Torture and Moral Relativism
Dean Barnett, cont'd.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Life Issues — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Alexham has been covering this story in RedHot for a while now, but I wanted to provide a chance for all of our commenters to weigh in on what is becoming an increasingly acrimonious debate. Several other conservatives have been busy taking apart Dean Barnett's truly awful post on the subject, including Daniel Larison (more here,), Mark Shea, and Rod Dreher. I should say, to begin with, that I am not as clear about the existence of a categorical imperative against torture as some of my brethren are (I believe that the law should never condone it, but that mercy might be appropriate in certain circumstances), and I have never heretofore had a problem with Dean Barnett. Nevertheless, his post is a very bad and disturbing one, and needs to be discussed for its larger implications; namely, the growing sense among purported conservatives (even religious ones) that any measure taken (or which might be taken) which advances the self-preservation of this country is ipso facto justified.
Dean has responded today, and he fails to give any credit to his many critics, and indeed accuses them in engaging in nothing more than "name calling." You have the links before you (which Dean neglected to include in his own post for some reason) - you can make your own call as to whether Dean's characterization of his opponents even approaches intellectual honesty. Nevertheless, Dean has some questions for us, and I'm happy to answer them below the fold...
Click to read on...
Dean poses:
The question for the anti-torture people is, How many innocent lives would you be willing to surrender so that we might live up to this principle? As a further inquiry, were a mushroom cloud to rise over an American city and we had not exhausted every conceivable effort to prevent such a catastrophe, would you still feel you had done right?
There is, as I have said, a very lively debate as to whether the "choice of the lesser evils" doctrine should be available to a criminal defendant who has taken another human life. The basic reason for this is that to apply it properly, it requires the finder of fact to make a judgment about the significance of a non-event - a judgment which we as humans are particularly ill-suited to make. There are some circumstances in which the law ought not invite someone to make a choice based on his own belief (reasonable or not) that some greater evil will be prevented. If, after the fact, our best guess indicates that the correct choice was made, this *may*, in certain circumstances, invite the executive to extend clemency or mercy. To say, a priori, that any one who makes such a choice will be excused invites the would-be torturer/killer to make such a choice with far greater recklessness.
Of course you would, because moral introspection apparently isn’t your bag.
And here I thought "name calling" was not Dean Barnett's "bag."
But do you think your countrymen would share your sense of self-satisfaction as they raced to avoid the fallout?
I have no doubt that pure self-preservation is the highest motive for a great many people; I have no idea why this fact should be glorified.
Is what I’m saying here a sad exercise in moral relativism? Obviously. But it’s an arrogant philosopher’s stance to think that we can fight a war without doing the intellectual equivalent of getting our hands dirty. The refusal to address the moral consequences of the anti-torture position is especially glaring when so many are doing so much more than getting just their figurative hands dirty. At the very least, intellectual honesty requires an answer to the simple question of what kind of sacrifices are in order to honor the moral imperative of treating Khalid Sheikh Muhammad with kid gloves.
Apparently, Dean is unaware that the very existence of jus in bello is an indication that us arrogant philosophers have contemplated that there is a certain amount of hand-dirtying which is justified in war which is not justified in peacetime. As such, his constant invocation of the assertion that we would "treat Khalid Sheikh Muhammad with kid gloves" or "keep him warm and cuddly" is just a ridiculous straw man - the question is not whether an enemy combatant must always be treated nicely, but rather whether there is a certain kind of treatment of another human being that jus in bello does not justify. If the answer to that question is "no," (as Dean seems to assert) then Dean has basically conceded the point that a man (or a society) may undertake literally any action in the advance of his self-preservation.
Dean may be comfortable making such an assertion; I am not. Sorry to "call names" like that, Dean, but that's just where I come from on this.
P.S. None of this has the foggiest bit to do with the rhetoric that is commonly thrown around in the abortion debate, unless your argument is that moral relativism is somehow a *positive good* to be pursued by conservatives. From that view, also, I dissent.
« First Principles — Comments (34) | Quote of the Day (from yesterday) — Comments (0) »
Torture and Moral Relativism 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What evidence do you have to suggest that waterboarding works, while ripping out fingernails doesn't?
Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.
anecdotal from people who've been exposed to it and from people who've done it.
