Is torture ever justified?
A new poll reported upon at MSNBC (see here) reports that a majority of Americans feel the use of torture is justified at least in rare instances. Surprisingly a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea hold the same viewpoint.
I will admit being extremely torn on this issue. However if I had been one of those polled, I too would have probably answered yes, at least in rare instances it is.
Here in America the earlier debate was framed with the extreme circumstance. The scenario went: You know a nuclear device is going to explode in a large American city within the next several hours. You catch a suspect whom you are fairly certain knows where the device is planted. The explosion will kill hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. Is torture justified in this case to potentially save all these lives?
Well at least 61% of Americans say yes. I am surprised it is not even a larger percentage.
However what would they reply if a less extreme case was presented to them? Would they support the use of torture if it would save only a few hundred lives? How about a dozen lives? What if you are not totally certain the suspect really knows anything? In other words he might be innocent? It is a slippery slope isn't it? Once you say it is OK in rare circumstances you have to then think about just where the line should be drawn.
Personally I am torn about where to draw the line. As proven on 9-11, and in numerous other terrorist attacks, we face a ruthless enemy. Is it possible that the only way to defeat them is to become as ruthless as they are? As long as terrorist attacks remain rather infrequent I think I do not want us going down that road. We should resist it as long as possible. However if terrorist attacks became a common occurrence I could see my position weakening. I am fairly certain that more and more Americans would approve of, perhaps even demand, the use of torture in less extreme cases.
I guess I am still (thus far) against the use of torture except in the very rarest of circumstances, however the foundation of my position rests on very shaky ground. Is it possible that the only reason we have not seen more terrorist attacks in America and other western countries is due to the current practice of "rendition"? Is it possible that if these renditions did not happen we could have experienced more terror attacks?
I still wish to resist the siren's call of becoming as ruthless as our enemy. One of the reasons I condemn our enemy is BECAUSE they are so ruthless. I hope we do not have to adopt their methods to defeat them. I would wish that we stick with our ideals for as long as possible, however I am a realist in accepting that we may have to suspend our ideals temporarily if things get bad enough.
I will admit being extremely torn on this issue. However if I had been one of those polled, I too would have probably answered yes, at least in rare instances it is.
Here in America the earlier debate was framed with the extreme circumstance. The scenario went: You know a nuclear device is going to explode in a large American city within the next several hours. You catch a suspect whom you are fairly certain knows where the device is planted. The explosion will kill hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. Is torture justified in this case to potentially save all these lives?
Well at least 61% of Americans say yes. I am surprised it is not even a larger percentage.
However what would they reply if a less extreme case was presented to them? Would they support the use of torture if it would save only a few hundred lives? How about a dozen lives? What if you are not totally certain the suspect really knows anything? In other words he might be innocent? It is a slippery slope isn't it? Once you say it is OK in rare circumstances you have to then think about just where the line should be drawn.
Personally I am torn about where to draw the line. As proven on 9-11, and in numerous other terrorist attacks, we face a ruthless enemy. Is it possible that the only way to defeat them is to become as ruthless as they are? As long as terrorist attacks remain rather infrequent I think I do not want us going down that road. We should resist it as long as possible. However if terrorist attacks became a common occurrence I could see my position weakening. I am fairly certain that more and more Americans would approve of, perhaps even demand, the use of torture in less extreme cases.
I guess I am still (thus far) against the use of torture except in the very rarest of circumstances, however the foundation of my position rests on very shaky ground. Is it possible that the only reason we have not seen more terrorist attacks in America and other western countries is due to the current practice of "rendition"? Is it possible that if these renditions did not happen we could have experienced more terror attacks?
I still wish to resist the siren's call of becoming as ruthless as our enemy. One of the reasons I condemn our enemy is BECAUSE they are so ruthless. I hope we do not have to adopt their methods to defeat them. I would wish that we stick with our ideals for as long as possible, however I am a realist in accepting that we may have to suspend our ideals temporarily if things get bad enough.
posted by Little David at 12/06/2005 07:42:00 PM
6 Comments:
I am entirely against torture except, as you say, in the gravest and most serious of circumstances. For example, if you capture someone you know has planted a bomb which is set for imminent detonation. If the only way to reasonably have a chance of saving innocent lives is by extracting the information from the criminal in a manner that would otherwise be considered "torture", then there is no choice.
I consider this sort of situation the moral equivalent of shooting a dangerous armed criminal where members of the public are in imminent danger of harm.
However, this sort of situation is very rare indeed. The planned, prolonged and systematic torture used by many nations (and arguably, by the United States as well by proxy when they use "extraordinary rendition") is completely outside of such circumstances.
Pragmatically, the "evidence" produced by torture is inadequate and unreliable. If it is by "taking terrorists out" that terrorist plots don't succeed, then surely incarceration without torture would accomplish the same thing. Charging someone of a criminal conspiracy should be able to be done within the normal bounds of law and without resorting to torture.
