"Torture lite" takes hold in war on terror

[Herschel]

Rock music at full blast and the smothering darkness of a hood are sometimes enough to break a will already frayed by lack of sleep. If not, the subject can be slapped and shaken senseless, just short of permanent injury.

Honed against Arab suspects in Israel and widely decried as "torture lite", such interrogation methods are now a prevalent part of the U.S.-led war on terror, human rights groups say.

Yet many experts defend them as a last resort in a race to stop suicide attacks by al Qaeda, whose diffuse ranks have been notoriously hard for Western intelligence agencies to penetrate.

"Faced with terrorism, every democracy will resort to torture if it thinks this will prevent attacks against its civilians. The issue is whether such methods are used with deniability or accountability," said Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor

cut

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=467854§ion=news

Sadly, this so called torture of Arab suspects is necessary. Mr. Dershowitz makes a valid point. I will leave it at that.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Torture of Arab suspects is necessary -- huh?

I will leave it at that.

--bkl
I gotta lay off the major hallucinogens.

[Herschel]

2. A question for you

If only this so called torture could prevent a terrorist attack, would you support it?

[Birthmark]

4. No.

[Resistance]

5. Aha!!!

Then you must be a terrorist-supporter!! Gotcha!!!

:crazy:

[Herschel]

6. Oh, my

Better innocents to be blown up than an Arab suspect subjected to loud music. Please!

[Birthmark]

12. Ah, yes. The rhetorical dirty trick.

Very nice.

1. Do you have any evidence that torture provides information reliably - or will a victim tell us what we want to hear.

2. Can we use torture and remain the "good guys?"

3. How many people have been killed by terrorism vs. say...auto accidents? Some perspective might be useful.

4. I believe every time we lower our standards (approve of torture, curtail our own civil liberties, etc.) that we are giving terrorists a minor victory and motivating such attacks in the future.

5. Dehumanizing the enemy is the oldest trick in the book.

[Herschel]

16. Your answers

1. Do you have any evidence that torture provides information reliably - or will a victim tell us what we want to hear.

It produces both. Discriminating between the two is the responsibility of the interrogate.

2. Can we use torture and remain the "good guys?"

Yes.

3. How many people have been killed by terrorism vs. say...auto accidents? Some perspective might be useful.

I say one innocent life saved is worthwhile. What is your minimum?

4. I believe every time we lower our standards (approve of torture, curtail our own civil liberties, etc.) that we are giving terrorists a minor victory and motivating such attacks in the future.

I believe you are reaching. Don't prevent a terrorist attack because it could motivate another to be committed?

5. Dehumanizing the enemy is the oldest trick in the book.

I have no problem dehumanizing terrorists.

[Birthmark]

20. Not terribly good answers, were they?

1. Do you have any evidence that torture provides information reliably - or will a victim tell us what we want to hear.

It produces both. Discriminating between the two is the responsibility of the interrogate.

Since this no different than what occurs under standard interrogation, torture is of no benefit

2. Can we use torture and remain the "good guys?"

Yes.

Then how will we distinguish ourselves as good guys?

3. How many people have been killed by terrorism vs. say...auto accidents? Some perspective might be useful.

I say one innocent life saved is worthwhile. What is your minimum?

Cute. Ok, following the same "logic", we should imprison all male children beginning at birth since the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by males. This will save many more lives than anything associated with the war on terror. Is your minimum still one?

4. I believe every time we lower our standards (approve of torture, curtail our own civil liberties, etc.) that we are giving terrorists a minor victory and motivating such attacks in the future.

I believe you are reaching. Don't prevent a terrorist attack because it could motivate another to be committed?

You have jumped to the conclusion that torture has, or can, prevent *any* lives. This is unfounded. You also mischaracterize my position, but I am coming to expect that. The actual point was that by reacting at all, we are cooperating with terrorists. This will naturally be an encouragement to them since that is what they want.

5. Dehumanizing the enemy is the oldest trick in the book.

I have no problem dehumanizing terrorists.

And they have no problem dehumanizing you. I ask again: How are we to tell ourselves that we are good guys if we adopt the methods and attitudes of the bad guys.

