Waterboarding

[BSmith1068]

@ Berzerker: Is torture justifiable in this situation?:

Some old friends and I were enjoying a spirited discussion of torture via email yesterday, and I presented them with a hypothetical that I thought I’d post here as well. It neatly bundles up all the reasons why torture is wrong. While the situation is hypothetical, Pete is a real life friend of mine who is a dentist in the Army Reserve Dental Corps. I forget what rank he is, but he’s an officer.

Let’s say that Pete is deployed to Iraq, and, while on the way to get a falafel sandwich, is captured by Iraqi insurgents who happen to be former members of the Iraqi secret police. Pete is a US Army officer, and the insurgents feel like they have nabbed a high value prisoner. They are concerned about future US air strikes killing their family members. They would like to know whether there are any plans for the US to bomb their neighborhood, and figure that Pete might be able to help them out.

Would it be wrong for them to torture Pete? As far as they’re concerned, he’s their best shot at keeping their families from getting blown up.

And what’s Pete’s best shot at not getting tortured? He can keep telling them that he’s only a dentist and he doesn’t know anything about military plans, but isn’t that exactly what someone trained to resist interrogation would say?

http://rc3.org/2006/09/20/a-torture-hypothetical/

Also – you still have not provided any proof that water boarding prevented and imminent attack, but are basing your argument on the fact that it does. Prove that it has prevented an attack that was about to happen, and that water boarding was the only way to prevent it.

 

[El_Machinae]

BronxWarlord was also 100% certain that almost no civilians were injured in that recent bombing fiasco in Afghanistan. Due to what he personally heard from personal witnesses. Yeah. Except 33 innocents died, mostly women and kids.

So let's pretty well ignore his personal testimony when it comes to acceptable wartime behaviour.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

BronxWarlord was also 100% certain that almost no civilians were injured in that recent bombing fiasco in Afghanistan. Due to what he personally heard from personal witnesses. Yeah. Except 33 innocents died, mostly women and kids.

So let's pretty well ignore his personal testimony when it comes to acceptable wartime behaviour.

I'd like you to point out were I said no civilians were killed in that incident, please. I do recal saying that I seriously doubted 90 were killed as the initial report were claimed.

Suprise I was correct, it's amazing what people will say though when cash handouts are concerned.

 

[JollyRoger]

Suprise I was correct, it's amazing what people will say though when cash handouts are concerned.

Yep. They will sell an innocent to Gitmo.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

@ Berzerker: Is torture justifiable in this situation?:

I think we should ask anyone that has been taken prisoner by the insurgency just exactly how the enemy feels about torture. Oh wait thats right... they are all dead. Some of them found with there sex organs removed and in the wrong places. In the example of a " situation " of " Pete the Army Dentist " I can tell you he would be killed. Most likely quickly. Insurgents are not all dumb, I am pretty sure they would know a dentist is not going to have information about airstrikes and operation movements.

Seriously... Pete the Army Dentist? He's my " real life " friend?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Yep. They will sell an innocent to Gitmo.

Of course they will. As a Lawyer you should of all people know that everyone in every prison is innocent!

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I guess we could always ask this guy

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=

Just how effective waterboarding is. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the information he gave saved lives, not just American lives. We can all agree that is a good thing right? Or are we going to say that in the course of saving lives that even then waterbording is wrong? Is that the case?

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course they will. As a Lawyer you should of all people know that everyone in every prison is innocent!

Not everyone in prison is guilty. Gitmo, based on releases without trial had a very high false positive record.

I guess we could always ask this guy

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=

Just how effective waterboarding is. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the information he gave saved lives, not just American lives. We can all agree that is a good thing right? Or are we going to say that in the course of saving lives that even then waterbording is wrong? Is that the case?

Funny how the article did not tell how waterboarding of KSM directly lead to the capture of any of the 6 mentioned. Are you saying we had no clue outside of KSM?

EDIT: I notice you have not answered the question whether you would give a false confession in order to stop being waterboarded.

 

[BSmith1068]

I think we should ask anyone that has been taken prisoner by the insurgency just exactly how the enemy feels about torture. Oh wait thats right... they are all dead. Some of them found with there sex organs removed and in the wrong places. In the example of a " situation " of " Pete the Army Dentist " I can tell you he would be killed. Most likely quickly. Insurgents are not all dumb, I am pretty sure they would know a dentist is not going to have information about airstrikes and operation movements.
Seriously... Pete the Army Dentist? He's my " real life " friend?

You didn’t answer the question. Is torture justifiable in that situation? I am not interested in arguing the plausibility of the situation, I just want an answer based on the information given.

 

[Defiant47]

Insurgents are not all dumb, I am pretty sure they would know a dentist is not going to have information about airstrikes and operation movements.

And how would they believe him that he is a dentist?

"Before being exposed to the torture, he said that he's a dentist and would thus not know any information about airstrikes. I guess there's no use torturing him, right?"

According to your own laws of warfare, both sides can torture any POWs, innocent or not. That's exactly why all torture including waterboarding is immoral and illegal.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

And how would they believe him that he is a dentist?