Unlike the United States Government which has an entirely two-faced and hypocritical approach to torture, the British Law Lords have recently ruled that evidence produced by torture (from anyone i.e., from nasty countries we send prisoners to under extraordinary rendition, not just torture by British agents which is already illegal) is inadmissable to court.
I still wish to resist the siren's call of becoming as ruthless as our enemy. One of the reasons I condemn our enemy is BECAUSE they are so ruthless. I hope we do not have to adopt their methods to defeat them.
Absolutely. I agree entirely. If we claim to be civilised, then we must obey the standards and laws we expect from "civilised people". Rule of law and basic human rights are part of that standard.
Regards,
Michael Tam
vitualis' Medical Rants
First off I agree with your pointing out how information obtained via torture is very often unreliable.
However you said: "I consider this sort of situation the moral equivalent of shooting a dangerous armed criminal where members of the public are in imminent danger of harm."
So then perhaps you would consider that torture is appropriate to save even just one human life? Slippery slope isn't it?
Don't confuse the argument by trying to include Abu Ghraib within it, that case is almost universally condemned. Think only about the renditions. Is it OK to "render" someone who you are fairly certain knows something that if you knew it would save "innocent" lives?
Slippery slope.
Let's take the argument a little further. Not that I am in favor of torture but because I am so torn. Surely you must agree that within our society some innocent people end up being locked up. Some are found guilty of murders that they did not commit. If we as a civilized society can accept locking up innocent people for the "greater good", how big a leap is it to accept torture of the "occasional" innocent individual? Even the guilty will try to portray themselves as innocent!
It is indeed a slippery slope. Once you open the door a crack you risk allowing the door to be thrown open to all kinds of evil you never intended to allow in.
Too bad we face an enemy that forces us to face these moral dilemnas.
Actually, although I do not believe in torture, I also do not believe in the "slippery slope" argument.
As for the example of the "bomb", the key difference here is not how many people will die (presumably one or more), but rather the acuteness of the situation. We humans suffer from the arrow of time and if performing an "evil" is necessary (insofar as it gives the only possibility of success) to prevent a greater evil in the "immediate term", then I believe that it can be justified.
With regards to rendition or the "prolonged systematic torture", arguably such policy might actually work. However, it would be a palpable lie for any government to claim that it is the only option available to them. Significant acts of terror are almost always a long term project for the criminals contemplating it. The gathering of intelligence, interrogation and subsequent incarceration of such criminals should be able to be performed with the bounds of law.
To follow on from my example in the previous comment, it may be justified to shoot (to kill) an armed criminal holding up a bank with hostages if they apppear to be about to kill one of the hostages. It would not, however, be reasonable to "shoot to kill" the same criminal if he or she was simply walking towards the bank (but your intelligence gathering had discovered his intent) and no members of public are in imminent danger.
In any case, I think that our positions on torture are actually quite similar though we have different ethical justifications for and against its practice.
I always take the "slippery slope" argument with a certain wariness though. For example, a simple analogy would be that vegetarians argue against eating meat because that would put us on the "slippery slope" towards "cannibalism". Although most "slippery slope" arguments are not so patently absurd, they often do not have much merit.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Michael,
We are not talking about criminals who will simply rob a bank and steal some of our wealth. We are talking about criminals who will do the unthinkable. Or at least that which was considered unthinkable before 9-11.
You stated: "It would not, however, be reasonable to "shoot to kill" the same criminal if he or she was simply walking towards the bank (but your intelligence gathering had discovered his intent) and no members of public are in imminent danger."
I think it would be reasonable to "shoot to kill" the criminal who is simply walking towards the aircraft with the intent of hijacking the aircraft and flying it into skyscrapers. We need not wait until after he flew the aircraft into the skyscraper to act against him. I think that would be called "Too late".
I think it would be reasonable to "shoot to kill" the criminal who is simply walking towards the aircraft with the intent of hijacking the aircraft and flying it into skyscrapers. We need not wait until after he flew the aircraft into the skyscraper to act against him. I think that would be called "Too late".
Here, I disagree with you. If you knew his intent then the relevant law enforcement agencies should be able to arrest the bastard before they commit their nefarious act.
Regards,
Michael Tam
But what happens if you are fairly certain the man is involved in the act, has information about the act, but is not the one assigned to carry it out?
Here in America the debate, as framed by the Dubyah administration, even travels towards that you can not give some of these men a "fair trial" because by doing so you would have to disclose classified information about how you found out about them. This is a valid point even if it is coming from the Dubyah administration. (Dubyah has a poor track record on judging just who is a reliable informant as proven by who he trusted in his justification for the Iraq invasion.)
Post a Comment
<< Home