[Herschel]

24. We will agree

torture need not be utilized if not effective. However, your other point seems to be this so called torture lowers us to the moral level of terrorists. Compelling an associate of killers to give life saving information is, quite simply, moral. We stand for democracy and freedom. Those opposing us stand for oppression and killing of innocents. Yet you wonder how we can know we are good and they are evil. Very sad for you.

[Birthmark]

26. Logical holes in your statement.

You're point seems to be that we are the good guys because we stand for democracy and freedom. Fair enough, but arbitrary and quite meaningless if we treat human beings the same as those that oppose us.

You also state that compelling associates of killers to give life saving information is moral. Does this then mean that simply associating with the "wrong kind of people" is grounds for torture? Can we compel these associates by threatening their infant children, if it's to save lives? You appear to value our lives above those of other cultures. Am I mistaken?

[Herschel]

27. I do not propose

we treat our enemy as they treat us. I do not propose we fly planes into buildings or blow up cafes, merely to kill innocents.

Well founded intelligence indicating a captive has information about a potential terrorist attack is grounds for torture. Holding this information and not reporting or sharing it makes the target complicit in the act.

The torture need not involve death or permanent injuries. In addition to what you see in the original piece, it has been suggested sterilized needles skillfully manipulated can be quite persuasive.

[Birthmark]

29. I'll let your last post stand for itself.

Better you than me. Ick!

[thebigidea]

34. "it has been suggested sterilized needles skillfully manipulated..."

Oh, my!

Be glad!

[Herschel]

37. Sterilized needles

cause no permanent damage, yet are effective.

[Forkboy]

40. So effective you can make someone say anything!

[drdon326]

43. Yeah...even the truth.

.

[Herschel]

44. Well said

There are those that refuse to believe useful information can be extracted.

[Forkboy]

46. Yeah...even not the truth

[drdon326]

47. Forkboy...

ya gotta break some eggs if you want to make an omelet.


lol

[Forkboy]

48. remember that

when you're one of the eggs.

[drdon326]

52. Look....

Torture can come in different forms and strengths...

Does sleep deprivation rise to the level of torture??

Does a strong light rise to the level of torture??

Now, I agree, some forms of noxious stimuli, like
listening to Noam Chomsky speeches or watching endless
re-runs of the X-Files, are outrageous and are clearly
against the Geneva Convention.....but there are ways
around this.

[Forkboy]

53. "but there are ways around this"

How Democratic of you to be looking for them :eyes:

[GabysPoppy]

54. There is no way around watching re-runs of the X-Files

That is too cruel. You show no mercy or empathy.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

51. I hear the same sound.

..

[SlavesandBulldozers]

7. let's invert that argument

if your enemy could torture one of their prisoners (one of your troops) to get info on where you are going to strike next, would it be within his rights of war, or would it be ethical, to do so? I'm no lawyer but I believe the answer to both of those is no.

But of course, the world of terrorism doesn't operate under rights of war. These people fight without uniforms and bomb civilians.
Then again, in WWII we had all sorts of rules regarding the treatment of prisoners, rules against torture and so on. These rules would be broken, as all rules often are, but they provided ethical underpinnings. Of course, all nations in WWII did a good share of indiscriminately bombing civilians - so all nations were pretty much terrorists by today's standards.

Oh now im all confused. I think the answer to your question is that torture is going to happen whether or not you forbid it. If for nothing more than to make the interrogators feel better about the job they're doing.

[lefty_mcduff]

11. Slippery slope.

Becomes -

"If only this so called torture could prevent a < murder, assault, drug deal, bank robbery, speeding ticket, tax fraud, jaywalking, wrong color of skin >, would you support it?"

That's why there are laws. As someone who often uses 'international law' to defend Israel's actions, why are you so ready to ignore those laws when they are against Israels actions....

[Herschel]

17. Begging your pardon

I rarely use international law to defend Israel.

[lefty_mcduff]

19. Okay. A clarification.

'rarely' is more than once.

Using international law 'once' to defend 'any' actions of Israel makes your point hypocricitcal.

That sharp enough of a point for you?

[Dogmudgeon]

49. And some return questions

If you knew that the Mossad was planning a raid that would kill 100 Palestinians, but you knew that you could stop the raid by publically torturing, raping, and killing a small child, would you?