That's right. Today's NY times had a story of 30 innocent people killed by Taliban insurgents on a bus in Afghanistan, who say they thought they were ANA soldiers in civilian clothes.

 

[Berzerker]

@ Berzerker: Is torture justifiable in this situation?

Of course not, he doesn't know anything and he's not killing Iraqis. I'm not interested in a question of when torture is justifiable, only that it can be justified. The debate I've been having is about the inherent immorality of torture and I've said torture in not inherently immoral. It depends on the circumstances, and you've just posted a question that proves it - either those Iraqi insurgents are justified or they are not justified. Trying to add gray into the question doesn't change the fact that justification either exists or does not.

Also – you still have not provided any proof that water boarding prevented and imminent attack, but are basing your argument on the fact that it does. Prove that it has prevented an attack that was about to happen, and that water boarding was the only way to prevent it.

I dont have to prove anything, I'm not the one who is claiming torture is inherently immoral - the burden of proof is on those making the accusation. And I'm still waiting for that proof. And I dont have to prove water boarding prevented an attack, it dont matter to me if it did or didn't - it could - and this is a debate about the morality and justification of using it. Besides, the program was secret, how in the hell are we supposed to know what exactly water boarding did achieve?

 

[JollyRoger]

and this is a debate about the morality and justification of using it.

Two different things right there. An immoral action can be justified in narrow circumstances.

 

[Berzerker]

killing someone is immoral, but killing someone who is trying to kill you is not. Justification is about morality. If the immoral act is justified (oxy moron) then its no longer immoral...

 

[JollyRoger]

killing someone is immoral, but killing someone who is trying to kill you is not. Justification is about morality. If the immoral act is justified (oxy moron) then its no longer immoral...

So you can see where waterboarding can be baseline immoral, but in very narrow circumstances perhaps justified?

 

[Defiant47]

I dont have to prove anything, I'm not the one who is claiming torture is inherently immoral - the burden of proof is on those making the accusation. And I'm still waiting for that proof.

Here's my proof (short-version since I won't be bothered to write an entire essay; EDIT: not so short it seems):

If torture is moral if it's done to save lives, then the following things are true:

1) In a war, opposing sides can torture all POWs at will. Chances are that the captured soldier would likely have tactical information that could easily save lives.

2) It is possible for numerous innocent persons to be tortured en masse, as such:

Suppose there is a threat of (insert threat here, say nuclear or whatever). This would kill 1 million people (I don't want to keep adding percentages, so let's just say that it's 100%). A completely innocent person is flagged as a suspect due to circumstantial evidence. But even so, all evidence withstanding, there is a 0.1% chance that this person would have the knowledge necessary to lead us to an end to the threat. Let's also say that our torture is 10% effective.

Mathematically speaking, if we torture this person, we have a 0.01% chance of ending the threat. Let's say that torturing this person would be equivalent to killing the person. It's a safely conservative assumption, as killing would undoubtedly be worse. The expected value of torturing this person would be 0.0001*1m = 100 lives saved, at the cost of a single life. Therefore, it would be worth it to torture the person.

Conclusion:

I can't say that something is moral or not moral. That's a personal decision.

However, if we suppose that torture is moral if it ends up saving lives, then ethically, we end up with frequent mass tortures.

 

[Berzerker]

Here's my proof (short-version since I won't be bothered to write an entire essay; EDIT: not so short it seems):

If torture is moral if it's done to save lives, then the following things are true:

1) In a war, opposing sides can torture all POWs at will. Chances are that the captured soldier would likely have tactical information that could easily save lives.

Not true, opposing sides dont share the same moral culpability for the war. It was immoral for the Japanese to torture US soldiers, it would not have been immoral for US soldiers to torture Japanese soldiers. They were murderous bastards running around slaughtering people, we were trying to stop them.

There is no moral equivalence between a mass murderer and his would be victims, if he water boards us to further his slaughter that does not mean we cant water board him to save his victims. We're gonna kill the bastard anyway

2) It is possible for numerous innocent persons to be tortured en masse, as such:

Thats true, en masse... Thats 1 reason we save it for the people we know have information... Jailing the guilty doesn't become immoral because we mistakenly jail the innocent. You're arguing that torture is immoral because its immoral to torture the innocent. No, torturing the innocent is immoral.

Suppose there is a threat of (insert threat here, say nuclear or whatever). This would kill 1 million people (I don't want to keep adding percentages, so let's just say that it's 100%). A completely innocent person is flagged as a suspect due to circumstantial evidence. But even so, all evidence withstanding, there is a 0.1% chance that this person would have the knowledge necessary to lead us to an end to the threat. Let's also say that our torture is 10% effective.

Mathematically speaking, if we torture this person, we have a 0.01% chance of ending the threat. Let's say that torturing this person would be equivalent to killing the person. It's a safely conservative assumption, as killing would undoubtedly be worse. The expected value of torturing this person would be 0.0001*1m = 100 lives saved, at the cost of a single life. Therefore, it would be worth it to torture the person.

I wouldn't like it, but if the threat was genuine and I matched the suspect in some way I wouldn't get very mad at being water boarded by mistake. But why are we killing the guy? I missed that in interrogation class

Conclusion:

I can't say that something is moral or not moral. That's a personal decision.

Does murder become moral if thats my personal decision?

However, if we suppose that torture is moral if it ends up saving lives, then ethically, we end up with frequent mass tortures.

Are vast conspiracies to commit mass murder that common? If we had captured Germany's top 10 generals in 1942, I'd water board everyone of them if they didn't talk.

 

[Defiant47]

Not true, opposing sides dont share the same moral culpability for the war. It was immoral for the Japanese to torture US soldiers, it would not have been immoral for US soldiers to torture Japanese soldiers. They were murderous bastards running around slaughtering people, we were trying to stop them.

Try to look beyond your "us vs. them" one-sidedness and your "we're justified and moral in this while our enemies are not" viewpoint.

Torturing US soldiers revealing tactical plans resulting in Japanese lives saved would be moral and justified for the Japanese, just like a vice-versa for US.

There is no moral equivalence between a mass murderer and his would be victims, if he water boards us to further his slaughter that does not mean we cant water board him to save his victims. We're gonna kill the bastard anyway

A mass-murderer's victims are either dead, or "probably going to die". Also see number 2) in my previous post. It just so happens that the possibility of the person having the information is ~99% in this case.

Thats true, en masse... Thats 1 reason we save it for the people we know have information...

Correction: high probability that they have the information.

Jailing the guilty doesn't become immoral because we mistakenly jail the innocent. You're arguing that torture is immoral because its immoral to torture the innocent. No, torturing the innocent is immoral.

I'm working based on your own premise. You said that (not in your own words probably, I'm not anal to look back exactly) torture is moral if it saves lives. Tell me:

Is torturing 1000 people, 999 of which would be innocent, in order to save a million justified?

Is torturing a person with a 0.1% chance of saving 1 million lives moral?

Either way you go about it, if it's moral, then it is moral to torture the innocent: after all, even if we assume that this torture would terminate their lives, still more lives are being saved.

I wouldn't like it, but if the threat was genuine and I matched the suspect in some way I wouldn't get very mad at being water boarded by mistake.

Then you personally believe that it is acceptable to have torture be a commonplace thing that is frequent in modern-day society. I don't judge that, since morality is personal, I just want to make sure your logic is consistent.

But why are we killing the guy? I missed that in interrogation class

We're equating the torture of 1 person with the death of 1 person, for the purposes of comparison.

Does murder become moral if thats my personal decision?

Yes, it does.

Are vast conspiracies to commit mass murder that common? If we had captured Germany's top 10 generals in 1942, I'd water board everyone of them if they didn't talk.

But when one happens, you agree that torturing countless civilians is acceptable in order to yield the information that would save more lives than were tortured, yes?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

You didn’t answer the question. Is torture justifiable in that situation? I am not interested in arguing the plausibility of the situation, I just want an answer based on the information given.

I did. Can you name me one American service member thathas been captured by the insurgency/criminal elements in Iraq or the Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan that has not been tortured and killed? Save you time trying to look it up, the answer is none. He's going to be tortured and killed, pure and simple. Justifiable? I'd personally rather just see him shot than worked over for the sake of working him over but it's not my choice.

According to your own laws of warfare, both sides can torture any POWs, innocent or not. That's exactly why all torture including waterboarding is immoral and illegal.

According to my laws of land warfare? I diden't know I was making policey now. I personally have never tortured anyone. I have had to crack some heads in my day due to prisoners trying to resist and harm me, torture though? nope. I can't speak for anyone that does that sort of thing. I do know that it's not standard policey for US Servicemembers to torture anyone, if cought doing that sort of thing they can expect to feel the wrath of there command come down on them. I have never seen torture tought, advocated or reccomended in any training or schooling I have gone through in the military. That includes the SERE course I went through.

You didn’t answer the question. Is torture justifiable in that situation? I am not interested in arguing the plausibility of the situation, I just want an answer based on the information given.

I did. They are going to do it anyway. It's pretty simple. Don't matter if he is a dentist, cook, Speical Forces or a Korean Laundry person. Track record on that is pretty clear. You do recal we are dealing with animals... wait, animals are a few steps above most of these people. Silly me, I'd like to apoligize to animals everywere for that comparison.

And how would they believe him that he is a dentist?

you really think they care? seriously, we are talking about " people " who make sure they set off bombs in crowded markets and sometimes in schools to kill as many people as they can. You honestly think they give a ****?

I'm not sure what to tell you, if you think waterbording is torture than that is how you feel. I do not and I have experanced it firsthand. I consider it a forceful technique for gathering information, it's cirtianly not pretty yet in a war it's definately not much of a sin compaired to what goes on in say, combat.

 

[Perfection]

I guess we could always ask this guy

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=

Just how effective waterboarding is. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the information he gave saved lives, not just American lives. We can all agree that is a good thing right? Or are we going to say that in the course of saving lives that even then waterbording is wrong? Is that the case?

Couple things to keep in mind:
1. it seems likely that some of this information could be obtained through different means.
2. Image and PR does play a role too, waterboarding may endgender greater fear and mistrust into the world.