Ripping out fingernails and it's cousins are not reliable because they incite people to say whatever is necessary to make it stop.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
your statement
Ripping out fingernails and it's cousins are not reliable because they incite people to say whatever is necessary to make it stop.
Presumes that torturers are de facto retards.
Just like a polygraph examiner has baseline questions to which he knows the answer the same principle applies to torture. If you know you can't make it stop if you lie and you don't know how much your interrogators know you tell the truth to avoid terrifying manicurists for the rest of your life.
I can't speak to sensory deprivation, but you talk under waterboarding because you think you are going to die and you don't want to.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Ignoring your mean-spirited little foray into bashing people with mental disabilities, I'll take issue with your characterization of torture and truth-telling. U.S. policy has not traditionally relied on torture, in part because our intelligence community has concluded that it's just not very reliable.
Torture doesn't work as a method of interrogation because an innocent person will cop to something in order to stop the pain. Even if the suspect isn't sure of what the interrogators know, the suspect knows that they DON'T know something. Your primary concern would be to convince them that you are giving them that piece of information. This contrasts with more conventional interrogation, which allows a suspect to do more calculation with respect to the future. The prisoner's dilemma isn't really a dilemma when one of the prisoners is being waterboarded, etc.
Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.
That's verbal abuse and in any lefties book would easily classify as torture. You are trying to degrade him in front of people who respect him, respect his service and respect his opinion.
SHAME ON YOU! If I were Thomas, you would have a 2500 word essay on hurtful, hateful speech.
And just for the record, if I was put in a position of questioning someone who I was reasonably sure had actionable intel, the Cherokee women would take notes.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Nest time you open a post like this you're gone. Just so you areen't surprised.
Your understanding of how torture is used is sadly lacking.
Torture doesn't work as a method of interrogation because an innocent person will cop to something in order to stop the pain. Even if the suspect isn't sure of what the interrogators know, the suspect knows that they DON'T know something.
You do see the contradiction in these statements, right? If you "cop to something" and it is a lie the pain doesn't stop. Because you don't know what they know it is not in your best interests to lie about anything. Basic game theory.
The prisoner's dilemma isn't really a dilemma when one of the prisoners is being waterboarded, etc.
There are about a dozen people on this list who have been waterboarded. I can't speak for them but I'd disagree.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
imminent death - both very powerful mental stimuli. Ripping out fingernails, while very painful, does not evoke the same intense fear and dread.
Waterboarding is a powerful tool, which when coupled with proper interrogation techniques, often rapidly yields results. I've had it done to me.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
In my case, I was exposed to waterboarding in in a realistic training environment since I used to work in a 'high risk of capture' line of work. It was invaluable training, done by professionals, and it prepares folks to best resist and counter interrogation techniques and scenarios. I did not suffer any long-term negative effects, but certainly got a glimpse into my soul and how I handle intense stress.
Training scenario or not - trust me - you think you're drowning..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
But I would go farther and add that when it comes to the preservation of the lives of my family and friends, NOTHING is beyond the pale short of giving up. But that's my personal hypocrisy. I don't condone extreme acts on the part of others as a general rule.
I do not take any position on Barnett's abortion comments, but I fully agree that when lives are on the line (re: war) torture and carpet bombing and other such horrors are par for the course.
War exists not so that we can all learn to get along. The "Clean War" is a fallacy and can only lead to either the defeat of the nation attempting that method of waging war, or the extreme shown in a particular Star Trek (Kirk) episode.
The purpose of waging war is to convince the enemy of their evil ways and force them to their knees to beg for forgiveness and to never want to go to war again.
Germany and Japan are perfect examples of this. How likely are they to ever engage in war in the foreseeable future? They are terrified of the prospect.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
And what does Dean call torture?
And one that admits of no easy answer. I would say that death is the most severe sufferig which may be inflicted, even in war; so, at the very least, any suffering which would make a person of reasonable fortitude prefer death is torture, although that's probably not an all-inclusive list. On the other hand, I would reject a definition so lax as to include "sleep deprivation," for sure.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
And often involves little or no suffering. According to Osama bin Laden, death is preferable for good Moslems over accepting the evils of the West. Is the West by its existance torturing Moslems?
