Torture works sometimes -- but it's always wrong

[babylonsister]

Torture works sometimes -- but it's always wrong

The "ticking bomb" scenario only happens on TV. Those, like Dick Cheney, who cite it are leading society down a fatal slippery slope of abuse.

By Gary Kamiya



snip//

The argument that torture works cannot simply be dismissed. During World War II, for example, the Gestapo used torture with considerable effectiveness on captured agents working for Britain's Special Operations Executive, the top-secret organization dedicated to sabotage and subversion behind Axis lines. A number of agents, unable to withstand the pain or, in some cases, even the prospect of pain, told their captors everything they knew, including the identity of other agents, the arrival time of flights, and the location of safe houses. During France's brutal war in Algeria, the colonial power used torture effectively. As historian Alistair Horne, the author of the classic analysis of the French-Algerian war, "A Savage War of Peace," told me in a 2007 interview, "In Algeria, the French used torture -- as opposed to abuse -- very effectively as an instrument of war. They had some success with it; they did undoubtedly get some intelligence from the use of torture." That intelligence included information about future terrorist strikes and the infrastructure of terror networks in Algiers.

So the easy argument against torture, that it is ineffective, is wrong. Torture can work. Nor can one simply dismiss the philosophical "ticking bomb" debate. Even ethicists bitterly opposed to torture acknowledge that if that hypothetical situation -- endlessly depicted in Fox's TV show "24" -- actually existed, there would be a compelling moral and philosophical argument for torture in that instance.

But in the real world, the "ticking bomb" situation never arises. It is never the case that we know we can automatically avert mass slaughter by torturing someone. Reality is not that neat. Guilt and knowledge are not established in advance. Those whom we torture may or may not be planning nefarious deeds. As the British political scientist Henry Shue pointed out in his classic 1978 essay "Torture," "Notice how unlike the circumstances of an actual choice about torture the philosopher's example is. The proposed victim of our torture is not someone we suspect of planting the device: he is the perpetrator. He is not some pitiful psychotic making one last play for attention: He did plant the device. The wiring is not backwards, the mechanism is not jammed: the device will destroy the city if not deactivated." Shue concludes that "The distance between the situations which must be concocted in order to have a plausible case of morally permissible torture and the situations which actually occur is, if anything, further reason why the existing prohibitions against torture should remain and should be strengthened by making torture an international crime."

As Shue suggests, the "ticking bomb" situation should be left in the classroom, for ethicists and philosophers to ponder. It has nothing to do with the real world. And those who invoke it are leading society down a fatal slippery slope, which ends with the wholesale justification of torture. Their arguments, which appeal to and are based in fear and anger, not considered analysis, would return us to the Middle Ages.

In a recent Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Hayden and former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey asserted that Abu Zubaydah was "coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM <9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad> and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-up plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S." According to the Washington Post, Hayden and Mukasey's account is false: Zubaydah gave most of his useful information before being waterboarded, and the CIA was unable to provide any examples of specific leads acquired by the use of torture.

But let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Hayden and Mukasey are correct, and that torturing Zubaydah led him to give information that resulted in the arrest of KSM and other terrorists. That still would not constitute a "ticking bomb" situation. No one can say whether those captured would have carried out other terrorist attacks. There are too many unknown factors. Dick Cheney recently argued that classified documents will show that the use of torture stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks. But unless those documents reveal a "24"-like situation in which the use of torture somehow actually stops an imminent attack from taking place, a situation that has never come up in the real world, his statement is false. Breaking up terror networks is not the same thing as "stopping" terrorist attacks.

Torture is not morally justifiable. In addition, it has severe negative consequences. Once a nation embraces torture, it forfeits any claim to a moral high ground. It becomes no better than those it is fighting. It may win a battle, but it will lose the war. As America struggles to win hearts and minds in the Arab/Muslim world, the use of torture is more harmful in the long run than any "high-value" intelligence gained by its use. And U.S. torture not only builds hatred in the Muslim world, it turns our allies against us -- and erodes us from within. As historian Horne pointed out, "When the news came out in France of what the army was doing, it caused such a revulsion that it led directly to the French capitulation. And not only revulsion in France, but revulsion here. JFK, as a senator, took up the Algerian cause quite strongly partly because of the human rights issue." Horne's conclusion: "I feel myself absolutely clear in my own mind that you do not, whatever the excuse, use torture, let alone abuse."

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/04/23/torture/

[snappyturtle]

1. "Torture is not morally justifiable." amen. nt

[ShortnFiery]

2. TORTURE only works in the simplistic knowledge gleaned in an ultra-rare "ticking time bomb"

scenario.

Methinks that there's far too many "24" fans out there who WANT to make intelligence gathering one long line of ticking time bombs.

TRADITIONAL, tried and true methods (Interrogation = series of interviews by a skilled intelligence agent) provide *the same* simplistic answer as well as other collaborative information down the line.

Also, once you evoke TORTURE, you will have to CONTINUE TO TORTURE every damn time you wish to bleed out any tidbit of information because trust is destroyed not ever to be earned back.

Torture does NOT work except to glean the *most simplistic answers* that would fit an highly improbable ticking-time bomb scenario.

