POLL: Torture?...A little?...Or More?...Or OUCH!!??

Remove all ads!

Something I watched a couple of weeks ago disturbed me, and is still disturbing me, so I thought I'd conduct a poll.

The Republican candidates for President--I believe there were twelve of them--were having a debate on the Fox News channel, and the moderator asked a very loaded question relating to the use of torture. I don't remember the exact question, but a fair paraphrase would be, "Your mother has been seized by terrorists; she's bound and gagged; the lead terrorist approaches her with a flaying knife...Meanwhile you have captured a member of the gang who knows where your mother is being held. Would you torture this captive to find out where your mother is being held, so you could rescue her?" (I believe the actual question had something to do with Cuba and nuclear weapons, or maybe anthrax.)

Anyway, eleven of the twelve candidates had no hesitation in answering that, "Yes, they would torture." None of them thought to point out that the question was loaded and a bit unfair. The lone exception was John McCain, a Senator from Arizona,who had himself been tortured as a POW in Vietnam. He said simply, "I do not believe in the use of torture."

This readiness on the part of eleven of twelve candidates of a major party to accept the use of torture is really fairly appalling, a real measure of the moral degeneration of our national discourse. Which takes me back to another Republican, Dwight David Eisenhower, twice President of the United States, and, before that, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces in western Europe in World War Two.

In the spring of 1945, Nazi Germany was collapsing, and the first concentration camps were liberated. Eisenhower was taken to view one of them. His reaction was simple and visceral; he vomited. Then he ordered that as many US troops as possible should be toured through the camps, so that they would know what they were fighting against.

Apparently, eleven of the twelve Republican candidates for the office of President of the United States would be only too happy to lap up Ike's vomit. Which brings us to the poll.

There are no shades of grey here: do you support a little torture? A medium amount? Give me the knives? Perhaps someone else will put that one up. But do exercise your democratic right and vote early and often.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 25 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Torture?...A little?...Or More?...Or OUCH!!?? (25 votes.)

Torture?...A little?...Or More?...Or OUCH!!?? (Choose 1)
* I would vote for a candidate for the President of the United States who supported the use of torture. - 36% (9)
* I would not vote for a candidate for the office of President of the United States who supported the use of torture. - 64% (16)

 

I find the whole dispute in the US about the issue bizarre to say the least. Two days ago I read that Supreme Court judge Scalia discussed the merits of torture based on the actions of Jack Bauer. Yay! Let's discuss the merits of science based on Superman. To quote the otherwise silly Andrew Sullivan on this: "Earth to Justice Scalia: Jack Bauer does not exist."

It find it appaling that Scalia is supporting measures that violate so fundamentally the spirit and ideals behind the very legal order he has made an oath to uphold. Disgusting spectacle.

And I find even worse that apparently to many Americans (as in: enough to make it a campaign argument) the refusal of torture doesn't come natural and out of principle, and that they are resceptible to approve torture on utilitarian arguments. Darkly ironic to hear that from the party that takes pride in being 'pro life' and in opposing abortion or stem cell research out of principle. Speak about moral consistency.

The whole idea is deranged, and based on the faulty presumption that torture makes Americans safer, or worse, that that way complete safety can be ensured. Whoever promises that is a fraud.

What does America stand for? Jack Bauer, the SS, Gulags? Bleh. For some candidtates and their target audience that list includes: 'Double Gitmo' and 'Torture'. Sickening.

 

Now, now, Ragusa, morality only pertains to what you do in the bedchamber and the consequences thereof. It has nothing to do with giving to the poor or not torturing people or silly things like turning the other cheek.

 

I dont think the question in the poll is a fair one, if the question were the same as the one the candidates were asked then yes I would use torture if my mother was being tortured. What is so wrong about that? If people are willing to take a skinning knife to a woman why not take a knife to them? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Furthermore because the candidates said they would use torture to save their mother does not mean they support torture. When someone close to you is in danger you will do anything, things you would'nt even contemplate under other circumstances.

I won't vote in the poll because I'm not sure if it is just intender for US SP'ers.

 

I think it is foolish to think that a leader wouldn't use any means necessary to protect their nation. Using the Jack Bauer analogy, he tortures people to find out where the nuclear/bio terror/ etc. weapons are that are going to wipe out entire cities. That makes perfect sense to me. What else should he do? Have the state department come in and try to negotiate a treaty?

Torture may be the only solution for some problems, it isn't like people are advocating it for shoplifting.

Is it a slippery slope, of course it is. To think it hasn't been done by every nation is foolish.

