A possible solution to our torture problems.

Jontg · 18th November 2009, 01:29 PM

Let 'em do it.
...
No, bear with me here, and pardon me if I get any legal aspects wrong. Consider the concept of the "citizen's arrest." Those nutbags who tried to detain Dick Cheney aside, this is the legal construction that allows a citizen witnessing a crime to temporarily assume the power of arrest--that is, to act as an officer of the law with respect to apprehending and restraining a miscreant until actual police arrive. If the arrest is performed more or less by the book and it's proven that the citizen acted properly, he or she is granted legal immunity from the charges of assault, wrongful imprisonment and so forth that one would normally incur by leaping upon somebody and wrestling them to the ground. If, however, the arrest is unjustified, the citizen is not protected and remains fully liable for the fact that they just tackled and hog-tied some random dude. In other words, if you can prove you were justified after the fact, you have the right under the law to do some pretty metal stuff to a guy--as long as you don't mind the risk that you'll be prosecuted if you can't.
See where I'm going here? We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a federal agent needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to save lives--but we should also make it very clear that they will not automatically be granted the leeway to do so. If you can definitively prove (for a pretty steep definition of of the word) that hooking a man's testicles up to a car battery saved an oil tanker full of orphaned puppies, fine, we'll pardon you after the fact. If, as in most cases, it turns out you just pried the fingernails off some Sikh cab driver whose closest brush with ammonium nitrate was during his stint as a gardener, then we take you into a little room somewhere and hit you with a brick until you stop twitching. And we make it clear by both word and deed that when in doubt, we'll go with the brick.
Sound fair?

Praktik · 18th November 2009, 01:31 PM

I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine torture so it really isn't torture any longer...

Or is that not working out anymore??

theprestige · 18th November 2009, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine torture so it really isn't torture any longer...

Or is that not working out anymore??

That's funny. I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine all interrogation techniques to be torture, and then abolish the lot of them.

Fiona · 18th November 2009, 03:32 PM

I have a better solution: don't let 'em do it.

theprestige · 18th November 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Jontg

Let 'em do it.
...
Sound fair?

Not even remotely. Choice of interrogation methods is a judgement call. Your solution amounts to telling interrogators to exercise their judgment, on the understanding that they'll be second-guessed after the fact, and if the ACLU or partisan granstander or other backseat driver manages to find a dissenting opinion, their judgement will be disregarded and they'll be beaten to death with a brick.

Might as well tell them not to bother, because that's the way they'll take it.

I could try to save lives. I could even torture to try to save lives. I could even live with myself if I tried to save lives by using torture, and failed, because it was worth the attempt. But if I try, and fail--or even if I succeed--and then the opposition faction comes into power in the next big elections, unseals the classified records of my work, puts me on trial, and decides to beat me to death with a brick, why bother?

Is that really the standard you want to apply: "Do everything in your power, no matter how heinous, to save lives. Don't worry--if we disagree with you, we'll beat you to death with a brick"?

I'd prefer to establish a clear policy, based on clearly-enunciated principles, ahead of time, and use that. Among other things, it gives interrogators a solid legal and ethical foundation to stand on, when the opposition faction comes to power and tries to score political brownie points by crucifying them for failing to save lives (or for torturing too many people, depending on their ideology and the mood of their constituency).

theprestige · 18th November 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

I have a better solution: don't let 'em do it.

As much as I disagree with your solution, I still think it's better than the OP's.

Ladewig · 18th November 2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jontg

.
Sound fair?

If I were innocent and were tortured before being discovered that I am innocent, how would killing my torturer make it fair to me?

theprestige · 18th November 2009, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

If I were innocent and were tortured before being discovered that I am innocent, how would killing my torturer make it fair to me?

Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"?

Lord Muck oGentry · 18th November 2009, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"?

Punishing criminals.

Torturing suspects.

theprestige · 18th November 2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Muck oGentry

Punishing criminals.

Torturing suspects.

