• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Torture Report Released

Junebug said:
Apology accepted, but the problem isn't applying the wrong categorical imperative; it's applying one at all. Again, all I'm saying is that we've signed on to Geneva and, thus, we shouldn't enact laws that permit what it prohibits, regardless of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

I mean the bold is about as categorical as it gets.
 
Junebug said:
I would hope that AQ or ISIS would weed out the claustrophobic terrorists, but I'll play along. So what must you do with this person once you learned that they were severely claustrophobic, which, by hypothesis would happen soon after putting them in a cell? Let them go? Knock out a wall or two and give them a penthouse cell? Shackle them to a stake in the yard of the detention center? Or just stop having one of your purposes be to inflict severe pain? Isn't one of the problems with this last approach that a jury might just see through that?
Click to expand...

The purpose matters. If you put someone in a cell because you need someplace to put them (and you have a good reason in the first place to put them there) then that's not torture. If you learn that a person is severely claustrophobic and you put them in the smallest cell you can find solely to inflict pain in order to a) get information b) punish them for not giving you information or c) for you own enjoyment, then I think that pretty clearly constitutes torture.
 
Junebug said:
How about this: CIA agents are humans. Humans don't like being locked up in jail. Therefore, CIA agents will be deterred from doing certain acts in connection with their job (which, after all, is just a job at the end of the day) if a potential punishment for doing those acts is being locked up in jail?

I have one friend who works for the CIA. I don't know exactly what he does. Unsurprisingly, he's tight-lipped about his job. He could be an analyst, he could get people coffee, or he could be the CIA's top interrogator for all I know. He's smart, and I would assume that's one of prerequisites for the job. He also loves his country, which I would assume is another. Beyond that, your guess is as bad as mine.
Click to expand...

So beyond the two assumptions you say are OK, all other assumptions are equally bad? You can do better than that
 
Junebug said:
I've learned through interactions with you on this board that one of your favorite argumentation techniques is to mischaracterize the opinions of those who disagree with you and then attempt to demonstrate why that mischaracterized view is wrong. This strawman technique is common on message boards, I suppose because the nature of the interaction allows for easy misinterpretation, arguments seem so much punchier when they take down a position that is distorted beyond all recognition, and it puts the opponent in a defensive position. To wit; your comment above, that I'm "OK with experimenting on human beings," bears no resemblance whatsoever to the actual point of my post, which was that torture for the sake of torture itself (i.e., without any truthfinding purpose) is more reprehensible than torture for the sake of information gathering. I'm not sure if you are being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse with that one, but the obtusity is there either way.

So long as I'm clarifying things, I will also add that by saying it would have been "more reprehensible" for the CIA to have done what it did solely for the sake of doing it, that implies that what the CIA actually did is also reprehensible. By saying X has more of Y than Z does, the implication is that Z also has Y. In case that's not clear enough, I'll spell it out for you--I think some of what the CIA did after 9/11 as reflected in the report was reprehensible.

But back to the real points of disagreement. There are some posters on here (including you, if I'm understanding you correctly) who say "all torture is wrong in all situations" without even taking the time to define torture. In my view, that categorical imperative is misguided for two reasons. First, how can you possibly say something is categorically wrong without even knowing the definition of the something you are talking about? I understand the sentiment behind the knee-jerk instinct to call it all "wrong," but surely that can't be the case if even the most common sorts of interrogation techniques (like putting someone in a jail cell, as RChildress has suggested) constitutes torture. Whether that's what those posters are actually claiming is beside my point, which is that, although it might be difficult to draw lines (particularly for those with weaker constitutions), it seems to me very important to have working definitions of something before we go labeling it as "wrong" and then calling for people's heads because they engaged in it. I know there is a lot of righteous indignation on this thread, but shouting down people who are seeking definitional clarity is harmful to the truthfinding process.

Second, if you are going to hold that it is categorically wrong to torture (whatever that term may mean) then the categorical imperative must be true in all situations. That's the essence of a categorical imperative. So the ticking time bomb scenario has two purposes, one of which is to test whether the categorical imperative is truly categorical. On this purpose, it doesn't really matter how realistic the ticking timebomb situation is; it's being raised for purposes of moral theory alone. If you conclude that, even in the ticking timebomb situation, we still shouldn't torture, then you can stop. But if you conclude, as I do, that torture may be permissible in some situations, then the next step is to try to determine when (and what) torture is okay and when it isn't. It is only on this second purpose that the practical likelihood of the ticking timebomb scenario really comes into play.

