Alexander the Great once went to Delphi to seek guidance from the priestess-oracle on a day when it was forbidden for her to speak any prophecies. Alexander seized her and compelled her to speak, and he was satisfied by her message--"My son, you are invincible".Quoted from G. K. Chesterton "Collected Works", volume 33, p. 40.
Showing posts with label Interrogation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interrogation. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
What Coercive Interrogation Methods Get You
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Further Against Torture
This is a reply to Derek's comment. Blogger won't allow me to post it as a comment because it is too many characters.
...
You’re right, JMNR’s post doesn’t put forth a formal argument for why torture can never be justified. It assumes that “torture” is evil by definition, and then wonders whether the Bush Administration tortured. He says that many of the practices used by the administration “have been widely condemned as torture prior to their use”. He says the actions don’t pass the “smell test” and that John McCain (a man with first-hand experience with torture) condemns them. Then he says that if a “bipartisan and judicious examination” of the facts (calmly and fully disclosed) finds the acts as torturous, then the acts are condemnable.
That’s a position, if not something close to an argument.
And you don’t do any better. You’ve yet to cough up an argument for why torture may be justified.
...
My post isn't an argument for the immorality of torture, so much as it is an argument for why we shouldn't torture (the fact that torture is immoral is just one reason why we shouldn't do it). I never meant to argue that because torture is illegal, it is therefore immoral.
Torture just happens to be one of those things that’s both illegal and immoral.
...
You admit that torture is harmful to the souls of the individuals carrying it out, that it is illegal, and that it is harmful to the reputation of our country.
Yet you dispute that it is always immoral.
I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that torture is ever morally permissible, since the majority position is that it is not (hence all the legislation against it).
But not only that, I also think you bear the burden of proof because non-violence should be our preferred default. We should be slow to conclude that intentional infliction of suffering on other human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died is ever warranted.
If you want to stand up for torture, you have to make your case. And it better be good.
..
It isn’t clear whether you admit that torture is ineffective, or whether you understand how that fact is relevant. All you gave us is a “hmmm”.
But the fact that torture is ineffective for extracting reliable information, especially when contrasted with other means of interrogation, is hugely relevant.
I agree that there are occasions for doing things that happen to be illegal and harmful to the soul and reputation. But one is hard-pressed to find a reason why such an illegal and harmful thing might be justified if it's ineffective to begin with, and if there are far more effective alternatives!
...
As for what you take to be the strongest case against the justification of torture is interesting, but isn’t really that much of an argument, so much as it is simply a (pretty coherent) position.
Nevertheless, you admit that it is persuasive, though you offer one counter-example (Just War).
It seems like someone wanting to maintain that torture is always evil could reject Just War theory, or, wanting to maintain a version of Just War theory, one could hold that war may only be justified as a means to self-defense (a scaled up version of shooting and regrettably killing an armed intruder in your house who obviously intends to kill you). Obviously wars run under this philosophy would look different than we might be used to.
As for Aquinas, I think he might be able to save his position as you described it, that war may be justified if declared by a legitimate authority (something I do not necessarily concede in this post), by being careful to define how an individual or group of individuals can obtain authority legitimately.
One might argue that in the case of the America Revolution, we were first justified in declaring independence and national sovereignty, which we did, and thereby obtained the legitimate authority to declare war against armed intruders, which we did.
Or, like Norman Geisler as I understand him, you can argue that violent revolution is never justified. He views America like an illegitimate child (he loves her, but not the way she was conceived).
...
As for whether it’s true that “Intentional killing can be justified, in the absence of a legitimate authority, if the killing is done for the sake of securing a people’s natural rights.", I’m not sure. I for one am not prepared to go to war with you for stealing one of my books and refusing to give it back (though you might argue I have a natural right to my property).
As to whether a person who endangers the lives of non-combatants gives up their right to not be tortured, I am just not convinced. Even if it’s possible to forfeit certain rights to certain degrees (a claim I am not sure about), it does not follow that torture itself may be justified. There may still be lines that one should never cross.