Probably the best thing about the question was that all twelve candidates answered the question as asked. They didn't spend their time "not-answering" it or trying to qualify their answers.

 

I have a feeling this has been discussed before, but: the analogy is nonsense. The ticking-time-bomb scenario is completely, totally divorced from reality.

Asking 'what would you do if [ticking time bomb scenario]' is as pointless as asking 'what would you do if [War of the Worlds]'. Well, no, that's not quite true, as the way candidates respond was illuminating. But that's simply because most of them apparently were unable to grasp the basic point that the hypothetical offered was stupid.

If the torture issue was actually about acquiring effective intelligence, people would be screaming bloody murder for more Arabic, Farsi, and Pushtu training. But they're not, because it isn't. It's about domestic politics. Apparently, being willing to torture plays well with the base. Or, at least, is perceived to play well with the base.

Mmm. Y'know what, it's easier for me to link to this than to argue myself.

 

I personally would have used the analogy of the Nicolas Cage character in Guarding Tess. In it, he blows a guys toe (?) off and then holds the gun up to another toe to get the villian to tell Cage where Tess is. It worked in the movies at least -- and it may even work in real life.

If it was someone I cared about, and I had the opportunity, I think I would use 'any means necessary' to obtain the information (after all I'm not a police officer and don't care whether or not the guy goes to prison). I personally have little respect for someone unwilling to protect loved ones.

Using torture as an method of intelligence ... no, I agree with McCain.

By the way, the statement 'only too happy to lap up Ike's vomit' is ridiculously over-dramatic.

 

I would not vote some one who advocated torture without qualifications. Does torture really work? Maybe in some cases. Is it ever justified?

The questions in the poll is very specific and personal. I would probably do anything I could to save a person I loved but where do you draw the line? If a president believes his country to be in serious danger wouldn't he do anything to save the country?

 

I'm with AMaster completly on this one. This is utter nonsense and completely misses the point.

Saying that our government needs to be free to torture because of the "ticking time bomb" stuff (which even the CIA says never happens in real life) is like saying that we shouldn't prohibit speeding, because there are certain instances where one just needs to speed. After all, if your wife is in labor, you'll do "whatever is necessary" to get her to the hospital, right?

Snook is right in that yes, it has been (and will be) done by every nation. Of course it will. Government agents will do what is necessary to stop tragedies in dire situations. But that doesn't justify ANY policy that allows them the freedom to do so - especially with regard to torture. Justice requires something that seems to have been a foreign concept to Republicans since 9/11: accountability.

In the extremely unlikely "ticking bomb" scenario, all bets are off. The fictional Jack Bauer is always in deep sh*t with the brass because he's not allowed to do what he does, yet is morally justified in doing it anyway because "there's no TIME!!!" Inbetween seasons, he's held accountable for his actions. He also knows he's constantly putting himself in peril by doing so, which some seem to forget.

I don't trust the government to be free to use torture in anything but the most dire of situations, and neither should you (if you're really a conservative, that is). If a govt. agent does blow somebody's toe off, they'll likely be justified in doing so - BUT they need to be made to answer for that extreme action later on. They need to made to stand before a judge exactly why and how they did it. That's how the law works.

That serious presidential contenders - with a straight face - are holding up FICTIONAL TELEVISION CHARACTERS as examples of why torture is justified should really be the last nail in our nation's coffin, seriously. In any rational universe, this would disqualify someone for the office. But that the conservative audience in attendance responded to that nonsense with thunderous applause, and not snickering laughter, is even more disturbing.

[ June 21, 2007, 16:38: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Just to chime in, in the TBS - ticking bomb scenario, there is a big problem with torture that is usually not mentioned. It seems people often forget one important option - that the torturee lies. It may be from hatred or just to stop the pain, or for who knows what readon, and blurts - as I have read has happened in such camps before - what he expects the torturers want to hear.

So what then? Then the torturer's judgement is at a huge disadvantage. Exactly in such scenarios, when there is little time - the torturer most wants to believe what he is being told. He wants to be right in using such methods (usually because at least some disapprove of him using them), he has no time to double-check and triple-check, he is feeling vindicated as the other man talks - and he can slip up, big time. It is a big risk, in fact, as even someone who is being honest probably does not know the entire truth and can embellish, skew, guess - and of course he is not exactly in a position to go over and impartially consider all the facts.