If you knew that a radical Islamist cell had placed a 1 MT nuclear device in Tel Aviv (population 2 million), but the authorities could not find it, but they DID know that "the Button" was in Riyadh, and you had the opportunity to nuke Riyadh (population 600,000), would you do it?

If you had to make a choice whether to freeze your mother to death, or bake her to death, which would you choose?

These are all phony "ethical" questions, just like yours. Neither the anti-Israeli nor the Israeli powers-that-be have any reason to stop the conflict; each side derives a certain profit (political and/or financial) to keep it going. And one of the ways they keep it going is to propagate a false moral calculus.

Certainly the people don't want it. Now, who do you think might have something to gain by prolonging the conflict? HINT: religion isn't a deciding factor.

--bkl
Hint #2: If you think I'm blindly pro-P and anti-I, you're meshuggeh.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

65. No

Any society that uses torture is not worth saving from a terrorist attack.

[Resistance]

3. More Alan Dershowitz? LMAO

this guy is such a loon it's hard to do anything but laugh.

[lefty_mcduff]

8. So once again, we're going to defend

war crimes as long as they're perpetrated by Pro-Israel forces.
Does that just about sum it up?

Or am I missing something?

[Resistance]

9. no you've got it right

It's pretty easy to figure out the "logic".

[Herschel]

10. Let morality take precedent

over misguided international law when they conflict.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

14. misguided laws?

well if we are going after misguided laws this is going to be a long thread.

[lefty_mcduff]

15. Not to mention shifting ideas of what 'morality' is...

n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

22. What misguided international law? What morality?

Torture is immoral and interntional law prohibits it.

[Herschel]

25. I would suggest

if this so called torture saved innocent lives, it is moral. Given the choice between saving these or international law, the law is disregarded.

[lefty_mcduff]

31. Pretty well the definition of Rogue State.

There is *nothing* moral about torture. Period.

Yesterday you were claiming Palestinians were barbaric for calling for torturous vengeance against rapists.

Today you're saying torture is okey-dokey as long as it's the glorious IDF doing the torturing, and *you* agree with the rationale.

A tad hypocritical, no?

[Jack Rabbit]

59. I would suggest torture is immoral, period

In addition to being a violation of international law, to torture a suspect is a violation of our jurisprudence in that it presumes guilt before a trial.

Of course, I guess we can toss the Bill of Rights out the window along with the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Right and the 1987 Convention against Torture as anti-pragmatic, can't we?

[Forkboy]

60. Enough of your misguided leftist views!

Be glad!

[Herschel]

61. A question for you

If a suspect was thought to have knowledge of a pending terrorist attck on the scale of 911 and, for the sake of arguement, torture was the only possibility of extracting the information, should it be used? I think you know the answer.

[Jack Rabbit]

62. No answer

Isn't that scenario ridiculously hypothetical? I think you know the answer to that, too.

Consequently, I see no need to answer your question as you posed it.

[Herschel]

66. We will agree

Torture for torture's sake is unwarranted. However, I was attempting to discover if your principles against it would hold strong if innocents were at stake. Your hesitancy to answer is understandable. I will leave it at that.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. No, you don't seem to understand my hesitancy to answer

First of all, I don't think there is anything "pragmatic" about your views on this matter. I and several others have pointed out to you the fundamental problem with torture as a method of interrogation, namely, that the information extracted from a torture victim is necessarily unreliable.

Please don't think you've painted anybody here into a corner, Mr. Herschel, because you haven't. The truth is that to characterize torture as a "pragmatic" method of interrogation is just a lot of hooey.

My reluctance to answer your question is based on my general reluctance to answer obviously loaded questions, especially when they are loaded with such an absurd scenario as that which you have provided. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that there might exist a situation where authorities have certain knowledge of a terrorist's guilt without knowing exactly of what it is that he's guilty. They know he's part of a plot to hijack planes and fly them into office buildings, but don't know anything else, like what buildings or exactly when the event will take place. It would seem that if they know enough to know that the suspect in deeply involved, then they know a lot more and don't need to put needles under his fingernails to find out anything else, even assuming that he will tell them anything useful -- which, as has already been pointed out, isn't necessarily true. Moreover, since the matter at hand involves an elaborate plot which may not be executed for some time, we might also suppose that the authorities can effectively pursue more conventional methods of investigation that are consistent with the acceptable norms of civilized behavior.