Please re-read Ladewig's question, and my answer, again.

Ladewig · 18th November 2009, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"?

No, because the criminal in this case is not a citizen who has committed a wrong against me, it is an agent of the federal government acting with the approval of the government. My question, in its entirety, is how is it fair to me if the government, albeit conditionally, approves of my torture and then later brutally executes one government official.

Lord Muck oGentry · 18th November 2009, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Please re-read Ladewig's question, and my answer, again.

Very well.

Ladewig asked a question:

Quote:

If I were innocent and were tortured before being discovered that I am innocent, how would killing my torturer make it fair to me?

You answered by asking a question:

Quote:

Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"?

leftysergeant · 18th November 2009, 06:08 PM

Torture does not work. If it did, the Nazis would have known to have Rommel sitting on Omaha Beach instead of the Pas del Calais.

The only people I can see deserving to be tortured to extract information would be Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo.

They approve of the method.

Alt+F4 · 18th November 2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Jontg

We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a federal agent needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to save lives--

Where's the proof that torture produces any useful information that saves lives?

Praktik · 18th November 2009, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's funny. I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine all interrogation techniques to be torture, and then abolish the lot of them.

Interesting reversal. Is this an apt characterization of the anti-~~torture~~enhanced interrogation crowd in your opinion?

theprestige · 18th November 2009, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

No, because the criminal in this case is not a citizen who has committed a wrong against me, it is an agent of the federal government acting with the approval of the government. My question, in its entirety, is how is it fair to me if the government, albeit conditionally, approves of my torture and then later brutally executes one government official.

The government condones behavior all the time, and then punishes people who engage in that behavior inappropriately.

How is it fair to you if a police officer, authorized by the government to shoot you any time he believes it necessary, shoots you and is subsequently punished for shooting you unnecessarily?

In fact, how, exactly, is being shot in the knee unfairly by an interrogator any different than being shot in the knee unfairly by a policeman, both in terms of government pre-approval for the shooting and the amount of fairness to you in punishing the shooter?

Safe-Keeper · 18th November 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine torture so it really isn't torture any longer...

Or is that not working out anymore??

Most people seem to have seen through it by now, yes.

I want some of what the OP has injected into himself, though.

Praktik · 18th November 2009, 07:55 PM

Ya... maybe you don't really....

lolz

Peephole · 18th November 2009, 08:18 PM

I have a solution to the torture problem: stop being a bunch of psychopaths.

Dave Rogers · 19th November 2009, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The government condones behavior all the time, and then punishes people who engage in that behavior inappropriately.

How is it fair to you if a police officer, authorized by the government to shoot you any time he believes it necessary, shoots you and is subsequently punished for shooting you unnecessarily?

In fact, how, exactly, is being shot in the knee unfairly by an interrogator any different than being shot in the knee unfairly by a policeman, both in terms of government pre-approval for the shooting and the amount of fairness to you in punishing the shooter?

It's a question of justification before the fact versus justification after the fact. Let me suggest a couple of examples.

Suppose a policeman sees a man acting in a way that suggests he is about to do something dangerous with a weapon, issues a warning, and then shoots him, having complied with official guidelines as to when and how to go about the procedure of warning and shooting. When it turns out that the man was simply carrying a chair leg and was deaf, the policeman can still be judged to have acted correctly, because on the basis of the information available to him at the time, his actions were justified.

Suppose a second policeman sees a man acting suspiciously, and promptly shoots him dead, from behind, without warning. Even though it subsequently turns out that the suspect was about to carry out an armed robbery of a nearby shop, the policeman is found to have violated guidelines and is therefore put on trial for an unlawful killing.

The procedure analogous to the OP, however, is that the first policeman should be punished and the second exonerated on the basis of information that became available after the fact. That's not a good precedent to establish. It weakens the onus on a policeman to follow correct procedure, and allocates punishment largely on the basis of random, rather than controllable, factors. It's fundamentally anti-justice.