I would say the prevalence of suicide in prison means many in prison prefer death over incarceration. So is incarceration torture?
The ACLU argues the positives of these questions nearly every day in our courts.
I think the issue is the dumbing down of what torture is that is the problem here.
I have listened to hugh and dean for awhile, and I doubt if they havve suddenly decided to favor torture. I think in stead that we are suffering from leftist agenda creep - the highjacking of issues by leftists who redefine things so as to control them.
I'll just say flat out that while I don't like the idea, I don't object to hooking someone up to the jumper cables if there is a fleeting chance he may have the one bit of information I don't have and need.
I'm not talking "ticking time bomb" I'm talking safe house location, radio frequency, bank account number, password, telephone number, anything that he knows I want to know.
I like the original DoD definition which said anything is okay so long as it doesn't result in loss of limb, organ failure, or permanent mutilation.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
There is nothing that I would not do to save my family and friends from those who would do them harm and I expect the same diligence from my government. The Geneva convention caveat is silly as 90% of those we fight never abide by it, so we look weak and stupid when we do.
Peace through superior fire power:)
An obvious ethical question would be: would you torture a person you know to be innocent if it saved your family and friends? What if you couldn't be certain it would save them? At what percentage of certainty do you draw that line?
As for the 'terrorists don't follow rules' argument, what would you say to those who would argue that America should be held to a higher standard than bin Laden and his band of troglodytes?
Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.
I have always liked to think that America has higher standards than what the enemy does. The ticking bomb scenario is still somewhat of a moral delemna to me. But torture as a general policy in war I am still against.
An obvious ethical question would be: would you torture a person you know to be innocent if it saved your family and friends?
To see any "obvious ethical" relation between water boarding (or even torturing) a butcher like Khalid Sheik Mohammed to save other prospective innocents from his aims to kill them, and torturing someone "you know to be innocent" requires a conception of ethics too illogical to go by the name of ethics.
If someone takes part in engdangering others' lives, he incurs an obligation to repair that danger. That ethical principle applies even as the basis for tort law where there was no malicious intent, even before we raise it to the level of how to deal with terrorists. If an Al Qaeda official is reluctant to live up to his responsibility to help stop the mass murder conspiracy he participated in, it's perfectly ethical to force him to reduce the danger he created. How far it's ok to go forcing him to fulfill that obligation, rises proportionally with how much harm would be done allowing his malicious goals to succeed.
I wouldn't allow a victim to punch out some deadbeat, to make him fulfill his responsibility to pay for the car he hit while driving drunk. But where the suffering inflicted on a terrorist is far less than the suffering and death caused if the terrorist is allowed to shirk his responsibility to reduce the danger he created, it would be profoundly immoral to not force the terrorist to fulfill his obligation to his prospective victims.
This has no relationship to torturing a person "you know to be innocent", because that innocent person has not done some harmful act that incurs an enforcible obligation to undo that harm.
what would you say to those who would argue that America should be held to a higher standard than bin Laden and his band of troglodytes?
I would ask you to name some names, which Americans do you believe don't hold America to a higher standard than bin Laden?
Against citizens of all nationalities including Americans?
Or are you referring to cases in which only Americans were the torturers?
And I think it may be pretty much as illegal as it can be, becasue of the Geneva convention. One of the reasons that I am in favor of the war in Iraq is that we were liberating people from a torturing dictator. I realize that not everone follows the rules about torture, but two rights do not make a wrong. The America I see the soldiers fighting for is an America with ideals, not just another country trying to survive.
Where did I say that anybody has a right to torture? Either I am communicating poorly or you are reading poorly. What I was arguing was that America does not have the right to torture just because other people torture. I find torture to be Immoral, and don't find a right for it - allthough the ticking bomb scenarion does present me with a moral dilemna. So if you can tell me where I argues that Americans have the right to torture please tell me, because I certainly cannot seem to find it.
In case you haven't noticed, NOBODY we've ever been at war with bothered with the Geneva Conventions. Germany, Japan, North Korea, China, Vietnam (VC, NVA, etal), various Communist insurgencies during the cold war, Iran (1979-80), Islamofacists at any point from 1979 forward and especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The West are the only folks who actually worry about such niceties as the Geneva Conventions and whether torture might be a problem.
