bbauska wrote:To first answer the question Danivon asked of me. Yes, some could go and attack because of the supposed "torture".

Do I have a problem with other countries doing the same thing to our soldiers? Nope. War is hell. To quote General R.E. Lee:

It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

That was not my question, or you are answering it very obtusely. You are claiming that torture is justified because it may save American lives (not just "supposed torture", I am reading your above posts in full).

That's not just soldiers, by the way. But if US use of torture helps to recruit people to anti-American terrorism, and thereby costs American lives, then it's possible that it may be counter-productive. It's hard to quantify either accurately, but the net effect could be either way.

On the soldiers bit, and General Lee's quote, well we can all quote a wise man making a little aphorism, but the whole charge is that this is not how war is carried out. Terrorism is not normal warfare. Neither is torture. Battles are indeed nasty enterprises, but why add more to the tally?

And what would be your opinion if it was US civilians caught up by enemies and subjected to torture? What if they protest their innocence? What if it turns out they were a case of mistaken identity?

Is their torture acceptable to you then? What will you accept with a shrug and a homily when government is behind it?

What are the criteria? Ten elements must be in place:
1. An attack is imminent
2. Legal and other authorities know about this imminent attack
3. The attack will kill a large number of innocent people (this assumes a terrorist attack rather than an act in war)
4. Authorities have captured the/a perpetrator who knows where the bomb is hidden
5. The authorities know that this is the right person
6. The authorities know only torture will make him talk
7. There is no other way to know where the bomb is hidden
8. No evacuations are possible
9. Torture, if used, can only used to get information (i.e. not used in a sadistic manner)
10. Torture is used only in extraordinary circumstances
The likelihood that all of these elements will fall into place at the same time is nearly impossible.
Because it is impossible to confirm with advance certainty what any suspect actually knows, ticking bomb torture can be justified in virtually every interrogation.

And the fact that the bomb is ticking, means that the tortured subject, if he really has information,only has to hold out for a limited amount of time.... Meaning false information and delays that come with it are more likely than any real truth...

Torture is one of the causes of the Iraq war. Information derived from torture formed a large part of the rationale for the invasion.... How many lives were lost because of this?

While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.

http://www.alternet.org/story/28585/why ... n%27t_work

Ray Jay wrote:There's chatter of a nuclear bomb being set off in NYC. A known terrorist in captivity may have some inside knowledge. It would be inhumane to the millions of people who live in NYC to not do whatever it takes to find out. No doubt you would risk their deaths for your principles.

How much 'chatter' is needed to make a threat credible? What if it turns out the 'chatter' is just rubbish and you tortured a guy for nothing?

The ticking time-bomb scenario, as used here or by Scalia or others, is indeed a situation in which extreme methods may be the lesser of two evils. But like most 'clear' hypotheticals, such as the ones with runaway trains and people on the rails, they are not as realistic as all that: or situations that are real may trick us into thinking they are as simple and binary when they are not.

But what the CIA were doing does not seem to be even that. Someone who has been in captivity for any length of time is going to be of rapidly decreasing value for such short-term questions. Why? well because even if they do know of a plan, there is an increased chance that the people working on it know he's been taken and so adapt their plans in case he does talk (because that's possible without torture), or because evidence is gathered through his capture in other means.

I guess I'm a 1.001 on the scale. There may be a scenario where there's a compelling case for torture, but I've not seen it yet.

Danivon,
Yes, terrorism is war. You may not like the term "war on terrorism", but it is out there, and it has been going on. Yes, not just soldiers get killed because a jihadi gets angry that one of their "soldiers" are water-boarded.

Civilians ARE involved. Perhaps you have not seen the beheadings? Perhaps you missed a little known news story that occurred over the weekend in Australia? Those incidents are not occurring on a military base. To all the cases you listed I reply with the Lee quote. That is why I used it. War is a horrible solution. In most cases it is better that the alternative of doing nothing. I know we disagree on that, but you did ask.

The reason I used the term "supposed torture", is because when the waterboarding was occurring, it was not considered torture by the US government. With a new Administration you get new rules I guess.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Yes, terrorism is war. You may not like the term "war on terrorism", but it is out there, and it has been going on.

But it is a form of war carried out outside the rules of war. Lee know about the rules of war as well as the horrors. A 'war on terrorism' is as bonkers a concept as a 'war on drugs', especially when as in both cases only certain types are focused on.

And I tell you what, the danger in war is that we become more like the enemy we are fighting.

Civilians ARE involved. Perhaps you have not seen the beheadings?

And we normally treat beheadings of civilian captives as war crimes. And we should treat them as war crimes. Indeed, we would treat the summary executions of soldiers who are simply captives as war crimes. We DID after WWII do exactly that. We do in other conflicts.

Perhaps you missed a little known news story that occurred over the weekend in Australia?

You mean on Monday? So far the evidence seems to be that the guy who took hostages in the Lindt cafe was not just a 'lone wolf', but was a wack-job who attached himself to the 'cause' to in some sick way legitimise his crusade. He converted to Sunni Islam in the last couple of weeks. He was facing indictments for involvement in murder and sexual assaults.

But of course, we help to legitimise these lone wolves by such things as a 'declaration of war' and also through making really bad decisions, such as invading countries on false pretences, lowering our standards to commit torture...

Those incidents are not occurring on a military base. To all the cases you listed I reply with the Lee quote. That is why I used it. War is a horrible solution. In most cases it is better that the alternative of doing nothing. I know we disagree on that, but you did ask.

Certainly I do disagree with the idea that most wars are better fought than not.

The reason I used the term "supposed torture", is because when the waterboarding was occurring, it was not considered torture by the US government. With a new Administration you get new rules I guess.

It was considered torture up to that point as well. The US government under Bush II changed the definition of 'torture' from that it had agreed to, in defiance of the prevailing historical and international definition. The current administration changed it back.

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:There's chatter of a nuclear bomb being set off in NYC. A known terrorist in captivity may have some inside knowledge. It would be inhumane to the millions of people who live in NYC to not do whatever it takes to find out. No doubt you would risk their deaths for your principles.

How much 'chatter' is needed to make a threat credible? What if it turns out the 'chatter' is just rubbish and you tortured a guy for nothing?

The ticking time-bomb scenario, as used here or by Scalia or others, is indeed a situation in which extreme methods may be the lesser of two evils. But like most 'clear' hypotheticals, such as the ones with runaway trains and people on the rails, they are not as realistic as all that: or situations that are real may trick us into thinking they are as simple and binary when they are not.

But what the CIA were doing does not seem to be even that. Someone who has been in captivity for any length of time is going to be of rapidly decreasing value for such short-term questions. Why? well because even if they do know of a plan, there is an increased chance that the people working on it know he's been taken and so adapt their plans in case he does talk (because that's possible without torture), or because evidence is gathered through his capture in other means.

I guess I'm a 1.001 on the scale. There may be a scenario where there's a compelling case for torture, but I've not seen it yet.

Sure; 1.1 for me ... if you go to Sas's original choices, option 1 does not offer wiggle room.

BTW, if you want to understand evil, take a look at what the Taliban did earlier today. Add full access to information on how to make WMD's and disgruntled people everywhere and you begin to understand the potential threats involved.

Ray Jay wrote:BTW, if you want to understand evil, take a look at what the Taliban did earlier today. Add full access to information on how to make WMD's and disgruntled people everywhere and you begin to understand the potential threats involved.

Sure. That was evil. I understand threats from evil. Doesn't mean I want to descend to evil to fight it.