In the case of torture, it's morally perhaps an even worse situation. If we allow retrospective justification of torture, then there is more motivation for the torturer to extract a false confession that will serve as sufficient retroactive justification for his actions.

Dave

Fiona · 19th November 2009, 07:08 AM

Well said, Dave Rogers

Ryokan · 19th November 2009, 07:27 AM

I think the best solution is to follow international law, which the US has signed, making it US law as well, and not torture people whatsoever.

Darat · 19th November 2009, 07:36 AM

A simpler solution would be just to make it legal. Then USA citizens would know that if the security services have some reason to suspect that, for example, their grandmother is linked to some suspected terrorism activity she may be tortured. And then everyone can stop all this silly playing with semantics and get back to those good old fashioned USA values! Granted granny may no longer be able to make a thanksgiving apple pie because the bones in her hands never quite healed but at least everyone can sleep easy at night knowing that they are safe, well except for granny who wakes up screaming at 2am most nights and has to be drugged.

Ocelot · 19th November 2009, 07:53 AM

Let 'em do it.
...
No, bear with me here, and pardon me if I get any legal aspects wrong. Consider the concept of the "citizen's arrest." Those nutbags who tried to detain Dick Cheney aside, this is the legal construction that allows a citizen witnessing a crime to temporarily assume the power of arrest--that is, to act as an officer of the law with respect to apprehending and restraining a miscreant until actual police arrive. If the arrest is performed more or less by the book and it's proven that the citizen acted properly, he or she is granted legal immunity from the charges of assault, wrongful imprisonment and so forth that one would normally incur by leaping upon somebody and wrestling them to the ground. If, however, the arrest is unjustified, the citizen is not protected and remains fully liable for the fact that they just tackled and hog-tied some random dude. In other words, if you can prove you were justified after the fact, you have the right under the law to do some pretty metal stuff to a guy--as long as you don't mind the risk that you'll be prosecuted if you can't.
See where I'm going here? We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a person needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to blow their load--but we should also make it very clear that they will not automatically be granted the leeway to do so. If you can definitively prove (for a pretty steep definition of of the word) that the winsome slut in a low cut mini dress was begging for it. Yes, fine, we'll pardon you after the fact. If, as in most cases, it turns out you just ripped the belly out of someone's daughter, whose closest brush with swinging was in a playground next to the slides, then we take you into a little room somewhere and sodomise you you with a rubber cock until you stop twitching. And we make it clear by both word and deed that when in doubt, we'll go with the rubber cock.
Sound fair?

Ladewig · 19th November 2009, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Jontg

We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a federal agent needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to save lives

IIRC? What exactly are you recalling?

Almo · 19th November 2009, 09:49 AM

Torture provides unreliable info. Figure it out, people.

GreyICE · 19th November 2009, 09:53 AM

Wow...

I'm not even sure what to say. There's a long history of terrible ideas at the JREF, but this has to be up there with implementing Tippit's economic solutions.

theprestige · 19th November 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In the case of torture, it's morally perhaps an even worse situation. If we allow retrospective justification of torture, then there is more motivation for the torturer to extract a false confession that will serve as sufficient retroactive justification for his actions.

Jontg has that covered. If the confession can't be substantiated, we get to beat the interrogator to death with a brick.

Eyeron · 19th November 2009, 11:35 AM

The United States doesn't torture. It uses advanced interrogation techniques.

Or the US'll just take the unlawful combatant to a country that will do the torture for them.

theprestige · 19th November 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Jontg has that covered. If the confession can't be substantiated, we get to beat the interrogator to death with a brick.

Also, for the record, I'm absolutely against torturing people to gain confessions.

I am, on the other hand, in principle willing to consider torturing people in certain cases to try to obtain actionable operational intelligence, where lives are at stake. I'm also absolutely opposed to using intelligence gained in such a way and for such a purpose, in a criminal trial as evidence for the prosecution (or the defense, really).