...
You’re right, JMNR’s post doesn’t put forth a formal argument for why torture can never be justified. It assumes that “torture” is evil by definition, and then wonders whether the Bush Administration tortured. He says that many of the practices used by the administration “have been widely condemned as torture prior to their use”. He says the actions don’t pass the “smell test” and that John McCain (a man with first-hand experience with torture) condemns them. Then he says that if a “bipartisan and judicious examination” of the facts (calmly and fully disclosed) finds the acts as torturous, then the acts are condemnable.
That’s a position, if not something close to an argument.
And you don’t do any better. You’ve yet to cough up an argument for why torture may be justified.
...
My post isn't an argument for the immorality of torture, so much as it is an argument for why we shouldn't torture (the fact that torture is immoral is just one reason why we shouldn't do it). I never meant to argue that because torture is illegal, it is therefore immoral.
Torture just happens to be one of those things that’s both illegal and immoral.
...
You admit that torture is harmful to the souls of the individuals carrying it out, that it is illegal, and that it is harmful to the reputation of our country.
Yet you dispute that it is always immoral.
I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that torture is ever morally permissible, since the majority position is that it is not (hence all the legislation against it).
But not only that, I also think you bear the burden of proof because non-violence should be our preferred default. We should be slow to conclude that intentional infliction of suffering on other human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died is ever warranted.
If you want to stand up for torture, you have to make your case. And it better be good.
..
It isn’t clear whether you admit that torture is ineffective, or whether you understand how that fact is relevant. All you gave us is a “hmmm”.
But the fact that torture is ineffective for extracting reliable information, especially when contrasted with other means of interrogation, is hugely relevant.
I agree that there are occasions for doing things that happen to be illegal and harmful to the soul and reputation. But one is hard-pressed to find a reason why such an illegal and harmful thing might be justified if it's ineffective to begin with, and if there are far more effective alternatives!
...
As for what you take to be the strongest case against the justification of torture is interesting, but isn’t really that much of an argument, so much as it is simply a (pretty coherent) position.
Nevertheless, you admit that it is persuasive, though you offer one counter-example (Just War).
It seems like someone wanting to maintain that torture is always evil could reject Just War theory, or, wanting to maintain a version of Just War theory, one could hold that war may only be justified as a means to self-defense (a scaled up version of shooting and regrettably killing an armed intruder in your house who obviously intends to kill you). Obviously wars run under this philosophy would look different than we might be used to.
As for Aquinas, I think he might be able to save his position as you described it, that war may be justified if declared by a legitimate authority (something I do not necessarily concede in this post), by being careful to define how an individual or group of individuals can obtain authority legitimately.
One might argue that in the case of the America Revolution, we were first justified in declaring independence and national sovereignty, which we did, and thereby obtained the legitimate authority to declare war against armed intruders, which we did.
Or, like Norman Geisler as I understand him, you can argue that violent revolution is never justified. He views America like an illegitimate child (he loves her, but not the way she was conceived).
...
As for whether it’s true that “Intentional killing can be justified, in the absence of a legitimate authority, if the killing is done for the sake of securing a people’s natural rights.", I’m not sure. I for one am not prepared to go to war with you for stealing one of my books and refusing to give it back (though you might argue I have a natural right to my property).
As to whether a person who endangers the lives of non-combatants gives up their right to not be tortured, I am just not convinced. Even if it’s possible to forfeit certain rights to certain degrees (a claim I am not sure about), it does not follow that torture itself may be justified. There may still be lines that one should never cross.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Against Torture (including water-boarding)
1. Most importantly, it's immoral.
2. It's ineffective.
3. It negatively affects the souls and reputations of the individuals who carry it out and the country they represent.
4. It's illegal several times over:
2. It's ineffective.
3. It negatively affects the souls and reputations of the individuals who carry it out and the country they represent.
4. It's illegal several times over:
- USC § 2340 defines the crime of torture as
"an act... intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering... [meaning] the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration... or threatened administration... of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering..."
