Torture

**Ziska** · 19 May 05, 03:51

Not sure where to put this but anyway...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinio...?oneclick=true

A case for torture
By Mirko Bagaric
May 17, 2005

Our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that it can be a moral means of saving lives.

Recent events stemming from the "war on terrorism" have highlighted the prevalence of torture. This is despite the fact that torture is almost universally deplored. The formal prohibition against torture is absolute - there are no exceptions to it.

The belief that torture is always wrong is, however, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators. It is this type of absolutist and short-sighted rhetoric that lies at the core of many distorted moral judgements that we as a community continue to make, resulting in an enormous amount of injustice and suffering in our society and far beyond our borders.

Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person. The reason that torture in such a case is defensible and necessary is because the justification manifests from the closest thing we have to an inviolable right: the right to self-defence, which of course extends to the defence of another. Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer.

The analogy with self-defence is sharpened by considering the hostage-taking scenario, where a wrongdoer takes a hostage and points a gun to the hostage's head, threatening to kill the hostage unless a certain (unreasonable) demand is met. In such a case it is not only permissible, but desirable for police to shoot (and kill) the wrongdoer if they get a "clear shot". This is especially true if it's known that the wrongdoer has a history of serious violence, and hence is more likely to carry out the threat.

The belief that torture is always wrong is misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators."There is no logical or moral difference between this scenario and one where there is overwhelming evidence that a wrongdoer has kidnapped an innocent person and informs police that the victim will be killed by a co-offender if certain demands are not met.

In the hostage scenario, it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save an innocent person. How can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing the aggressor in order to save a life in the second scenario?

There are three main counter-arguments to even the above limited approval of torture. The first is the slippery slope argument: if you start allowing torture in a limited context, the situations in which it will be used will increase.

This argument is not sound in the context of torture. First, the floodgates are already open - torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it. Amnesty International has recently reported that it had received, during 2003, reports of torture and ill-treatment from 132 countries, including the United States, Japan and France. It is, in fact, arguable that it is the existence of an unrealistic absolute ban that has driven torture beneath the radar of accountability, and that legalisation in very rare circumstances would in fact reduce instances of it.

The second main argument is that torture will dehumanise society. This is no more true in relation to torture than it is with self-defence, and in fact the contrary is true. A society that elects to favour the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring.

A third counter-argument is that we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life. This, however, is the same situation as in all cases of self-defence. To revisit the hostage example, the hostage-taker's gun might in fact be empty, yet it is still permissible to shoot. As with any decision, we must decide on the best evidence at the time.

Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent high-profile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evidence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible.

Will a real-life situation actually occur where the only option is between torturing a wrongdoer or saving an innocent person? Perhaps not. However, a minor alteration to the Douglas Wood situation illustrates that the issue is far from moot. If Western forces in Iraq arrested one of Mr Wood's captors, it would be a perverse ethic that required us to respect the physical integrity of the captor, and not torture him to ascertain Mr Wood's whereabouts, in preference to taking all possible steps to save Mr Wood.

Even if a real-life situation where torture is justifiable does not eventuate, the above argument in favour of torture in limited circumstances needs to be made because it will encourage the community to think more carefully about moral judgements we collectively hold that are the cause of an enormous amount of suffering in the world.

First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles.

Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference.

Equally vacuous is the claim that we in the affluent West have no responsibility for more than 13,000 people dying daily due to starvation. Hopefully, the debate on torture will prompt us to correct some of these fundamental failings.

Mirko Bagaric is professor of law and head of the Deakin Law School. This is a summary of a paper co-written with Julie Clarke, which is to be published by the University of San Francisco Law Review.

**highsea** · 19 May 05, 06:00

I understand the author's point, but I don't like his analogy. In a hostage situation, you don't have physical control over the hostage taker. You have to use maximum force because there is no other option.

Torturing prisoners for information is different, because there are more effective ways to get information. If the situation is imminent, juice him up with pentathol and he will blab away without coercion. It's the prohibition against interrogation under chemicals that we need to get over, not the prohibition on physical torture.

If there is time, psychological coercion can be effective. But physical torture, no. Eventually the prisoner will say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear just to end the pain. This makes the intelligence unreliable.

I say give them a roof over their heads, protect their physical safety, give them 2 meals a day, a cot and a toilet, and whatever their "spiritual" well being requires. If they refuse to talk, shoot'em up with blabber juice and they'll tell you what they know. There's no need for physical torture.

