That they’re bad things?
Amirite?

I think that all of this is really a facade.
The Iraqi PM is taking over contorl of his military and security forces. These people have been capturing many leading “evil-doers” as of late. They could not give two fu**s about the Geneva conventions or torture etc. I think that their rules allow anything but beheading with a dull blade.
So the US is conviniently having these dudes capture the insurgents and letting them extract some serious information.
Lets face it, the Hague aint gonna sue no Iraqi cops.
Question: If somebody has information that can saves thousands of lives, or even one life, and he was sitting in your custody, what would you do?

So we should just torture people, even if it comes ouu that the person in custody had no information? I guess you would never know who was really innocent because if I were being tortured, I might make some stuff up too just to get it over…

Merliner –
Torture is wrong in and of itself, but the exacerbating element of its wrongness is that it has proven over and over again to be ineffective. People under torture will say anything to end their torture, whether they know anything or not, and what they say is not necessarily going to help you stop your “ticking time bomb.”

Y-love, I read the article about you in the Forward. While we don’t know each other, I wanted to share that I’m really happy about your contributions to Jewish culture and discourse. Keep on keeping on! I look foward to attending a show of yours in the near future.

Craig,
Yes you generally dont know. Probably true. And for the record I havent said that I am for toture. I asked a simple question, if you know that a guy in your custody has information about an impending attack that can kill innocent people what will you do?
(Yes you dont always know, mazel tov. If you DO KNOW – that is my simple question.)

fiftysomething-
You obviously know absolutely nothing about Judaism. The Bible discusses scenarios where the Jews were ordered to attack and kill entire cities of people – men, women, children and all animals.
I am not advocating that this is how wars are to be waged today, but if history has taught us anything it is that evil DOES in fact exist. And that if we ever have the ability to challenge evil we must to so with all we got.

I guess I don’t get your point. Maybe you could be more explicit.
First of all, most [as in 999 out of 1,000] of the guys you capture and might be thinking of torturing aren’t the “mastermind” of the operation. If they were, there would usually be no surviving organization to worry about. Of course, if they were so centrally important in an organization and they were known to be captured by those who would torture them, and if the organization survived without them, then could it possibly be that someone might be bright enough to change plans so their information would be obsolete? Naw, of course not……
Second, the article you have referred us to starts out by telling us that this guy was psychologically predisposed to talk. His public life [as in his place in the organization he lived for] plus his more mundane personal life, were over. He was desparate. Do you think that is true of the typical “Islamic fighter?” Or do most of those guys not have a life to start with?
As to your second question, there is nothing really unique about torture among the other evils that men commit. But that isn’t my issue. My issue is “what good [from a purely utilitarian standpoint] is committing this evil.” If I told you that if you just beat to a pulp the widdow down the street with three dependent children that the messiah would come, you might be tempted. Of course, you wouldn’t really be tempted in the real world because you wouldn’t see any connection. All I’d like is some definite statistical [rather than ancedotal] evidence that torture will typically produce information that will, in some sense,”justify” the act, rather than torture and the widespread willingness to defend and promote it just being another sign of the descent into barbarism of this once-upon-a-time civilization.
Could you help me out on that, or are you relying on wishful thinking and myths?

Craig Bolton says
“First of all, most [as in 999 out of 1,000] of the guys you capture and might be thinking of torturing aren’t the “mastermind” of the operation.”
And who says that only the “mastermind” has valuable information? In fact, the Atlantic article presents non-“mastermind” cases.
“Of course, if they were so centrally important in an organization and they were known to be captured by those who would torture them, and if the organization survived without them, then could it possibly be that someone might be bright enough to change plans so their information would be obsolete? Naw, of course not……”
Which is why over the past few years the US did not immediately disclose the capture of some leading terrorists. But it’s good that you agree that if the rest of the organization does not know about the capture, it would be OK to torture the captive.
“Second, the article you have referred us to starts out by telling us that this guy was psychologically predisposed to talk. ”
Read the whole article.
“All I’d like is some definite statistical [rather than ancedotal] evidence that torture will typically produce information that will, in some sense,”justify” the act,”
I hope that’s a joke. Maybe after I give you some definite statistical evidence on torture, we’ll discuss classified weapons and troop locations. Clearly such statistics are not available. But why do I have the burden of proof? Both torturing and not torturing each have their pros and cons (danger of unnecessary torture vs. failure to obtain information), and the usefulness of torture (done right, of course) has been accepted for thousands of years. If there’s a burden of proof here, it’s on you.
“…rather than torture and the widespread willingness to defend and promote it just being another sign of the descent into barbarism of this once-upon-a-time civilization. ”
On the contrary. The refusal to torture when necessary is a sign of the descent into decadence, the effete view of people too far removed from the harsh realities of human existence to acknowledge them (in fact, such people would condemn their predecessors for doing what was necessary to create the safety that this generation takes for granted). And such decadence, if it lasts long enough, will allow the real barbarians to impose their will on us.