In short, I would not trust a man who says as a president he has no problem with it, even in extreme circumstances. It is an extreme measure, and thus I think that if it ever warrants use, the case should be treated as an anomaly, not as a rule. Not to mention that it is best considered at the professional level - in the CIA, for example - and not by a bunch of guys who have little expertise in either warfare or intelligence gathering.

 

Who said anything about creating a policy? I don't believe the question was "Would you create a department of torture and if so who would oversee it?" It was a theoretical question. Now if you take the answer of "yes" as the person is evil incarnate than that is your opinion. To me the answer tells me that they are a realist.

 

Except that the theoretical question they're responding to is no more realistic than an H.G. Wells novel.

Which is the crux of the matter; as the paper I linked to states, agreeing with the hypothetical does not commit anyone to supporting the actual practices of 'coercive interrogation' in our ongoing GWOT. Because the two are radically disimilar.

 

That's a great point, Shaman. Especially when you consider the enemy we're talking about here: jihadis, islamic extremists, taliban, etc. These are people who routinely blow themselves up for the service of their cause. They see their own suffering and death as "glorious."

If we torture and threaten to kill them, the ball is in their court. Either they blurt out what they think we want to hear, or they deliberately give us some bit of false intel they've been trained to give us to throw us off and waste our resources. Beyond that, plans in the works can and do change.

Say we catch a terrorist who is involved in Plot A. We suspect he may know about plots B, C, D, E and F, but there's only one way to be sure. We torture him over the course of a few months and years.

Worst case scenario: he tells us nothing of value and we inflict incalculable suffering and permenant damage on another human being, making us no better than our enemies.

Best case scenario: he tells us, in acute detail, everything we want to know about plots A-F. Problem is, in the time it took us to get this information, his buddies in Damascus - knowing their plans have been compromised - have dropped plots A,C and D, carefully revised B, E and F, and have merrily moved forward on plans G-M with a whole new crew. We catch a break and are able to foil the early stages of plot Y, though - score a huge victory for America.

The likelyhood of us getting something we can actually use from torture drops to such a low degree that I don't see how it's worth sacrificing the moral highground to do it. I wish the supporters of torture would spend less time watching 24 and Red Dawn and actually think this through.

EDIT - new post:

@ Snook,

Oh come on. You don't need a department of torture, just an official policy authorizing ethical leeway in obtaining information from suspects, regardless of what they've actually done.

I don't think that person is evil incarnate, but they'd be far from a realist. The idea that torture is the best way to get information about threats to this country from an enemy who routinely demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice one's self for his cause is not realism. It's stupidity.

[ June 21, 2007, 17:45: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

What do you mean by that? Do think that Hitler was not "protecting" his nation. I am glad that Cernack brought Hitler and Germany into this thread. In his own mind Hitler was defending the real Germany against a perceived "evil." We deceive ourselves into believing that aggression is not a defense. But instead believe in the arrogance and stupidity of a president who believes that he can change the entire culture of a region and thereby protect the way of life of his own country. Destroying someone else's culture is not promoting freedom, nor is it protecting liberty. There are differences in approach to this kind of faulty belief, but when those differences disappear, as in the use of "any means necessary," then they become both one and the same.

 

Godwin's law alert!

EDIT (below) - yep, you're right - he did indeed. I just hope we can leave the Hitler analogies out of this from here on out, for obvious reasons.

[ June 21, 2007, 18:09: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

DR - That's why I was glad it was Cernack who opened the thread with Hitler. :

 

Hmm...that's a better worse case scenario than mine, I admit. My "worst case" is probably much closer to a "typical case" scenario. Just ask Jose Padilla.

 

The current US love affair with torture, can only be justified with the presumption of guilt.

The proponents know that well. That is why every ticking time bomb terrorist of theirs is clearly a 'bad guy'. There is no doubt. There are no suspect terrorists, who may be just innocent bystanders. No ambiguity. Everything is clear. It is clear the subject of torture has information. And it must be 'extracted' because if he doesn't speak unspeakable harm will the the result.

The whole 'argumentum pro tormentum' hinges on the guy subjected to the question being guilty. It is a false dual choice. He is the culprit. Either we torture him or we are going to have a disaster. That means the scenario is artificial and unrealistic. You do not have such cases in real life.

Would one allow the thought that he is potentially innocent, people would refuse torture. Are you for torturing innocents, too? People are lulled into accepting torture by wanting to punish the bad guy. That's confused thinking. For that there is ample time, after trial. In fact the underlying sentiment is that the bad guy doesn't deserve mercy. It isn't about mercy. Not at all.

[ June 21, 2007, 22:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]