This Argument For Allowing Torture/Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

LouieW

Sorry if the title of this thread does not make much sense, since I had some trouble condensing this to a single phrase.

In arguments about torture/enhanced interrogation techniques, people occasionally make the claim that what is being considered torture is not actually "that bad." Really, the problem I see is not really with that claim itself, but rather its underlying justification. In short, it bugs me when people argue for those kinds of techniques based on the idea that they could handle being exposed to those torture tactics or because sitting where they are today, they do not think they are "that bad."

My first big issue with that reasoning is basically that it is inconsiderate of others and bases whether or not something is allowable solely on whether you could handle it. For example, just because you might be able to handle waterboarding without really being affected does not mean that other people are equally strong.  Plus, it is not always easy to know how one would act in such a situation when you have very little control over yourself and have no clue what your captors could do to you next.

I guess my second problem with that logic is that it is just a poor reason for enhanced interrogation techniques in general. I mean, if you think they are not "that bad," then I am not sure why they would really be that effective at getting people to talk in the first place. 

Anyway, I do not intend this as some sort of general objection to torture/enhanced interrogation techniques. I doubt I am really qualified to debate that issue, so my opinion on that does not need to enter into this discussion at all. My problem is more with this line of thinking than anything else. I have seen it used to justify other stuff like "body scan" machines at airports in an equally annoying way.

Malkavian

The 'not that bad' argument is a common one, usually with a 'worse' example placed as if to say 'It's okay I'm slapping you in the face because at least I'm not stabbing you.' It's also used to justify current economic, racial, sex, and religious inequality.

Also, while I don't believe torture is effective, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the higher question of the genuine morality of  'is it okay to drown someone until they talk?'

Check your cheat sheet: The answer is no.

glennmagusharvey

I guess my second problem with that logic is that is just a poor reason
for enhanced interrogation techniques in general. I mean, if you think
they are not "that bad," then I am not sure why they would really be
that effective at getting people to talk in the first place.

And this is probably the most effective counter-argument to "not that bad".

Flyboy

Torture isn't particularly useful, and is at best effective as an empty threat, it's morally abhorrent, and it's a war crime.  I see no good argument to found in between those three basic facts.  

MadassAlex

A lot of successful interrogation is based on Stockholm Syndrome anyway, which is arguably just is bizarre and unusual but undoubtedly the more ethical approach.

Ironweaver

There's also the argument that torture is justified if the information gained would stop a major catastrophe, and there is no alternative at the moment. The problem is that such a situation (almost) never happens outside of 24.

RedEyedAbyss

I'm guessing most of the time, people who claim a method of torture is "not that bad" never tried it themselves. Christopher Hitchens ate his own words pretty quickly about waterboarding when he did have it done to him.

All Nines

My parents seem convinced that modern torture actually has given the country valuable information for stopping terrorist attacks. How much truth is there to this? Because I know my stepdad listens to some good bullshit, and I wouldn't put it past any of the stations he listens to/programs he watches to either outright lie about these things or overstate the importance of actions they favor.

FrodoGoofballCoTV

My parents seem convinced that modern torture actually has given the country valuable information for stopping terrorist attacks. How much truth is there to this?

The story, as I understand it, is that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), after being waterboarded, broke and gave names.  Meanwhile, some other captured Al Queda supporters gave a different name.  When questioned about the courier the others had given authorities, KSM dismissed the guy as totally unimportant.  This led authorities to suspect the courier KSM had dismissed must be important for KSM to risk denying after he'd already been broken - and that was the lead that led to the death of Usama Bin Laden.

LouieW

Malkavian,
Also, while I don't believe torture is effective, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the higher question of the genuine morality of  'is it okay to drown someone until they talk?'

May I ask why you believe that those kinds of "moral questions" are inherently higher ones? I can think of some reasons for that conclusion, but I would like to hear what yours are.

Milos,
There's also the argument that torture is justified if the information gained would stop a major catastrophe, and there is no alternative at the moment. The problem is that such a situation (almost) never happens outside of 24.

I guess the fact that intelligence gathering is by nature secretive can also make proving or disproving that argument kind of difficult.

Abyss_Worm,
I'm guessing most of the time, people who claim a method of torture is "not that bad" never tried it themselves. Christopher Hitchens ate his own words pretty quickly about waterboarding when he did have it done to him.

Aye, you are probably right about that. Plus, simulating torture probably minimizes its severity anyway since you have more control over the situation than if you actually were captured.

As for the related line of thinking I mentioned earlier, I think it can be particularly annoying when people use it to justify stuff like the new "body scanning" machines and in-depth pat-downs at airports in the U.S. Aside from how some people may be more harmed by those techniques because of medical conditions, just because one person does not value privacy very highly does not really prove that everyone else should be equally accepting.

Malkavian

In essence I am a big believer that it's less what you accomplish than how you accomplish it. Sorry for the short response but I'm posting from my phone.

Bastion

The story, as I understand it, is that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), after being waterboarded, broke and gave names.  Meanwhile, some other captured Al Queda supporters gave a different name.  When questioned about the courier the others had given authorities, KSM dismissed the guy as totally unimportant.  This led authorities to suspect the courier KSM had dismissed must be important for KSM to risk denying after he'd already been broken - and that was the lead that led to the death of Usama Bin Laden.

If that's how it happened, it sounds like an argument against the usefulness of torture. He gave them incorrect information to get them to stop, and he gave them incorrect information afterwards as well. And moreover, they seem to have been aware of it. Given that they were willing to assume his information was unreliable, it seems that they could have just skipped the torture, gotten information which they wouldn't have trusted anyway, and asked the courier to begin with. (Also, it seems that "broken" is functionally meaningless here.)

Whether it's good tactics or not, though, it's terrible strategy. Ostensibly, torture is a tactic used in furthering the strategic aim of "a war on terror"--in preventing attacks like 9/11. Being willing to torture its enemies will only give people another major, legitimate grievance against the US, leading to more terrorists who are willing to use severe methods. (In particular, given that it's not hard to consider torture a fate worse than death, it probably makes it easier to recruit suicide bombers.)

And there's the moral dimension, which is easily the biggest but also the most difficult to convince people of; it seems to be almost reflexive to associate "terrorist" or even "accused terrorist" with "completely subhuman". (Which, bringing it back around, is itself a tactical error: if you have absolutely no empathy for your enemy, how will you ever understand them?)

Icalasari

I remember one article that was an interview with someone who used to help with torture

He said that they got the best information when they did things like offer cookies to the detainee. In other words, they got better information by treating them like human beings

captainbrass

This is an illogical argument. You could say that inflicting a low-level beating on people in detention isn't "that bad", but the same people who support waterboarding will usually oppose letting a police officer/soldier go all Jack Bauer with the detainee. Where do you draw the line? And as GMH says, if it's "not that bad" how is it effective?

Also, I would dispute that someone pretending to drown you is "not that bad" anyway. I certainly wouldn't want to experience it. 

LouieW

captainbrass,

Well, to be fair, I have not actually seen that kind of argument applied to waterboarding too much. I guess I was mostly referring to some people's reactions to some of the stuff the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) were said to have done in the past.

I think that many arguments for some kind of enhanced interrogation techniques rely on the concept of lesser evil or ticking time bomb type scenarios anyway. I could be wrong about this, but I doubt that people who have the job of justifying such tactics tend to use the argument I mentioned.