And I think water-boarding might easily fall into at least either the "act intended to cause... mental suffering" or the "threat of imminent death" category. - The Constitution, in article VI clause 2, states that
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Therefore all treaties our Congress has ratified rise to the level of being constitutional law. One such treaty is the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which originated in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1988. Ratification by the Senate took place on October 27, 1990.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture, in article 1.1, defines torture as
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Notice how the definition of torture includes mental suffering for such purposes as obtaining information. This makes water-boarding quite clearly unconstitutional. - The military field manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations mentions "waterboarding" by name as a prohibited action (p. 5-21).
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Abortion and Torture: Call it Both Ways
I assert that if a fetus at a given time is a human person then it is morally reprehensible to abort it at that time. Such an act would literally constitute murder. The circumstances of the pregnancy are irrelevant to the morality of the abortion.
Think about it the following way. What are the possible major effects of rape? I assert 1. physical harm, 2. emotional harm, and 3. an unwanted pregnancy. Now imagine a woman is dealt these things another way: a man assaults her on the street, thereby causing physical and emotional damage, and then he places his own newborn infant in her arms and leaves. Is it morally acceptible for that woman to kill that baby, since she doesn't want it, and was wronged in the process of receiving it?
If you say no, and it is true that a fetus at a certain time is a human person, then it is morally reprehensible for even a rape victim to abort her fetus at such time (what would be the difference between the woman who killed the unwanted baby and the woman who killed the unwanted baby inside her?). The circumstances don't alter the morality of something that is inherently, fundamentally evil (that is, if and only if there is a such thing as "persons", and "morality", and the aborted fetus was in fact a person at the time of its death).
But what does this have to do with torture? Here is the crux of my comparison: if an "interrogation technique" is inherently, fundamentally morally wrong then the circumstances cannot change that fact.
It doesn't matter who did what. If a behavior or intention is inherently wrong, then it is wrong. I am not claiming anything too revolutionary here - I am simply calling for logical coherency.
I call our Executive branch to transparency (at the very least to its Congress) regarding its interrogation techniques. Some entity other than the one carrying out the interrogations needs to thoroughly evaluate each and every practice and properly decide whether each constitutes a behavior that is inherently morally wrong. And such a conclusion ought to be relevant, precise, concise, clear, complete, and actually binding.
Watch this informational waterboarding video <--click there.
Think about it the following way. What are the possible major effects of rape? I assert 1. physical harm, 2. emotional harm, and 3. an unwanted pregnancy. Now imagine a woman is dealt these things another way: a man assaults her on the street, thereby causing physical and emotional damage, and then he places his own newborn infant in her arms and leaves. Is it morally acceptible for that woman to kill that baby, since she doesn't want it, and was wronged in the process of receiving it?
If you say no, and it is true that a fetus at a certain time is a human person, then it is morally reprehensible for even a rape victim to abort her fetus at such time (what would be the difference between the woman who killed the unwanted baby and the woman who killed the unwanted baby inside her?). The circumstances don't alter the morality of something that is inherently, fundamentally evil (that is, if and only if there is a such thing as "persons", and "morality", and the aborted fetus was in fact a person at the time of its death).
But what does this have to do with torture? Here is the crux of my comparison: if an "interrogation technique" is inherently, fundamentally morally wrong then the circumstances cannot change that fact.
It doesn't matter who did what. If a behavior or intention is inherently wrong, then it is wrong. I am not claiming anything too revolutionary here - I am simply calling for logical coherency.
I call our Executive branch to transparency (at the very least to its Congress) regarding its interrogation techniques. Some entity other than the one carrying out the interrogations needs to thoroughly evaluate each and every practice and properly decide whether each constitutes a behavior that is inherently morally wrong. And such a conclusion ought to be relevant, precise, concise, clear, complete, and actually binding.
Watch this informational waterboarding video <--click there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