Dave Rogers · 20th November 2009, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I am, on the other hand, in principle willing to consider torturing people in certain cases to try to obtain actionable operational intelligence, where lives are at stake.

OK, time to start being skeptical then. What is the evidence that torture is effective as a means of obtaining actionable operational intelligence?

Dave

Darth Rotor · 20th November 2009, 05:53 AM

A bit of out of the box thinking here:

One way to reduce the problem of detainees and torture of same is to change the kill or capture policy for certain terrorists.

Delete "or capture" from the orders.

DR

theprestige · 20th November 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

OK, time to start being skeptical then. What is the evidence that torture is effective as a means of obtaining actionable operational intelligence?

Dave

Couldn't tell you, honestly. I'm sure you're already aware that high-ranking Bush administration officials have claimed that it does, but I haven't looked into those claims and have no idea if they're true.

However, if evidence supporting such claims does surface, I'm willing to consider torture, in principle, as I described above. Are you?

Meanwhile, here's a simple protocol:

Politely ask a subject to make testable claims about terrorist activity they've been involved in. If they refuse, ask... impolitely. Escalate until testable claims are made. Test the claims. If they are false, keep escalating until claims are made that test true. Reward the subject whenever progress is made. Escalate whenever progress is not made, or is reversed. Optionally, begin by restricting queries to claims which have already been tested by other means.

It's often claimed that tortured confessions are worthless, because a subject will say anything to stop the torture. They'll even tell false stories, if they don't know any true stories that suit the purpose.

So by the same token, it should be the case that if a person will say anything to stop the torture, they'll tell true stories, in the form of testable claims, if they know any that suit the purpose.

Like I said, I don't have any evidence, but it seems to follow logically that the same principles of human psychology that make tortured confessions worthless, make tortured revelations of operational intelligence worthwhile.

Finally, please help me be clear on where you stand. Some people take the position that torture is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not it is proven to produce life-saving intelligence. Is that your position? Or is your position that if it could be proven that torture, properly implemented, can produce life-saving intelligence, then it would be ethically acceptable to permit it within certain boundaries?

Toke · 20th November 2009, 11:05 AM

Jontg,
The scenario you describe is more or less reality.
Torture is illegal in civilised countries but it is quite likely that the court would be somewhat understanding it a police officer had a clear case. (1/1⁶)

Theprestige,
Your scenario does not account for the random passer-by with no useful knowledge to save himself with.

theprestige · 21st November 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Toke

Theprestige,
Your scenario does not account for the random passer-by with no useful knowledge to save himself with.

Sure it does: If we suspect that to be the case, we beat the interrogator to death with a brick. I call it The Jontg Clause.

It's not foolproof, but then neither is the scenario where we put an innocent man in prison for life because he was somehow unable to prove his innocence in a court of law. Or the scenario where we kill innocent civilians who were unable to leave a war zone before the airstrikes started. If we're going to allow policemen and prosecutors and juries and generals to make judgement calls in matters of life and death and human suffering, why not interrogators?

Fiona · 21st November 2009, 03:47 PM

Because it is torture.

theprestige · 22nd November 2009, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Because it is torture.

What, exactly, sets "torture" apart from every other judgement call on matters of life and death and human suffering we currently condone?

GreyICE · 22nd November 2009, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

What, exactly, sets "torture" apart from every other judgement call on matters of life and death and human suffering we currently condone?

...

Seriously?

leftysergeant · 22nd November 2009, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

What, exactly, sets "torture" apart from every other judgement call on matters of life and death and human suffering we currently condone?

What's this "we" garbage? That lower forms of animal life like Cheney, Rummy, Gonzo and Yoo apporved it does not mean that America did.

theprestige · 22nd November 2009, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

...

Seriously?

Seriously.

We allow generals to make judgement calls on whether or not to drop bombs and roll tanks. We allow policemen to make judgement calls on whether or not to use deadly force. We allow juries and judges and state governors to make judgement calls on whether or not to imprison (and even execute) alleged criminals.