Face it, Al Quaeda is so decentralized and diverse that even "the notion" of TORTURE only serves to RECRUIT MORE TERRORISTS.

It's just fucking stupid, in that, we are doing Bin Laden's recruiting for him. :crazy:

[jtrockville]

3. After robbing a bank... can I brag about how much money I have?

And can I use the fact that my robbery was effective as my defense?
"but.. but... but... look at the RESULTS it produced! Wheeeeeee! I'm RICH!!!!"

[babylonsister]

4. What part of 'it's always wrong' did you not understand? nt

[jtrockville]

5. Just trying to reiterate it....

That defense isn't acceptable in any other circumstance. It bothers me that ANYONE (media particularly) gives voice this absurd defense for something as heinous as a WAR CRIME.

I just hope Dick's arrogance brings him down.

[tocqueville]

6. yes torture works !

as a deterrent against dissent. It forces the masses to be silent, collaborate, rat on others, commit treason etc... by pure fear. They become more reticent to join a resistance. It's very efficient, except of course against the determined braves. Which often are very few.

As an interrogation technique (besides the ethical argument) it's most of the time worthless, specially against organized resistance because they are build upon an independent cell system where most of the resistants or insurgents have very little information about the others, doing only tasks assigned by anonymous messengers.

PS

The description of the French Algerian "experience" in the article above is plainly wrong. The revealing of torture perpetrated by some units in the Army didn't lead to "capitulation" (another US cliché). Actually the French had won the war MILITARILY in Algeria round 1958. The active FNL was a dozen guys that were refugees in Tunisia or Morocco and monitored.

But the revelations about torture enraged the French so much that the government (socialist Guy Mollet) fell within a year and De Gaulle was elected by referendum and instaured a new republic (compare with the US scenario). This resulted in a coup attempt and right-wing terrorism by the same groups that practicized torture within the Army. Four rebel generals were arrested and 2 of them condemned to death, but the penalties were commuted. General Salan, the main responsible for the torture in the end got away with 7 years in jail. sadly not of teh civilian responsibles were hold accountable.

De Gaulle gave up the idea of a French Algeria (which became independent), because he understood that the colonial era was historically over, the same insight that the Brits got after the fall of India. So there was no "capitulation".

Interesting to know is that General Aussaresses (the inventor of "the ticking bomb scenario" and of "enemy combattants") moved later to the US as a consultant at Fort Bragg, and lectured for many years about his experience and theories, including torture. Aussaresses made year 2000 an "apology over torture" in a book, which is illegal in France and was condemned, stripped from his rank and medals, and fel in general contempt.

[zoff]

7. " ... it's most of the time worthless ..."

Another excellent point! If we are fighting a network of independent cells, how can one possibly know of the activities of another? These bastards want us to think that they can pull off the heroic but they couldn't(or wouldn't) when it really mattered the most, in 2001. They stand for all that is deplorable in civilized society. And for that they are no different than the enemies that they created. They are the reason the USA has little if no moral authority in the world.

If these are conservatives' values, then wake up Red America. Stop wondering why no one listens let alone believes you. Let me spell it out ... you have lost all moral authority.

[tocqueville]

10. all French military today...

would tell you that :

1) the war in Algeria could have been won without using torture, by replacing it by regular police work
2) strategies of isolating the insurgents from popular support are far more efficient. Often what people demand is a little "socialism"
(bread, healthcare, uncorrupted local leaders etc...) If you present a better alternative than the insurgent, the later will soon be isolated.

and...

the US used torture by proxy in Vietnam and Latin-America (and there were in those cases far worse methods of torture than the ones described in the memos) to both extract information and instillate fear, with the sole purpose of keeping fiercely anti-communist regimes in place... did it work ?

no

[dccrossman]

8. The most important part is the last paragraph you include, IMHO

If we are forced to go down a path where America has sold her soul to become like those she despises, then Al Qaeda has won. Period.

Simply put, BushCo lost the war on terror and chose to become those they despised. So, there wasn't another attack, so what?. There didn't need to be. The one attack was sufficient to catalyze the internal corruption that already existed. BushCo happily proved a significant part of Al Qaeda's propaganda correct.

The current crop of politicians must make certain that all of the information comes to light and that those that chose to authorize the torture path are prosecuted and tried as War Criminals. If it includes Bush/Cheney, and becomes partisan and a national embarrassment, tough shit.

[Cronopio]

9. Sure, if you drop an bomb an entire town you're likely to kill some of the bad guys.

People who support torture are also the utilitarian sociopaths who rationalize the death of innocents as "collateral damage".

If the CIA made a mistake in waterboarding and the victim dies, the victim is later proved to be innocent and the information they extracted from them useless ... oh, well. They got the paycheck either way.

And if they're Catholic they can just go the church and confess. The perfect evasion of moral conscience.

[yellowcanine]

11. Saying "Torture works" begs the question of "Is it the only method which works?

It is not clear at all that torture will get accurate information out of a suspect any more quickly than alternative means. What is more certain is that torture often elicits useless and inaccurate information and that techniques which rely on earning the confidence of suspects produce reliable information more consistently. So why would one ever torture? Bad information in a "ticking bomb" scenario is probably worse than no information at all.