In reality, the two points of disagreement I've noted above are intertwined. If we are going to define torture to include incarceration, for example, it seems to me anyway that that form of "torture" should be allowed in even the most common of cases. If we are going to define torture to include the enhanced interrogation techniques currently authorized by the Obama administration (solitary confinement, stress positions, sleep and sensory deprivation), then we should require some showing that the captive might have information that will be revealed by the technique (or something like that). And if we are going to go beyond those techniques, then we should require something more still.

As to that, all I have said in any of my posts so far is that, because the ticking timebomb scenario is a possible one, the law should take account of it and allow an escape valve. I don't think it is good policy to acknowledge the possibility of the ticking timebomb scenario but then have a law that is unduly restrictive in that situation, however unlikely it may be. It's unfair to the CIA agent on the ground to put him to that choice, and it unduly deters actions most of us think should be taken. Rather, in that situation, our laws should, upon an appropriately heightened showing that accounts for both well-meaning (if overzealous) CIA agents and ill-meaning ones alike, authorize EITs that go to the full extent allowable under Geneva. I'm more optimistic than you--not about human nature, but about the fact that our law can impose certain safeguards (both objective and subjective) to ensure that CIA agents on the ground don't have enough discretion to abuse it. The Bush Administration did not do a good job with that, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Finally, lest I be misunderstood (intentionally or otherwise), I will emphasize again that the EIT's I think should be allowed in the ticking timebomb scenario are those that are authorized under Geneva. I'm not talking about screws in captives' fingernails, electrodes on captives' ballsacks, or captives being placed on the rack. Even though Geneva might also unduly deter CIA agents in a ticking timebomb situation, that's the backstop we have to work with and I'm not advocating undoing that.
Click to expand...

Get a job hippie.
 
Junebug said:
Seriously. Responding to the #undefeateds sure can be tedious, though.
Click to expand...

When you are losing an argument, though, it certainly is easier to go ad hominem than continue to attack the structure of the argument.
 
Junebug said:
How about this: CIA agents are humans. Humans don't like being locked up in jail. Therefore, CIA agents will be deterred from doing certain acts in connection with their job (which, after all, is just a job at the end of the day) if a potential punishment for doing those acts is being locked up in jail?

I have one friend who works for the CIA. I don't know exactly what he does. Unsurprisingly, he's tight-lipped about his job. He could be an analyst, he could get people coffee, or he could be the CIA's top interrogator for all I know. He's smart, and I would assume that's one of prerequisites for the job. He also loves his country, which I would assume is another. Beyond that, your guess is as bad as mine.
Click to expand...

Here's a perfect example. You claim to know the same amount as Childress on the topic but he's talking out of his ass.
 
Junebug said:
This is the third time now that I've stated I'm not talking about a Kantian categorical imperative here. I don't know how to say it any clearer. I'm simply talking about ensuring that our criminal laws accurately reflect the treaties we've previously entered into.
Click to expand...

Just cause you have stated as such doesn't make it so. You stated a categorical imperative (multiple times now) that our criminal laws should accurately reflect the treaties we have entered into. You have stated you think that's the case even in a ticking time bomb scenario. If you don't agree with that categorical imperative you shouldn't state it as such, or you should offer a situation that would refute the categorical.
 
Junebug said:
On the assumption that the CIA has good reason to detain someone, what if agents have none of those evil purposes but simply continue to detain the detainee (within reasonable temporal limitations) in the cell that is available and convenient to them after they are aware he has crippling claustrophobia?

Changing gears, what if the CIA lacks a good reason to detain someone (a normal person, not a hypothetical AQ claustrophobe) but does so anyway. Is that torture?
Click to expand...

1. Not torture,

2. not necessarily torture but still morally wrong
 
Junebug said:
Telling someone they are talking out of their ass by claiming to know the moral views (and fiber) of a class of CIA agents isn't an ad hominem attack. It's just a crass way of saying "your position is without factual basis and is supported by nothing more than pure speculation."