Matters of life and death and human suffering. Judgement calls. Condoned by governments. Accepted by citizens. All day, every day.

But when it comes to interrogation, "torture" gets blurted out like a magic word in an FOTL admiralty court.

Every time this topic comes up, I ask what sets interrogation apart from every other case of making judgment calls in matters of life and death and human suffering. And every time, all I get in return are appeals to incredulity and emotion.

Seriously? If you have a rational answer to my question, please just give it already.

Good god, yes! What is WRONG with you?!	5	18.52%
No, the boy has a point!	1	3.70%
He needs to stop watching 24, that's for sure...	16	59.26%
On Planet X, this might actually work!	5	18.52%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

18th November 2009, 01:29 PM	#1
Jontg The Bear Skeptic Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: A world of kindling. Posts: 926	A possible solution to our torture problems. Let 'em do it. ... No, bear with me here, and pardon me if I get any legal aspects wrong. Consider the concept of the "citizen's arrest." Those nutbags who tried to detain Dick Cheney aside, this is the legal construction that allows a citizen witnessing a crime to temporarily assume the power of arrest--that is, to act as an officer of the law with respect to apprehending and restraining a miscreant until actual police arrive. If the arrest is performed more or less by the book and it's proven that the citizen acted properly, he or she is granted legal immunity from the charges of assault, wrongful imprisonment and so forth that one would normally incur by leaping upon somebody and wrestling them to the ground. If, however, the arrest is unjustified, the citizen is not protected and remains fully liable for the fact that they just tackled and hog-tied some random dude. In other words, if you can prove you were justified after the fact, you have the right under the law to do some pretty metal stuff to a guy--as long as you don't mind the risk that you'll be prosecuted if you can't. See where I'm going here? We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a federal agent needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to save lives--but we should also make it very clear that they will not automatically be granted the leeway to do so. If you can definitively prove (for a pretty steep definition of of the word) that hooking a man's testicles up to a car battery saved an oil tanker full of orphaned puppies, fine, we'll pardon you after the fact. If, as in most cases, it turns out you just pried the fingernails off some Sikh cab driver whose closest brush with ammonium nitrate was during his stint as a gardener, then we take you into a little room somewhere and hit you with a brick until you stop twitching. And we make it clear by both word and deed that when in doubt, we'll go with the brick. Sound fair?
	__________________ All that is sacred must burn.

18th November 2009, 01:31 PM	#2
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine torture so it really isn't torture any longer... Or is that not working out anymore??
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

18th November 2009, 03:29 PM	#3
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Praktik I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine torture so it really isn't torture any longer... Or is that not working out anymore?? That's funny. I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine all interrogation techniques to be torture, and then abolish the lot of them.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

18th November 2009, 03:32 PM	#4
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	I have a better solution: don't let 'em do it.
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

18th November 2009, 03:38 PM	#5
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Jontg Let 'em do it. ... Sound fair? Not even remotely. Choice of interrogation methods is a judgement call. Your solution amounts to telling interrogators to exercise their judgment, on the understanding that they'll be second-guessed after the fact, and if the ACLU or partisan granstander or other backseat driver manages to find a dissenting opinion, their judgement will be disregarded and they'll be beaten to death with a brick. Might as well tell them not to bother, because that's the way they'll take it. I could try to save lives. I could even torture to try to save lives. I could even live with myself if I tried to save lives by using torture, and failed, because it was worth the attempt. But if I try, and fail--or even if I succeed--and then the opposition faction comes into power in the next big elections, unseals the classified records of my work, puts me on trial, and decides to beat me to death with a brick, why bother? Is that really the standard you want to apply: "Do everything in your power, no matter how heinous, to save lives. Don't worry--if we disagree with you, we'll beat you to death with a brick"? I'd prefer to establish a clear policy, based on clearly-enunciated principles, ahead of time, and use that. Among other things, it gives interrogators a solid legal and ethical foundation to stand on, when the opposition faction comes to power and tries to score political brownie points by crucifying them for failing to save lives (or for torturing too many people, depending on their ideology and the mood of their constituency).
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