Even laying aside the obvious objections to torture on purely moral grounds, there is nothing in your scenario that would justify it.

Your scenario isn't even as good as Dershowitz' silly ticking bomb case, which also has most of the same flaws your case does, but at least adds a level of urgency that yours does not. Dershowitz' bomb is ticking and we know it will go off in a matter of hours or even minutes. However, once again, if the authorities know that much, then then they probably know enough to warn potential victims and safely evacuate the targeted area without resorting to torturing the suspect.

The case which you have presented for torture and which Mr. Dershowitz has presented in his musing is a very weak one. I'll be damned if I'm going to allow standards of civilization to slip because a well-reputed shyster like Dershowitz can spin an absurd ticking bomb scenario into an urgent need to resort to putting needles under the fingernails of criminal suspects. Dershowitz can take his torture warrants and cram them where the moon doesn't shine.

Torture is immoral and a crime against humanity, period. Those who resort to it deserve to be prosecuted.

Oh, yes -- and did I say torture is anti-pragmatic?

[Herschel]

73. I cannot substantiate the notion

that torture is totally ineffective. The Amnesty USA site, obviously anti-pragmatic in such matters, still seems to acknowledge torture is possibly fruitful when confronting the issue.

" It isn't realistic
William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

" falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?" "

http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html

Surely the question of when to torture is legitimate. But there appears to be no basis for ruling it out entirely, claiming it to be totally ineffective.

[Darranar]

74. Uh...

In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable.

How exactly does it?

[Jack Rabbit]

75. The view expressed by Amnesty International reinforces my point

As Mr. Darranar points out in post 74, it does little to support yours.

The point is:

• Since we are agreed that torture is a barbarous practice, we should agree that it should be used only in extreme circumstances, if at all;
• Information gained in torture in unreliable;
• Thus, since we would use torture only in a very rare instances to begin with, the chances of gaining any worthwhile knowledge is reduced even further;
• With torture, the probability of abuse by the authorities increases and must be taken into consideration in any moral calculus;
• Consequently, the chances that any useful information will be gained from allowing the use of torture is outweighed by the probability that it will be misused by authorities.

I stand on my original assertion that the best and most pragmatic stance to take toward torture is that it should be prohibited.

You have not proved that the benefits of allowing torture, even with controls, outweigh its dangers. The only things on which you and Mr. Dershowitz base your arguments are absurdly hypothetical situations in which it is difficult to believe that the authorities know only what is given and still do not know enough to prevent a catastrophe without resorting to the torture of one who is merely suspected of participation in a crime and one who, even if he knows something, would reveal anything useful.

We are living in a time when an unelected leader in America tells brazen lies in to order justify a military operation. Should we even think of trusting such a man with the ultimate decision of who should be tortured and who is should not be?

Not for my money. I will feel much safer from the likes of Bush and Ashcroft if torture is categorically prohibited than I will from the like of Osama if it is allowed just to gain useful information in the rare cases of the rare cases where it used.

Mr. Herschel, I am entirely unpersuaded by your arguments. The question of when to use torture is not legitimate. It is both unpragmatic and a crime against humanity. There is no argument that you have presented anywhere on this thread that should make a reasonable person think otherwise.

[Lithos]

76. To add

To your excellent thesis

From

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0148/fsolomon.php

But that's a big if. There is no proof that torture works. Sometimes, according to a 1963 CIA training manual, it backfires: "If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather late in the interrogation process and after other tactics have failed," the manual says, "he is almost certain to conclude that the interrogator is becoming desperate. Interrogatees who have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by other methods. The effect has been not to repress the subject, but to restore his confidence and maturity." On the other hand, those who cannot withstand pain will often say anything to make their abusers let up: admit to things they know nothing about, give the names of anyone they ever met, deliberately provide disinformation.

That was certainly the case during the Dirty War in Argentina, says Marguerite Feitlowitz, author of Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture, a study for which she interviewed dozens of torturers and their victims. "Apart from being atrocious, inhumane, and against international law," she says, "torture doesn't yield much. It's just not effective." Indeed, that's one reason coerced self-incriminating testimony is not admissible in court—though in military tribunals, such as those President Bush has called for, such evidentiary rules would not apply.