In case you need help distinguishing the two, here's an example of an ad hominem attack:



As for your second point, I don't claim to know the same amount on the topic as Childress. I claim to know less. It's the stuff he's claiming to know above our common knowledge that is coming from his ass (or, if your tender sensibilities prefer, "from whole cloth"). My argument depends on the assumption that CIA interrogators are human and, as such, will be deterred from committing EITs by criminal laws that threaten to incarcerate them for employing EITs. I'm comfortable with that assumption as the basis of my position.
Click to expand...


I haven't claimed to "know" anything. Simply making assumptions and using deductive reasoning based on those assumptions to reach a conclusion.

I've pointed out why I feel the bolded assumption doesn't really hold up in a ticking time bomb situation. You refuted that argument by simply claiming I was talking out of my ass.
 
Getting back to this thread after a fun weekend of not-torturing myself with various forms of holiday baked treats.

Junebug, I appreciate you taking the time to make post #356. Let me start by outlining the points on which I believe we are in substantial agreement.

First, I am in agreement with you that there needs to be some commonly understood definition of what torture is. The UN Convention Against Torture is a good starting point. The definition:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...
Also note this, which I'll come back to later:

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Click to expand...

There is also this:

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Click to expand...
Bold added.

According to Wikipedia,
In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques of "sensory deprivation" were not torture as laid out in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but were "inhuman or degrading treatment"[79]
Click to expand...

The Geneva Conventions also prohibit torture, although I wasn't able to find a definition of torture within the conventions easily (read: in 5 minutes of googling). However, this excerpt is important:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW
Click to expand...
Bold added.

Second, I am in agreement with you that many of the CIA activities that took place during the Bush administration constituted torture, and were prohibited by the Convention. People who perpetrated them should be held to account. That includes those who enabled the actual torturers, in my opinion, like John Yoo and John Ashcroft.

The definitions of torture and degrading treatment in the UN Conventions and the Geneva protocols are quite broad. If read in good faith, by a person who is not trying to find loopholes and excuses to torture people, they seem to me to prohibit almost all of what the CIA did to the captives described in the Senate report. The Bush administration conveniently defined the people it tortured as "unlawful combatants" to avoid the application of Geneva. I'm not sure how they thought they could weasel out of the Convention Against Torture but I'm sure it's somewhere in Yoo's memos. This sort of behavior has had a significant influence on my thinking around the issue of whether exceptions to the torture rules should be allowed, because experience shows that if any exceptions are allowed, they will be exploited and expanded by unscrupulous persons.


Now, there remains one issue where your thinking is not completely clear to me. Some of your posts seem to suggest that in a "ticking time bomb" situation, there should be exceptions to the rules so that torture is expressly allowed, even though the actions in question would not be lawful under the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture. Thus, if I am interpreting your position correctly, it seems to me that you would allow actual torture, i.e. the infliction of severe pain and suffering, in a ticking time bomb situation, as a matter of law. I note that this sort of justification is expressly prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture, as quoted above "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever ... may be invoked as a justification of torture."

If this is correct, we disagree. Setting aside the fact that the US government has already agreed to an international treaty banning such justifications, I have at least 4 reasons for objecting to such an exception:

1. As we have seen, state actors tend to look for loopholes and justifications so they can do whatever they want to do. Providing such a loophole in black letter law guarantees that it will be exploited. It's especially bad if the perpetrator simply has to plead that they had a subjective belief that there was some sort of horrible imminent threat, as you have suggested (you used the words "good faith belief").
2. Outside of comic books and TV, such scenarios are vanishingly rare. In fact, I have never heard of a real life incident where a perpetrator is captured and has information that would prevent a bomb going off or other adverse consequence if they would just talk.
3. Given the scientific evidence available on the usefulness of torture, it is hard to imagine that torture would even be effective in such a situation. If a person is depraved enough to set up a bomb to kill innocents, he is probably tough enough to withstand torture long enough for his bomb to go off.
4. Given #2 and #3, I believe the likelihood of the exception being abused is exponentially more likely than the extremely remote possibility of it being rightfully and successfully exercised.

If I have misstated your position, please clarify it.
 
"Enhanced interrogation" is on Lake Superior State's annual list of words to be banned from the dictionary. The only comment given on the word was "a euphemism for torture."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top