18th November 2009, 03:39 PM	#6
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Fiona I have a better solution: don't let 'em do it. As much as I disagree with your solution, I still think it's better than the OP's.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

18th November 2009, 04:09 PM	#7
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	Originally Posted by Jontg . Sound fair? If I were innocent and were tortured before being discovered that I am innocent, how would killing my torturer make it fair to me?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

18th November 2009, 04:21 PM	#8
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Ladewig If I were innocent and were tortured before being discovered that I am innocent, how would killing my torturer make it fair to me? Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

18th November 2009, 04:41 PM	#9
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986	Originally Posted by theprestige Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"? Punishing criminals. Torturing suspects.
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986

18th November 2009, 05:14 PM	#10
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Lord Muck oGentry Punishing criminals. Torturing suspects. Please re-read Ladewig's question, and my answer, again.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

18th November 2009, 05:29 PM	#11
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	Originally Posted by theprestige Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"? No, because the criminal in this case is not a citizen who has committed a wrong against me, it is an agent of the federal government acting with the approval of the government. My question, in its entirety, is how is it fair to me if the government, albeit conditionally, approves of my torture and then later brutally executes one government official.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

18th November 2009, 05:49 PM	#12
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986	Originally Posted by theprestige Please re-read Ladewig's question, and my answer, again. Very well. Ladewig asked a question: Quote: If I were innocent and were tortured before being discovered that I am innocent, how would killing my torturer make it fair to me? You answered by asking a question: Quote: Isn't your question just a specific instance of the general case of "how does punishing criminals help their victims"?
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986

18th November 2009, 06:08 PM	#13
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Torture does not work. If it did, the Nazis would have known to have Rommel sitting on Omaha Beach instead of the Pas del Calais. The only people I can see deserving to be tortured to extract information would be Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo. They approve of the method.

18th November 2009, 06:14 PM	#14
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by Jontg We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a federal agent needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to save lives-- Where's the proof that torture produces any useful information that saves lives?
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

18th November 2009, 06:26 PM	#15
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	Originally Posted by theprestige That's funny. I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine all interrogation techniques to be torture, and then abolish the lot of them. Interesting reversal. Is this an apt characterization of the anti-~~torture~~enhanced interrogation crowd in your opinion?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

18th November 2009, 07:09 PM	#16
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Ladewig No, because the criminal in this case is not a citizen who has committed a wrong against me, it is an agent of the federal government acting with the approval of the government. My question, in its entirety, is how is it fair to me if the government, albeit conditionally, approves of my torture and then later brutally executes one government official. The government condones behavior all the time, and then punishes people who engage in that behavior inappropriately. How is it fair to you if a police officer, authorized by the government to shoot you any time he believes it necessary, shoots you and is subsequently punished for shooting you unnecessarily? In fact, how, exactly, is being shot in the knee unfairly by an interrogator any different than being shot in the knee unfairly by a policeman, both in terms of government pre-approval for the shooting and the amount of fairness to you in punishing the shooter?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

18th November 2009, 07:15 PM	#17
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,120	Originally Posted by Praktik I thought the solution to the torture problem was to redefine torture so it really isn't torture any longer... Or is that not working out anymore?? Most people seem to have seen through it by now, yes. I want some of what the OP has injected into himself, though.