You folks on the Left never cease to be able to shock me with your abject stupidity at how the world really is. Pathetic.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The only question that I can find is the following:
"Where did I say that anybody has a right to torture?" Which certainly is not the question to which you are refering because a mentally stable person could ask why somebody said that they said something they did not, plus the rest of your paragraph had nothing to do with the question. I am well aware that other countries torture and my point is that America is better than these countries in that respect, at least I hope we are.
I wasn't responding to you, although interestingly enough, I did hit the "Reply to This" button on your comment by mistake and had to start over when I realized what I had done. Fortunately, I caught it before I Posted it. (For once)
The comment I responded to was:
Do you agree with torture being made legal in the whole world? by JustBeautiful
Against citizens of all nationalities including Americans?
Or are you referring to cases in which only Americans were the torturers?
Hope it makes more sense now... :>)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
If gathering intelligence, is it domestic, foreign or military, and is it strategic, tactical or operational? Is there a perceived threat, and if so, is the level of risk minimal, gathering or eminent? Is the subject friendly, neutral or hostile?
If the following elements apply: military, operational (actionable), eminent and hostile, then by all available means.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
on one condition.... it means saving the lives of Americans.
I say, by whatever mea “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
if it *might* save the lives of Americans.
Realistically, can you expect to know that a person has such life saving information until they actually give it up? If the answer to that question is no, then what degree of certainty is needed? Do we resort to torture when there is any chance a person may have such information, and if so, doesn't that justify the use of torture in almost any circumstance?
to be asked of anyone who proclaims they are morally opposed to torture.
Here is the question: If you are holding a pyschotic person who has your child, and has told you that the child was in a space which would explode in one hour--what limits would you impose on your efforts to learn where the child was?
I know, I know; many will proclaim this is hypothetical; it is not the same situation, etc. But, if you cannot confront that question; if you cannot honestly and confidently answer, then you have not thought the issue through seriously. I am simply not interested in your pontification on the subject.
On the other hand, if you would take every action, without limits, to save your child you are not in fact morally opposed to torture (when you have a personal stake in the outcome). So, don't lecture us from the soapbox of your hypocrisy.
Finally, if you are confident in your own mind that you would let your child die, then you do have the moral authority to lecture--and may God never require you to make the choice.
I used to believe that I was opposed to torture. In this world in which terroists slaughter without mercy, I have re-considered. I now believe that if there is good reason to think that a captive has knowledge that could stop a terrorist operation, it would be pure dereliction not to exploit that knowledge by any means available.
But I think circumstance plays a big part in such a decision. In the ticking-bomb scenario, for the record, if I thought the evil of torture would serve the greater good of saving others by providing information otherwise unobtainable, I'd not only favor it, but would do so myself to the best of my ability. I'm a pragmatist who generally sees moral absolutes as asymptotic goals, but only in so far as trying to achieve one doesn't break another of greater importance. Sacrificing the lives of others to avoid an act of torture in such a scenario doesn't strike me as a moral choice.
But frankly, I'm not sure how often such situations arise outside of episodes of "24". If at all possible, I'd far prefer we use persuasion, deprivation, deceit, and other techniques if the situation isn't absolutely time critical.
I'd also point out that if we're so willing to go to great lengths to achieve our goals, those lengths most frequently include restraint. We have to consider all consequences of our actions, not only the security benefits of brutality, but also the disastrous effects of those actions being publicized. If the world's people come to associate the United States with such brutality rather than our example of political and economic freedom, then we lose all power of moral persuasion and are left with only fear and force and an endless, bloody war of attrition.
Let's not forget that cruel has nothing to do with whether or not the person deserve this punishment. Punishment is said to be cruel when it causes great pain or distress. This might not definitely apply to those who advocate not so painful punishment such as waterboarding; this is an example of a type of punishment that is subject to debate on whether or not it's torture. But when it comes to ripping off nails and similar stuff, it is definitely unconstitutional to perform it on Americans.
If you are for torture on Americans, you are inevitably in favor of an ammendment on the constitution.
...it's not a reliable method to collect good intelligence. I don't have a moral dog in this fight. Yeah, I'm a Democrat but don't confuse me with those who would weaken the national security in this country, from both sides of the aisle.