--snip--

... In practical terms, says Marton, the likely result is not the prevention of terrorism, but its production: "The men are broken after the experience of being tortured. Their families feel the consequences and want to take revenge."

Torturers must dehumanize their victims in order to do their jobs, Marton and Feitlowitz agree, and typically they can find validation in the prevailing attitudes of the culture more generally. For instance, imagery and policies that depict criminals as depraved and irredeemable contribute to a climate in which U.S. guards feel justified in using electroshock stunbelts on inmates (a practice condemned as torture by Amnesty International last year); Feitlowitz's book details how the terminology of the Dirty War made barbaric deeds in Argentina palatable; the citizens who serve in Israel's army hear Palestinians described as vermin by some of the highest leaders of the land.

In turn, the abuse of human rights has corrosive effects on society at large. "If you turn the dignity of the human body and soul to rubbish when you are on duty," says Marton, "you can't help but bring that attitude home. You can't compartmentalize the violence. So Israeli men kill each other over a parking place. Or—as we've seen this year as the violence of putting down the new intifada has intensified—the number of rapes and domestic violence cases rises sharply."

--snip--

And then, of course, there's the Constitution. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Jay Winik urges us to loosen our hold on civil liberties and protections now and worry about restoring them later. "When our nation is secure again, so too will be our principles," he promises. But the principles are in place precisely for times like these.

[Herschel]

79. A thoughtful reply

However, I do have issues to take.

"Since we are agreed that torture is a barbarous practice, we should agree that it should be used only in extreme circumstances, if at all"

Quite agreed that any use of torture should be relatively rare. Perhaps, when dealing with the Palestinian problem, Israel has over utilized this tool.


"Information gained in torture in unreliable."

Unreliable, yet not totally inaccurate.


"Thus, since we would use torture only in a very rare instances to begin with, the chances of gaining any worthwhile knowledge is reduced even further."

However, these rare instances may pay dividends.


"With torture, the probability of abuse by the authorities increases and must be taken into consideration in any moral calculus."

Quite true. Hence, the suggestion of torture warrants for overseeing the administration of it.


"Consequently, the chances that any useful information will be gained from allowing the use of torture is outweighed by the probability that it will be misused by authorities."

A reasonable concern. Once again, torture warrants and increased supervision of torture reduces this risk.

[Jack Rabbit]

85. Still, no sale

Let's recap the reasons why your case for torture fails.

Let's make a temporary assumption that if we are to have torture, that we should have legal controls and supervision of it. However, since the method of interrogation is severe, we would require a fairly high standard of proof in order to obtain a torture warrant.

Let's stipulate further that Dershowitz' ticking bomb case is the best hypothetical situation put forward to argue in favor of torture. It contains an element of urgency, a potentially catastrophic situation and a suspect whose culpability is certain. Let's say that those three elements must be demonstrated to a judge in order to issue a legal warrant for torture.

It still doesn't work. Legally supervised torture is not pragmatic.

We begin by assuming the guilt of the suspect. However, in order to obtain a warrant to torture him, the authorities must demonstrate to a judge that he is guilty. We will lay aside the obvious contradictions that introduces into American jurisprudence. For the judge to issue a warrant, the police and the district attorney would have to demonstrate to some reasonable standard that the suspect in custody has information that would be of value to them in the prevention of a catastrophe. Simply making the case for the warrant would be time consuming. Yet The situation is urgent; because it is urgent, the legal red tape involved seems awfully cumbersome. Simply obtaining the warrant takes time, but the scenario assumes that there is no time. The rationale for torture warrants thus becomes a reductio ad absrurdum.

Even if the procedure to obtain a warrant were in the interests of time streamlined in a way that still guarantees the rights of the suspect, the authorities must still extract information from him. However, we have agreed that information gained under torture is unreliable. Consequently, any information gained would have to be investigated. On the other hand, we are resorting to torture because the situation is urgent and there is no time to investigate false leads. Therefore, the rationale for torture in this situation is, once again, a reductio ad absrurdum.

Thus, the ticking bomb scenario only helps to reinforce the assertion that torture is a useless tool for criminal investigators.