**Confed999** · 19 May 05, 06:15

Originally Posted by highsea

If the situation is imminent, juice him up with pentathol and he will blab away without coercion. It's the prohibition against interrogation under chemicals that we need to get over, not the prohibition on physical torture.

If there is time, psychological coercion can be effective.

Both could be considered torture. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

**Parihaka** · 19 May 05, 06:52

The belief that torture is always wrong is misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators."There is no logical or moral difference between this scenario and one where there is overwhelming evidence that a wrongdoer has kidnapped an innocent person and informs police that the victim will be killed by a co-offender if certain demands are not met.

The standard defence best epitomised by the Laurel and Hardy line "Now look what YOU MADE ME do"

There are three main counter-arguments to even the above limited approval of torture. The first is the slippery slope argument: if you start allowing torture in a limited context, the situations in which it will be used will increase.

Which indeed it does as the author affirms below

the floodgates are already open - torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it. Amnesty International has recently reported that it had received, during 2003, reports of torture and ill-treatment from 132 countries, including the United States, Japan and France. It is, in fact, arguable that it is the existence of an unrealistic absolute ban that has driven torture beneath the radar of accountability, and that legalisation in very rare circumstances would in fact reduce instances of it.

We already do it so lets use that as the justification for doing it

[QUOTE]The second main argument is that torture will dehumanise society. This is no more true in relation to torture than it is with self-defence, and in fact the contrary is true. A society that elects to favour the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring.[QUOTE]A society that elects to torture is a society that tortures. full stop.

A third counter-argument is that we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life. This, however, is the same situation as in all cases of self-defence. To revisit the hostage example, the hostage-taker's gun might in fact be empty, yet it is still permissible to shoot. As with any decision, we must decide on the best evidence at the time.

You have a moral accountability to yourself that is irrespective of the criminal, otherwise you're no different. "Now look what YOU MADE ME do."

Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent high-profile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evidence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible.

It is always reprehensible, it makes you no different than the criminal

Will a real-life situation actually occur where the only option is between torturing a wrongdoer or saving an innocent person? Perhaps not.

But still apparently serves as justification for torture

Even if a real-life situation where torture is justifiable does not eventuate, the above argument in favour of torture in limited circumstances needs to be made because it will encourage the community to think more carefully about moral judgements we collectively hold that are the cause of an enormous amount of suffering in the world.

Because we can think of a hypothetical situation, that should be used to justify real-life torture

First, no right or interest is absolute.

Really? I'm sure the next time he's victimised by a criminal he'll sing a different tune.

Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference.

The concept of torturing because he can think of a hypothesis where he feels morally right in doing so sounds far more like moral indifference to me.

Equally vacuous is the claim that we in the affluent West have no responsibility for more than 13,000 people dying daily due to starvation. Hopefully, the debate on torture will prompt us to correct some of these fundamental failings.

OF COURSE, torturing will end world hunger! why didn't I think of that.

Mirko Bagaric is professor of law and head of the Deakin Law School. This is a summary of a paper co-written with Julie Clarke, which is to be published by the University of San Francisco Law Review.

Mirko and Julie are advocates of torture.

**Confed999** · 19 May 05, 06:56

Originally Posted by parihaka

Mirko and Julie are advocates of torture.

They're allowed to be, they are allowed to have any opinion really, they just can't do it.

**highsea** · 19 May 05, 06:56

Originally Posted by Confed999

Both could be considered torture. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

I know. I just don't care. Chemical interrogation is more effective and humane than physical torture, imo.

**Confed999** · 19 May 05, 06:58

Originally Posted by highsea

I know. I just don't care.

I don't consider alot of what is classified as "torture, as being torture either.

**Bill** · 19 May 05, 09:55

"Our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that it can be a moral means of saving lives."

Gee, no kidding.

"You have a moral accountability to yourself that is irrespective of the criminal, otherwise you're no different. "Now look what YOU MADE ME do.""

No , it's YOU that seem to have some 'moral accountability' over the issue, i could frankly care less how many Hajis we have to torture(and by torture...i mean torture, not the nonsense that you call torture) to stop a terror attack before it happens.

"It is always reprehensible, it makes you no different than the criminal"

WRONG. It makes you ALIVE where you might otherwise have been DEAD. It makes your KIDS alive where THEY might have otherwise been DEAD. It's one thing if it's a 'war of convenience', it's entirely different when it's a war of survival such as that we're currently embroiled in.

"Because we can think of a hypothetical situation, that should be used to justify real-life torture"

Gee, let me think....YES.