18th November 2009, 07:55 PM	#18
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	Ya... maybe you don't really.... lolz
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

18th November 2009, 08:18 PM	#19
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,242	I have a solution to the torture problem: stop being a bunch of psychopaths.
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,242	__________________ 911science

19th November 2009, 07:05 AM	#20
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by theprestige The government condones behavior all the time, and then punishes people who engage in that behavior inappropriately. How is it fair to you if a police officer, authorized by the government to shoot you any time he believes it necessary, shoots you and is subsequently punished for shooting you unnecessarily? In fact, how, exactly, is being shot in the knee unfairly by an interrogator any different than being shot in the knee unfairly by a policeman, both in terms of government pre-approval for the shooting and the amount of fairness to you in punishing the shooter? It's a question of justification before the fact versus justification after the fact. Let me suggest a couple of examples. Suppose a policeman sees a man acting in a way that suggests he is about to do something dangerous with a weapon, issues a warning, and then shoots him, having complied with official guidelines as to when and how to go about the procedure of warning and shooting. When it turns out that the man was simply carrying a chair leg and was deaf, the policeman can still be judged to have acted correctly, because on the basis of the information available to him at the time, his actions were justified. Suppose a second policeman sees a man acting suspiciously, and promptly shoots him dead, from behind, without warning. Even though it subsequently turns out that the suspect was about to carry out an armed robbery of a nearby shop, the policeman is found to have violated guidelines and is therefore put on trial for an unlawful killing. The procedure analogous to the OP, however, is that the first policeman should be punished and the second exonerated on the basis of information that became available after the fact. That's not a good precedent to establish. It weakens the onus on a policeman to follow correct procedure, and allocates punishment largely on the basis of random, rather than controllable, factors. It's fundamentally anti-justice. In the case of torture, it's morally perhaps an even worse situation. If we allow retrospective justification of torture, then there is more motivation for the torturer to extract a false confession that will serve as sufficient retroactive justification for his actions. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

19th November 2009, 07:08 AM	#21
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Well said, Dave Rogers
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

19th November 2009, 07:27 AM	#22
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,166	I think the best solution is to follow international law, which the US has signed, making it US law as well, and not torture people whatsoever.

19th November 2009, 07:36 AM	#23
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,731	A simpler solution would be just to make it legal. Then USA citizens would know that if the security services have some reason to suspect that, for example, their grandmother is linked to some suspected terrorism activity she may be tortured. And then everyone can stop all this silly playing with semantics and get back to those good old fashioned USA values! Granted granny may no longer be able to make a thanksgiving apple pie because the bones in her hands never quite healed but at least everyone can sleep easy at night knowing that they are safe, well except for granny who wakes up screaming at 2am most nights and has to be drugged.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 19th November 2009 at 07:38 AM. Reason: Words

19th November 2009, 07:53 AM	#24
Ocelot Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 3,016	A possible solution to our rape problems. Let 'em do it. ... No, bear with me here, and pardon me if I get any legal aspects wrong. Consider the concept of the "citizen's arrest." Those nutbags who tried to detain Dick Cheney aside, this is the legal construction that allows a citizen witnessing a crime to temporarily assume the power of arrest--that is, to act as an officer of the law with respect to apprehending and restraining a miscreant until actual police arrive. If the arrest is performed more or less by the book and it's proven that the citizen acted properly, he or she is granted legal immunity from the charges of assault, wrongful imprisonment and so forth that one would normally incur by leaping upon somebody and wrestling them to the ground. If, however, the arrest is unjustified, the citizen is not protected and remains fully liable for the fact that they just tackled and hog-tied some random dude. In other words, if you can prove you were justified after the fact, you have the right under the law to do some pretty metal stuff to a guy--as long as you don't mind the risk that you'll be prosecuted if you can't. See where I'm going here? We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a person needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to blow their load--but we should also make it very clear that they will not automatically be granted the leeway to do so. If you can definitively prove (for a pretty steep definition of of the word) that the winsome slut in a low cut mini dress was begging for it. Yes, fine, we'll pardon you after the fact. If, as in most cases, it turns out you just ripped the belly out of someone's daughter, whose closest brush with swinging was in a playground next to the slides, then we take you into a little room somewhere and sodomise you you with a rubber cock until you stop twitching. And we make it clear by both word and deed that when in doubt, we'll go with the rubber cock. Sound fair?
	__________________ EDL = English Disco Lovers