Beyond having the element of urgency, the ticking bomb scenario is simply ridiculous. It assumes a situation where authorities know the who (the suspect) and have a fairly distinct idea about what (a ticking bomb) and when (any minute), but no idea about where. Thus, there is good reason to interrogate the suspect to reveal the where. However, in the real world, it seems very improbable that the authorities would know as much as is given in the hypothesis and still not know more; they would have some idea as to where the bomb would go off. In that event, they would move to evacuate the possible targets before the catastrophe. This has nothing to do with torture or, for that matter, whether the suspect is actually in custody. Torture, in the real world, is unnecessary to save lives.

Again, the ticking bomb scenario fails to demonstrate any practical use for torture as a tool of interrogation.

Since the problems that defeat Dershowitz' ticking bomb scenario stem from the element of urgency it introduces to the situation, let's remove it from the list of criteria needed for the issuing of a torture warrant. Doing so might admit the possibility of using torture to prevent a September 11-like attack, as you suggested in another post. Suppose that before September 11 the authorities had connected the dots and realized that Mr. Moussaui, then in their custody, might have had information about a plot to hijack planes and fly them into office buildings. However, we might question in that case whether there would have been any torture warrant issued. so far, we have not assumed that the authorities had anything more than a vague idea of what was being planned. A warrant for torture should only be issued on more certain information that a crime is about to be committed, meaning that the authorities would have to present to the judge more detailed plans about the September 11 attacks in order to get a warrant to torture Moussaui to get more information. This starts to lead us to a contradiction. It assumes that the authorities must first find out through conventional methods of investigation in order to get a warrant to torture Moussaui to find out what they already know. Torture in this scenario becomes pointless; it would be little more than an exercise by the state in severe punishment imposed on one who is yet to be convicted of a crime.

Of course, that is the problem with removing urgency from the criteria for issuing a torture warrant. Without the element of urgency, the authorities have time to pursue an investigation without resorting to extraordinary means to gain information from a suspect. Without the element of urgency, torture is unnecessary. With the element of urgency, then (assuming it isn't already too late to prevent the impending catastrophe) the authorities would simply evacuate the scene of the potential crime and save lives, as they do now when possible. Where urgency is involved, the chances of detecting the crime through the use of torture in time to to prevent it seem too slight to justify the introduction of a formal procedure to sanction its use.

Therefore, there is nothing pragmatic about the use of torture.

The use of torture warrants only would introduce into the system a formal legal process that has more potential for abuse than practical value. While warrants and supervision may reduce the risk of abuse, weighing that potential for abuse against the possible benefits of torturing a suspect, it is doubtful that such a process would reduce the risks sufficiently to make them worthwhile.

Torture is best regarded in the way human rights organizations now regard it: as a crime against humanity. There is no pragmatic justification for it.

[Comadreja]

80. The rest of the article

From Michael, Oak Park, IL:

I'm trying to formulate a good response to this quandary: Say you have a guy that the authorities KNOW is involved in a conspiracy to kill people. There is a bomb someplace and he knows where it is, but isn't talking. Is torture 'effective' and 'regrettably' permissible in these cases?

Answer

Alan Dershowitz posed a version of this question (Los Angeles Times, November 8), when he asked:

"But what if (torture) were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?

To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?"

Answering his own question (San Francisco Chronicle, November 8), he added:

"Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do."

The supporters of this conclusion base their view on a belief that torture can be effective, and that it's use - in a utilitarian calculation of doing bad for a greater good - can be permitted.

It isn't realistic
William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

" falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?"

It hides the true cost of torture
The cost-benefit analysis suggested by the question - torture one to save the many - hides the true cost of using torture.

As Alexander Cockburn wrote in 'The Nation' (November 26): "Start torturing, and it's easy to get carried away. Torture destroys the tortured and corrupts the society that sanctions it."

The US does not exist in an isolated corner of the world where use torture might go unnoticed. Any approval of torture by the U.S. - including extradition of suspects to countries where they are likely to face torture - sends a dangerous message of tolerance of torture that will be heard around the world. Amnesty International's 40 years of experience fighting torture shows that once torture has been legitimized, even on a small scale, the use of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading practices inevitably expands to include countless other victims, and ultimately erodes the moral and legal principles on which society depends.