In Vietnam, we found the carrot worked better than the stick. Would I torture if I thought there was nothing else to do and a clock was ticking? I'd do whatever I had to get the information. But if I'm resorting to torture, I've done my job very poorly. Extracting information from the enemy is a lot more complicated than most people know and a dedicated enemy will lie to you with his dying breath. This ticking clock business is the stuff of TV and 24 is a joke, made up by TV writers.
I imagine that is slightly more likely than the " what would you do if a building was on fire and there were test-tubes of stem cells and a child and you could only save one" hypothetical situation pro-choices like to use. But hypothetical situations can always end up turning into reality in some form or another so I suppose it is good to think about it.
hello,
As a born-again Christian who belongs to a Baptist church, and well aware of true Baptist history that is filled with stories of torture and persecution through centuries, I find torture to be distasteful. Yes, I know that the religious torture is not necessarily snonymous with military torture designed to gather intelligence and other crucial information. But at some point, I think we have to admit torture is torture, period.
Having said that, I think the most important question we must ask ourselves is not whether torture works or not, but what kind of Christian values we hold dearly in our hearts? Do that include allowing torture in certain cases especially during the time of war as we are in right now?
Do we dare to trust our earthly instincts more than God in the times of trouble and dangers? Some of you are offering hypoethical scenarios where torture is deemed crucial in saving ourselves from some great dangers, but the Bible warns us not to worry too much about tomorrow, but concentrate on today's matters. Anybody can cook up hypoethical scenarios that fit their ideals or principles, even I can find something to justify the use of torture despite being a born-again Christian. But that doesn't make it right.
Worrying too much about ifs doesn't really answer the question of torture at all, it only serves the idea that it may be justified or not, if at all. For me, I believe that the use of torture implies we are no longer able to trust God totally that He will deliver us out of all kinds of trouble. I'm not talking about sitting around and doing nothing, that is not what faith is all about. Even ancient Israel used espionage to check out Canaan before it was conquered during Joshua's time, so that proves military intelligence-gathering activities are okay. If we want to acquire better information, I think the best thing we can do is to work on our greatest strength, and that lies in developing superior electronic intelligence gathering activities and allowing military to establish local intelligence networks to ascertain certain tactical methods or developing a well-planned operational strategy. That kind of thing doesn't really compromise Christian values, therefore it should be pursued to the fullest extent possible.
I don't think America is better or holier than any other country on the subject of using torture, but still is the best country in the world, because she once strived to uphold good Christian values. Christian heritage is the very epitmone of what America is all about. And that is something I'd like to see continued long after I'm dead. If hypocrisy becomes the standard (that is condemning the others in using torture while we're using torture for our benefit), then what of our Christian values?
I offer my humble apologies if my post doesn't really make any sense whatsoever. I'm just trying to answer honestly as I can on this very difficult topic.
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
I was watching Gilmore Girls with my daughter today and Rory, the younger Yalie protagonist, gets upset at being slighted by someone and starts making a long list of extravagant torture techniques that are too good for the person who slighted her.
He boyfriend responds in mock horror that she knows way too much about torture.
"I wrote a paper on Alberto Gonzales," she replies.
My daughters hate it when I roll my eyes and mumble during their shows...
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
At least, according to Brian Ross of ABC News, who stated that independent sources confirmed to him that waterboarding "broke" both Khalid Sheik Mohammad and Ramzi bin Alshibh. I don't know if waterboarding qualifies as torture or not; either way, it apparently worked in this particular instance.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confir...
I am most certainly against torture in the more classical sense (pulling out fingernails, etc), but I personally don't think waterboarding and sensory deprivation count, and may therefore be used as a means of extracting information you are reasonably sure someone has and will not give up in any other fashion.
Waterboarding is high-tech, modern suffocation, and suffocation is a classic form of torture. In the Middle Ages they dunked supects under water repeatedly until they cracked (or died of suffocation). The Soviets used a drug to paralyze the suspect's lungs, then as they were nearing death would inject an antidote and morphine. A few rounds of that broke nearly everyone.
There are some circumstances which change the moral climate. In war, for instance, we kill without hesitation; in court, lawyers lie with great ethical stamina; and in defending our family, nation, or the human race itself, there is very little most of us would in the end refuse to do.
