea.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

What exception to moral high ground are you making when you torture someone who's actions warrant such a response?

Many people and countries, including including your own and the other 140 or so countries that signed and ratified that UN treaty, believe it is immoral to torture ANYONE... thus NO action can warrant it in their view... but clearly not your view, which points out that many people have different morals... after all, I'm sure Hitler thought it was perfectly justifiable and morally acceptable to perform genocide... fortunately I suspect most would disagree.

 

[Danoff]

Many people and countries, including including your own and the other 140 or so countries that signed and ratified that UN treaty, believe it is immoral to torture ANYONE... thus NO action can warrant it in their view... but clearly not your view, which points out that many people have different morals... after all, I'm sure Hitler thought it was perfectly justifiable and morally acceptable to perform genocide... fortunately I suspect most would disagree.

I provided a rational explanation for my conclusion. What's yours?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I provided a rational explanation for my conclusion. What's yours?

It may be rational to you based on your morals, that doesn't mean it's a rational explanation to someone with a different set of morals.

Torture, based on my moral character, is morally reprehensible sadistic behavior, and I personally would never justify it... and based on what we see in terms of laws and treaties and public opinion polls, it appears the majority of people on Earth agree... but I also completely understand, as I mentioned before, there are people who have different morals than others.. and some perhaps with none at all... but that doesn't mean I have to sink to their level even if I am a victim of their abuse.

 

[Danoff]

It may be rational to you based on your morals

Rationality is not based on morals, and it is not subjective.

My position on this subject is based on rationality. What is yours based on? Democracy? Instinct? Emotion?