Though profoundly loathsome, it’s also oddly refreshing to encounter a discussion that candidly acknowledges the stunning moral depravity of the Republican Party, from the Simpering Imbecile and Snarling Savage on down.
This thread superbly illustrates the Republican decision-making process used not only to justify the use of torture, but to support so many of the other policies that have made the United States the most hated country on the planet. The first rationale Merliner proposes in support of torture is the constant refrain that the insurgents “could not give two fucks about the Geneva conventions or torture etc. I think that their rules allow anything but beheading with a dull blade.” In other words, we should be using torture, since that what our enemies do. The most compelling evidence of this argument’s incoherence is not the suggestion that we should conduct ourselves exactly like our enemy, but the claim that it is possible to do so while retaining our moral superiority over them.
Merliner then repeatedly asks, “If you know that someone has information that can save lives and he is in your custody – what would you do?” and, in true Republican fashion, proceeds to simply ignore the relevant answers to his question. Sam and Craig both point out that you don’t know – you can’t know – if someone has that information before torturing him, and that empirical evidence conclusively demonstrates the unreliability of torture as a means of finding out. Nonetheless, Merliner wants to know, suppose you could know that someone had the information needed to save lives? Then what would you do? And suppose torture was reliable? Then what would you do? And suppose the Queen had really big balls? Then she’d be . . . Ann Coulter.
Fine; there’s no reason to avoid a straightforward answer to this abstract philosophical question, even though it’s irrelevant to evaluating real-world policy-making decisions. From the perspective of utilitarianism, it would, indeed, be moral to torture someone that “has information that can save lives.” Big deal. No one but a Republican would dream of arguing that this scholastic exercise could justify the establishment of a government policy of institutionalized torture. There are two main reasons why.
First, in a real-world context, government torture is egregiously immoral on utilitarian grounds. Unlike the academic problem, you can never know before torturing someone whether he’s done anything wrong, or has information that can save lives. Moreover, the unreliability of torture means you can never know if the information obtained will actually save lives. Accordingly, at least some of those tortured by the government will invariably be innocent Such a policy is thus always immoral on utilitarian grounds, since there is no way to show that the injustice and the suffering of those innocents who are tortured are outweighed by the lives of those “saved.”
Beyond its immorality on practical grounds, the use of torture is theoretically problematical as well. Suppose the “person with information” is a mother who came upon it inadvertently and has done nothing wrong, but refuses to disclose said information because terrorists are holding her children hostage? Do we torture her on utilitarian grounds? And suppose terrorists will kill several thousand hostages unless the U.S. tortures a political opponent on American soil that has done nothing wrong, but whom the terrorists deem it vital to humiliate? Highly implausible? Sure, just like the first problem. Justified? The answer for both illustrations – just as it was with the first problem– is yes, as such actions are morally justified on utilitarian grounds. And also just as with the first problem, such torture would never be justified utilitarian grounds under real-world circumstances.
Beyond torture as a philosophical problem, J suggests torture is justified on historical and political grounds. Indeed, J takes the real moral high ground by arguing that torture is not only permissible, but is morally compelled and should be dramatically expanded.
Maybe after I give you some definite statistical evidence on torture, we’ll discuss classified weapons and troop locations. Clearly such statistics are not available. But why do I have the burden of proof? Both torturing and not torturing each have their pros and cons (danger of unnecessary torture vs. failure to obtain information), and the usefulness of torture (done right, of course) has been accepted for thousands of years. If there’s a burden of proof here, it’s on you.
Now isn’t that just as special, as quintessentially Republican, as can be? Among mammals, this argument provokes a few especially obvious objections. Uh, torture hasn’t been accepted for thousands of years, it’s existed. It’s only been accepted by those in a position to exercise control of its use; civilized humans, and sure as hell its victims, have always regarded it as monstrous and barbaric. Can we think of any other peculiar institutions with an equivalent rationale? That’s right, slavery has also been accepted for thousands of years. Likewise, it’s only within living memory – and sometimes not that long – that raping one’s wife became a criminal offense. Each of those institutions has been every bit as accepted as torture, which means that, according to J, there should be a presumption in favor of their moral legitimacy. Isn’t it great to be a “conservative”?
Another objection is that torture hasn’t “worked” for thousands of years, because the intent was hardly ever to obtain information. The purpose, instead, was to dominate the weak and vulnerable through terror, to impress upon the powerless the cost of opposing those with a monopoly on the institutional use of violence. But Republicans know all about that. Just ask those who run Guantanamo Bay, who have known for years that a substantial majority of its “detainees” have no information, yet have continued to torture them ever since 9/11, because, just like the Romans, they want to demonstrate the price of fucking with the world’s lone superpower
J says that “torture (done right, of course) has been accepted for thousands of years.” Just as a small technical matter, who will decide when the information to be obtained is important enough to use torture, and how torture is to be “done right?” Of course, the government can’t tell us, because that would give the “enemy” too much information. But I guess we’ll just have to trust that people like J and Bush and Cheney and John Ashcroft and Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich will torture people only when they think it’s really, really important. Could anyone have a problem with that?
The refusal to torture when necessary is a sign of the descent into decadence, the effete view of people too far removed from the harsh realities of human existence to acknowledge them (in fact, such people would condemn their predecessors for doing what was necessary to create the safety that this generation takes for granted).
Why is torture unique? We kill and maim in self-defense.
This is another perfect illustration of Republican fantasyland bullshit. Which of our “predecessors” found it acceptable to use torture? Imperial Rome; the Spanish Inquisition; Nazi Germany; The Soviet Union? In which of the democratic circle of nations is the use of torture permitted? I guess the effete and decadent cowards J is talking about are the framers’ of the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to which torture is anathema Moreover, once the concept of “self-defense” is expanded to include the use of torture, what conceivable rationale is there for restricting the use of torture to information gathering? Why prohibit the use of torture as a criminal deterrent in the War on Crime? Isn’t it as critically important that society protect itself against pedophiles? Against kidnappers and rapists and murderers? The Bill of Rights provides no grounds for preventing the use of torture in criminal investigations, since that was flushed down the toilet when we became willing to face “the harsh realities of human existence.”