As I have said, here and elsewhere, torture has its place, a specific and tiny, verifiably bounded set of circumstances when it is not just allowed, it is the only thing to do.
As Bartlett said, torture victims lie to make the torture stop. They do that because they don't have the information the torturer wants.
We hate torture because it just sucks. It violates our sense of fairness to inflict pain on someone who can't fight back. It reminds us of everything that is evil about governments, and indeed, about Man. We don't want to be evil, and evil people torture.
Torturing out a confession is that sort of evil. Torturing to teach a lesson is that sort of evil. Torturing to stop a greater evil is a bit more tricky.
If there is information that has a known broken chain: this fellow definitely knows where the next link is, but not what it is
-AND-
waiting will not work
-AND-
his answers can be checked quickly, but not arrived at otherwise,
-AND-
his answers are not about incriminating him, only solving the problem
-AND-
no matter how much pain is inflicted on him, it will still save more suffering of others,
-THEN-
torture is demanded.
Somewhere between total annihilation of the entire human race and spitting on the sidewalk is a line above which we would torture to prevent the crime, or a series of them, from occurring, and below which we would not. Refusing to face that is to simply shy away from a hard question because it doesn't sound nice.
--
See the Academy
In more than one comment above, the question was raised whether one would torture an "innocent." By this, I assume, the writer (or writers) mean a person with no culpable knowledge. My response is that, as an "innocent" by definition is presumed to know nothing, torture is always wrong.
If you are interested in securing information, you should consentrate your attentions on those who have knowledge of the information that you are seeking. In simple terms, those who may be considered "guilty." Torturing a peron who is completely ignorant about the subject is a sheer waste of time and effort. It is bad enough, in the real world, that investigators often waste time questioning people that have had nothing to do with the crime being investigated because of lack of information but to question (or torture) someone that you know is innocent is the height of stupidity.
I spent some time on another site trying every which way I could to get anti-torture humanists to state or admit to just what kind of stressful or coercive measures they would use.
The parameters were and are basic but realistic; you have reason to believe or suspect that the prisoner has information. The information can relate to any number of different situations helpful to military operations. For times sake the reader may fill in the blanks.
As the efficacy of those military operations are at stake you may, rather you must, conclude that certain results can obtain; you may preserve or protect the lives of your fellows in uniform, you may cause damage through inflicting casualties or taking prisoners and possibly gaining further intelligence. Additionally you may prevent or preclude enemy operations aimed against targets allied or related to your units or cause. You may therefore save lives.
Dammed if I could ever get an answer. Which tell me that the moral dramatics were more important then human life, the opportunity to wail "what kind of nation have we become" more valuable than the continued survival of other persons.
That in a word it was all bull----.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I don't agree with a policy of using torture as a normal information gathering process. However, in the case of a direct pending WMD threat we must do whatever is necessary to prevent a nuclear attack. I just don't see how you can explain to the families of thousands of the dead or dying that we didn't feel it was morally correct to torture what other intelligence told us was a prime suspect. When the moral scale has one million lives on one side and the agony of an individual on the other I think the one million lives should always win out.
In the near future this moral discussion may be pointless as we may be able to scan the brain and detect when someone is lying.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11117-can-a-brain-scan-prove-y...
and figuruing out why is another.
In the near future this moral discussion may be pointless as we may be able to scan the brain and detect when someone is lying.
It's highly unlikely that we'd ever perfect a scanner capable of extracting actual information, so that leaves us with a 20-questions style binary search for what we need to know. Granted, if the truth machine is designed to automatically tingle the poor sap whenever it detects a lie, that search can be pretty fast.
But there will always be a cat-and-mouse chase, as people figure out how to game the system, the system gets better, and repeat.
--
See the Academy
He should have bailed on it and just started over.
With reference to "torture" OTOH, you would find me in the - SURPRISE, SURPRISE - pro-torture group. With a couple of caveats. I favor using the stuff that works and ripping out fingernails generally doesn't. Waterboarding, sensory deprivation, etc has been found to be very effective and produces no long-lasting harmful effects. For the record, I also don't give a rip if it DOES produce harmful effects.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.