19th November 2009, 08:07 AM	#25
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,783	Originally Posted by Jontg We should accept that sometimes (once in a few hundred cases, IIRC) a federal agent needs to take monstrously inhumane measures to save lives IIRC? What exactly are you recalling?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

19th November 2009, 09:49 AM	#26
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,404	Torture provides unreliable info. Figure it out, people.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

19th November 2009, 09:53 AM	#27
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Wow... I'm not even sure what to say. There's a long history of terrible ideas at the JREF, but this has to be up there with implementing Tippit's economic solutions.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

19th November 2009, 11:04 AM	#28
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers In the case of torture, it's morally perhaps an even worse situation. If we allow retrospective justification of torture, then there is more motivation for the torturer to extract a false confession that will serve as sufficient retroactive justification for his actions. Jontg has that covered. If the confession can't be substantiated, we get to beat the interrogator to death with a brick.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

19th November 2009, 11:35 AM	#29
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	The United States doesn't torture. It uses advanced interrogation techniques. Or the US'll just take the unlawful combatant to a country that will do the torture for them.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

19th November 2009, 03:55 PM	#30
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by theprestige Jontg has that covered. If the confession can't be substantiated, we get to beat the interrogator to death with a brick. Also, for the record, I'm absolutely against torturing people to gain confessions. I am, on the other hand, in principle willing to consider torturing people in certain cases to try to obtain actionable operational intelligence, where lives are at stake. I'm also absolutely opposed to using intelligence gained in such a way and for such a purpose, in a criminal trial as evidence for the prosecution (or the defense, really).
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

20th November 2009, 04:23 AM	#31
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by theprestige I am, on the other hand, in principle willing to consider torturing people in certain cases to try to obtain actionable operational intelligence, where lives are at stake. OK, time to start being skeptical then. What is the evidence that torture is effective as a means of obtaining actionable operational intelligence? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

20th November 2009, 05:53 AM	#32
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,225	A bit of out of the box thinking here: One way to reduce the problem of detainees and torture of same is to change the kill or capture policy for certain terrorists. Delete "or capture" from the orders. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

20th November 2009, 10:52 AM	#33
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers OK, time to start being skeptical then. What is the evidence that torture is effective as a means of obtaining actionable operational intelligence? Dave Couldn't tell you, honestly. I'm sure you're already aware that high-ranking Bush administration officials have claimed that it does, but I haven't looked into those claims and have no idea if they're true. However, if evidence supporting such claims does surface, I'm willing to consider torture, in principle, as I described above. Are you? Meanwhile, here's a simple protocol: Politely ask a subject to make testable claims about terrorist activity they've been involved in. If they refuse, ask... impolitely. Escalate until testable claims are made. Test the claims. If they are false, keep escalating until claims are made that test true. Reward the subject whenever progress is made. Escalate whenever progress is not made, or is reversed. Optionally, begin by restricting queries to claims which have already been tested by other means. It's often claimed that tortured confessions are worthless, because a subject will say anything to stop the torture. They'll even tell false stories, if they don't know any true stories that suit the purpose. So by the same token, it should be the case that if a person will say anything to stop the torture, they'll tell true stories, in the form of testable claims, if they know any that suit the purpose. Like I said, I don't have any evidence, but it seems to follow logically that the same principles of human psychology that make tortured confessions worthless, make tortured revelations of operational intelligence worthwhile. Finally, please help me be clear on where you stand. Some people take the position that torture is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not it is proven to produce life-saving intelligence. Is that your position? Or is your position that if it could be proven that torture, properly implemented, can produce life-saving intelligence, then it would be ethically acceptable to permit it within certain boundaries?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,566

20th November 2009, 11:05 AM	#34
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	Jontg, The scenario you describe is more or less reality. Torture is illegal in civilised countries but it is quite likely that the court would be somewhat understanding it a police officer had a clear case. (1/1⁶) Theprestige, Your scenario does not account for the random passer-by with no useful knowledge to save himself with.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.