**Ziska** · 26 May 05, 03:19

If I were on ops, and we caught some T who knew where the rest of his mates were hiding, it's take something special to stop me using whatever means necessary to get him to tell me.

You look after your men first. That is what you have to do.

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 May 05, 04:57

Torture under any circumstances is unacceptable. That is why when it is apply, only one person and one person only must step up to accept the responsibility of it being issued and that person must be always the man in charge.

If I accepted the responsibility of safeguarding the well being of my people and torture was the only way to do it, then I cannot and will not avoid the punishement for committing the crime.

**Major Dad** · 26 May 05, 06:46

Originally Posted by Confed999

I don't consider alot of what is classified as "torture, as being torture either.

Me neither, especially if the UN says it is.

**Ziska** · 26 May 05, 07:23

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Torture under any circumstances is unacceptable. That is why when it is apply, only one person and one person only must step up to accept the responsibility of it being issued and that person must be always the man in charge.

If I accepted the responsibility of safeguarding the well being of my people and torture was the only way to do it, then I cannot and will not avoid the punishement for committing the crime.

So are you saying you would do it, then take the rap?

I would not do it, as I have sworn an oath not to break the law, but laws can be changed.

**Bluesman** · 26 May 05, 07:23

Originally Posted by Ziska

If I were on ops, and we caught some T who knew where the rest of his mates were hiding, it's take something special to stop me using whatever means necessary to get him to tell me.

You look after your men first. That is what you have to do.

Disagree, sir. MISSION FIRST.

And I think the mission is a larger thing than just what YOU are doing at any given moment. So, you may fail in that task you have been given and now you and all your men are dead, but the larger mission - is safeguarded.

Think of it this way: you and all your men are now dead and you fail to attain your objective, and it was all because you didn't resort to torture. (Helluva stretch, but I'll buy into your hypothetical scenario for the argument's sake.)

But you've not done any harm to the war's aim by causing the sorts of problems that we are debating in this very thread.

In the big picture, you won more than you lost. And you have to be prepared as a warrior to die for the mission. If your actions result in a net loss for the cause - and it will, if your decision to resort to torture becomes known, as it inevitably will - then you were not prepared to lay down your life for the good of your country.

Not the sort of warrior I reserve my unqualified respect for.

**Bill** · 26 May 05, 09:47

"But you've not done any harm to the war's aim by causing the sorts of problems that we are debating in this very thread."

Well now that depends on what his mission might've been, doesn't it Blue?

I say do unto others as they do to you.

If your enemy is playing 'by the rules', then you should too. If they choose not to live up to any decent standards of conduct, then well, it's their own fault when you don't either.

I personally like the Colonels take on this. What a leader of men he must've been... i have much respect for his honesty.

**dave angel** · 26 May 05, 13:06

i'd agree with and extend on bluesman's point.

no democratic country with a free press can hide torture or 'rough handling', if it leaks out of some god-forsaken hellhole like uzbekistan or saddam's iraq its chances of remaining secret in the UK, australia or the US are somewhere between not-a-lot and SFA. we have seen what effect the disclosure of unauthorised torture has on our countries good names, can you imagine the reaction to organised, authorised mistreatment?

as importantly, most countries have learnt that crude, physical torture doesn't work. it produces inaccurate, often false information the use of which is likely to lead to even greater casualties. israel, the UK, germany, the soviet union and even vietnam have discovered this the hard way.

when the police or intelligence services question a suspect they use highly trained, highly experienced interrogators with a significant knowledge of psychology, they spend days and weeks peeling back the suspects lies and misinformation with attention to detail, repatition and perception - rarely do they feel that sending a 6ft PC into the cells to give the suspect a good shoeing adds anything to the sum of human knowledge.

given these facts, i'm interested to know what 8 squaddies in the field with no knowledge of psychology, little time and no opportunity to corroborate or evaluate the 'information' they glean feel they will achieve - apart from a courts martial, blackening their country's name, losing friends and alienating people, and getting duff information that leads them on a wild goose chase?

interrogation is a game for experts - possibly aided by chemicals, not for people who get off burning ants with a magnifying glass and who 'like to feel good' about getting their hands on the enemy.

Thread: Torture

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Torture

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Torture: Coming to Terms with 'The Dark Side'

Religious Rights are being respected at Gitmo

Wacko Left: US ''a leading purveyor and practitioner'' of torture; Arrest Bush

How to Interrogate Terrorists

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions