Acceptable Proceedure

[michaeledward]

I imagine the question to be "how can we not use any method necessary if it means saving lives?" My answer would be: because we must uphold the absolute rule of law. It is not fair or consistent to insist that everybody else behave according to the laws as they are, and then ourselves bend or break them in order to enforce them. That, to me, is nonsensical and inappropriate. It is also damaging to the integrity of the entire foundation of international law. If there must be times that information cannot be acquired because we stick to our principles, we must accept that and move on. That is the price of structuring our civilization on the concept of rule of law.

Most of what you are saying is right on target. Two things that I think can cause us to think.

1) It is impossible to know there is information that we must acquire by 'drastic' means, without having the information. As such, it all just becomes a game, violent and repugnant.

2) I don't know that the rule of law is absolute. Laws are created by men and their governments. Certainly, we must adhere to the laws we have subjected ourselves to (Certainly the laws you have cited are in force).

But, even if there were no laws prohibiting the United States from torture, it would still be wrong. Ethically? Morally? Doesn't matter to me how you define it, something just stinks about the idea. I'm not sure what is 'absolute' in this universe, but certainly these activities strike me as wrong.

 

[Sapper6]

what is torture?

that which doesn't work...



if it works, it's not torture, it's a solution :ultracool

 

[Tgace]

1) It is impossible to know there is information that we must acquire by 'drastic' means, without having the information. As such, it all just becomes a game, violent and repugnant.

Tom Clancy time....

3 different members of a terrorist cell are independently "tortured" (as all of the things mentioned here are classified as torture) and say say that person X knows where a biological weapon is placed in a major US city. SIGINT has recordings of Terrorist X mentioning in code the movement of "material". IMINT has photographs of Terrorist X purchasing materials that when combined could produce an explosive.
You have Terrorist X in custody but he wont tell you anything...what do you do??

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. God, I just love reading conservatives arguing for situational ethics, in which there is no right and no wrong, just expediency. It's wonderful to see them leap into the "liberal camp," they claim to despise, or into the world of utilitarianism mapped out by John Stuart Mill, the radical philosopher and social reform theorist.

2. Funny you should bring up Tom Clancy. At the end of his novel, "Clear and Present Danger," false information obtained through the torture of two terrorists who deliberately lie to their torturers nearly causes an out-of-control US President to nuke the holy city of Q'um, which would have destroyed the beginnings of genuine peace in the Mid-East. This is stopped only because of Jack Ryan, who refuses to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people merely to feed the revenge fantasies of a President who doesn't know what the hell he's doing and can't admit it to himself or anybody else.

Curiously, Ryan--and his creator, Clancy--seem to have the absurd, quaint notion that there are some things that are just plain wrong, and that good men listen to the, "still, small voice," given to them by God to handle such matters.

Huh. I'll be darned.

 

[Tgace]

Huh...cant address the spirit of the question..only the questioner...typical.

 

[Tgace]

Pretty typical situational interview question for military selection boards...had variations on the theme presented in LEO interviews. "You have a bank hold-up turned hostage situation......"

Saying a situation like that can never happen?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hey, YOU brought up Tom Clancy. You're the guy who's arguing that sometimes, morality and law have to yield to practical necessity. It's not my fault that Clancy writes the way he does, or that what you're describing is an example of situational ethics.

The two hypotheticals you cite describe radically different situations. And as far as, "cant address the spirit of the question..only the questioner," goes, it might be useful to consider that if you're going to repeatedly claim that people who disagree with you don't know anything about work in the real world, you may just get something similar lobbed back at you.

 

[Tgace]

Ummm are you confusing me with somebody else? I only posted 1 example...I dont believe Ive ever come out and said "beat it out of him" (or a variant thereof)... ever...I asked what people thought acceptable procedure would be. As there seem to be a lot of experts here.

My answer to my own question? I would accept resorting to drugs/situational/psychological manipulation if the threat was imminent. If he was "hardcore", physical torture would probably not work anyway.

 

[michaeledward]

Tom Clancy time....

3 different members of a terrorist cell are independently "tortured" (as all of the things mentioned here are classified as torture) and say say that person X knows where a biological weapon is placed in a major US city. SIGINT has recordings of Terrorist X mentioning in code the movement of "material". IMINT has photographs of Terrorist X purchasing materials that when combined could produce an explosive.
You have Terrorist X in custody but he wont tell you anything...what do you do??

Drop 17 Thermo-nuclear devices on the Major US City and its surrounding borroughs. We will not allow the ****ing Terrorist will not kill US Citizens.

 

[Adept]

Allowing for a bending of the rules under particular circumstances opens the door for more and more bending.

Unfortunately, for this to work in a moderate society we would either need a few, easy to interpret 'catch-all' rules, or literally millions of tiny rules to cover every possible situation.

Allowing people to die simply so we dont have to bend the rules is outrageous in my opinion.

Psychological interrogation techniques are very effective. Not the ones that induce fear, but the ones that induce altered states of consciousness. Sleep deprivation, chemical sweating, light and sound treatment, etc, can break down a suspects mental defences to the point where they no longer even realise they are telling you what you want to know.

 

[Autocrat]

Unpleasant subject!
It dependsw on so muc hmore than morality and ethics. It requires something a lot less stable... trust! Do you, as a voter, a person of your society, trust the people carrying out such "investigations" ? Do you trust them to have the right person? Do you trust them to perform in an objective manner? Do you trust them to conduct the investigation fairly? Do you trust them to provide the truth, or just what they want?

At the end of the day, I have little to no faith in those parties, groups, cabinets, parties etc. above us. They have often proved unreliable, corruptablem tainted and liars. I DO NOT TRUST THEM. So why should I trust them to do their job fairly, and produce results that are true?

NO, torture/interrigation is not right, not good, should not be performed.
Yet, there are few other ways....... it's just that they carry them out in such a manner that all are bad!

Think of it in reverse.... one of your soldiers is caught.... one of your soldiers know where your ammo supply dump is, where a unit is operating and expected to appear, what their target is...... what methods do you think they should use to get that inffo from your soldier!

If you can answer that, then you answer for yourself as well!
There is no them and us.... just everyone!