For example, the Israeli government legalized "moderate physical pressure," with controls to limit its use. However, once permitted, thousands of "suspects" were tortured for stone-throwing and other routine offenses, and the practice became routine and systematic. Even though the Israeli High Court banned the practice in 1999, Amnesty International continues to document Israeli authorities' use of torture. Could the US condemn others for using torture, including when it is used against US citizens, if it sanctions it's use at home?

Torture is a problem, not a solution
Torture is a real problem around the world with many hundreds of thousands of victims. Amnesty International has documented torture in more than 150 countries, including the United States. In more than 70 countries, it is widespread. People in 80 countries have died as a result of torture. The victims are mainly detained on minor criminal charges, including women and children, and the methods include rape and brutal violence.

Torture is illegal
The use of torture would violate countless international agreements the United States has signed and ratified, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. Fundamental to the very idea of human rights is that they are universal, rights for all that are not to be abridged or waived, not in war or during any other crisis.

Learn more about Amnesty International's Campaign to Stop Torture.

[drewb]

55. Coming here and reading these posts everyday is my torture...

Everyone has a cross to bear, huh gang???

:loveya:

[gWbush is Mabus]

13. Didn't we topple Saddam b/c he tortured his own people?

Torture should not be a weapon of defense.

Especially in the hands of madmen like Rove/ Ashcroft/ Bush

[atreides1]

18. If it's Good For Arabs....

...then it should be used by all countries against their enemies, so if an American soldier is captured in Afghanistan, then his captors
would be well within their rights to use "torture lite" to get information.

Torture of an enemy to get information is wrong, no matter what the reason, Dershowitz is a loony. Perhaps he would like to put himself in a position where he could be tortured so that he can provide information about one of his former clients, who may one day kill another innocent woman and the waiter who is returning her glasses.

If we need to protect innocents then who better to start with then defense attorneys like Dershowitz, who go out of their way to defend
murderers, and then tell the rest of us they were doing their job.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Dershowitz is yet to make a valid point on torture

He has merely suggested that we streamline the judicial system to issue warrants for it.

I say the proper response to torture is to prosecute the torturer. It is a crime against humanity, period.

The only position toward torture consistent with progressive thought is to advocate the abolition of this abhorrent practice. By proposing methods to make torture neat and legal, Dershowitz brings discredit on himself. Shame on him.

[tinnypriv]

28. His response

Will be the standard one from psy 101:

What if you had to torture one person to save a billion lives?

If you say you'd do that, ha-ha! You're not opposed to torture.

Seriously. He claims this all the time.

[Herschel]

30. We will disagree

Better to be pragmatic rather than an extreme leftist on such an issue. Once again, properly supervised torture to save innocents is moral. Consider the alternative. Blind adherence to misguided principles would indeed be costly.

[lefty_mcduff]

32. "properly supervised torture"

Geebus. That's something you don't read every day.

[thebigidea]

35. properly supervised torture? What are the guidelines?

You sound well-versed in the subject. Where do we draw the line, and what exactly do we do with those wonderful needles?

Is electrocuting the testicles good, bad, moral?

How about broken glass in the rectum?

[drewb]

56. I think electocuting testicles is ok if they are already detached...

But I draw the line at broken glass in the rectum...

Don't misunderstand me, a pint glass or a shot glass ok...

But broken glass? What kind of savage are you???

:loveya:

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Torture to save innocents is a dubious proposition

I'm not that brave. Come after me with a cattle prod aimed at my nuts and I will tell you anything you want to hear. In fact, I will tell you anything I even think you might like to hear, whether it's the truth or not.

There's nothing pragmatic about using torture to gain information. I certainly wouldn't rely on infromation gained from torture victim. That is about the weakest argument that can be advanced for it.

Torture is a crime against humanity, period. Those who employ it should be prosecuted.

Mr. Dershowitz should be ashamed of himself for proposing ways to make it neat, tidy and legal.

[Forkboy]

33. torture is the progressive thing to do

you foolish leftists.Laws,morals...who needs them when little Israel is faced with the Arab onslaught? Be glad we dont just nuke the brown skinned peoples of the world and be done with it!

[Herschel]

36. You three

Torture may be necessary. Better done in a manner not resulting in permanent injury. The needles could be applied under the fingernails, for example.

[Forkboy]

39. I was just agreeing with you

I too share your glee at the thought of torturing people.

[Herschel]

41. There is no glee

I simply recognize it's possible necessity.

[Forkboy]

42. I believe you

[Herschel]

45. Appreciated

-

[thebigidea]

63. The extremist left links hands with you on this matter. We must torture.

Be glad? Hell, I'm utterly ecstatic about your fingernail techniques - let me know if you ever want to practice on me, you can ask questions about state capitals or something.

INTERROGATOR: "North Dakota."

ME: "Mmgmg...."

INTERROGATOR: "I said, NORTH DAKOTA!"

ME: "I don't know, I don't know... wait... no.. AHGHHGHGHGHGH! OW!"

INTERROGATOR: "BE GLAD!"

[Forkboy]

64. LMAO

:)

[Herschel]

67. Perhaps you would be surprised

at your recollection of state capitals, if properly compelled.

[Forkboy]

68. perhaps I could make you sing the Star Spangled Banner in Portuguese

if properly compelled :eyes:

[thebigidea]

69. I'm the biggest coward in the universe...

the minute you even HINT at pain, I'd be compelled to claim I'm a member of Hamas, the Bavarian Illuminati, PNAC, and the local chapter of the Don Knotts Appreciation Society.

This is why torture doesn't work, despite your keen and fairly frightening interest in it.

[Herschel]

70. We will agree

torture is unwarranted if ineffective. Periodically, a suspect without information would be uncomfortable enough to give false information. However, the more direct question has been avoided. If torture could extract information to save innocent lives, is it moral? I say yes. I understand those with a less pragmatic view choosing not to answer.

[Forkboy]

71. I think those us who are "less pragmatic"

did answer you.We think it's insane.

[thebigidea]

77. there is nothing pragmatic about torture

it is utterly loathsome, on the level of child molestation. I can't believe you're almost drawing me into a debate about it, that its even a possibility. That people go on tv to advocate it, that we outsource our own torture.

What the hell kinda bad movie have I wandered into?

[Herschel]

78. Perhaps you are tempted to debate torture

by the prospect of saving innocent lives.

[lefty_mcduff]

81. There is no proof that torture

'saves innocent lives'. Once again, we're going through hypothetical gymnastics as a few try to defend something that is against international, criminal and civil law.

And as usual, that argument involves these laws not being applied to one group. All the while, these same laws and conventions are used as a rationale for Israel's actions.

In fact, I have seen you use torture as an barometer as why certain 'other' societies should be judged as barbaric.

Gussy it up all you want - torture is disgusting, a crime against humanity and shuned by most right-thinking societies.

[thebigidea]

84. how can you say such things? Torture is wonderful, and very progressive

Yes, Herschel was right - I was just too hung up on saving innocent lives - if there's one thing I hate, its saving innocent lives. Hurray for torture, which makes it all possible!

Torture: saving innocent lives since time began. Be glad.

We most torture Iraqis for democracy, we must torture Americans for security, we must torture Palestinians... JUST BECAUSE.

Only in I/P would you get away with being a pro-torture advocate.

[Darranar]

38. Oh yes, Dershowitz the "progressive".

[Jack Rabbit]

58. Dershowitz the progressive indeed

If Dershowitz or anybody else can propose a warped concept like a "torture warrant" and still be called a progressive then I'm a retired kamikaze pilot.

[number6]

50. suspend the Bill of Rights and Constitution..only gets in the

way of fighting terrorism...

If one terrorist gets off because of the Bill of Rights and Constitution and x# of people die, wouldn't you have wanted
to suspend the Bill of Rights and Constitution ?

of course you would :eyes:

and a total police state, of course you would want one :eyes:

[Comadreja]

83. Don't be surprised

If the line of logic adopted by some that any sympathy or support for Palestinians is support of terrorism, then how long before Mossad is allowed to start taking out pro-Palestinian activists here. There are some who are so fanatically pro-Zionists (such as those who delight in the death of non-violent ISM activists) that they are de facto traitors to America.

[Comadreja]

82. If "torture Lite" works

Then "torture premium" would work better. Soon you work your way down to torturing children in front of parents to get a confession out of "terrorists." Saddam Lite, anyone?

[drewb]

86. Can I "super size" that torture...

Twice the torture for only .39 more!

:loveya: