The True Price of Torture

December 18, 2008 6:45 PM

Tortured Reasoning."George W. Bush defended harsh interrogations by pointing to intelligence breakthroughs, but a surprising number of counterterrorist officials say that, apart from being wrong, torture just doesn’t work. Delving into two high-profile cases, the author exposes the tactical costs of prisoner abuse."
posted by homunculus (82 comments total)

Yeah, they were wrong twice.

1) It's probably just an evil thing to do.

2) If, God forbid, it falls on you to do this evil thing for some overriding reason, then do it conscientiously at least.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:51 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY (PDF).

NYTimes editorial: The Torture Report
posted by homunculus at 7:01 PM on December 18, 2008

...an unsurprising number of counterterrorist officials say that, apart from being wrong, torture just doesn’t work. Delving into two high-profile cases, the author exposes the tactical costs of prisoner abuse.

FTFT and surely this.
posted by DU at 7:03 PM on December 18, 2008

You know what bothers me about the torture? That I can count on one hand the number of times Christians spoke out against it as Christians.

All the folks who swooned over The Passion of The Christ, who gaped and gasped and cried when they saw James Caviezel as Jesus beaten and whipped and scourged by Roman soldiers, how many of them spoke up to say "the least among us is Jesus" and object to government torture?

How many pastors and priests and bishops spoke up?

Is that what they think Jesus would have dne, or is it that fear of a terror attack justifies them jettisoning their so-called "beliefs"?

They get real loud about the horrors of gay marriage, but remain silent when fourteen-year-old "Al Qaedas" are held in solitary and put in "stress positions" and half-drowned.

Where were these pious moral arbiters, these august "faith leaders", these pastors who pound the pulpit when it's time to condemn the gays and athiests and "secular humanists"? Where were the Christians?
posted by orthogonality at 7:08 PM on December 18, 2008 [61 favorites has favorites]

Where were the Christians?

Well what do you want, you filthy librul? You'd probably turn the other cheek or something equally stupid and weak. Muscular christianity rejects your defeatism!
posted by DU at 7:11 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

War Crimes? A Zen Question
posted by homunculus at 7:13 PM on December 18, 2008

This is just another example of the Bush administrations total disregard for science (or, factual evidence). It has been clear to all but a few loose cannons (read: Dick Cheney) that there are far more effective means of obtaining accurate intelligence than torture.

These insecure Vietnam war-avoiders (not war-resisters) have tried to prove their macho bonafides by encouraging torture, despite its inefectuallity .

Shame on them.
posted by kozad at 7:16 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Where were you when it mattered, "WEB EXCLUSIVE" ?
posted by fire&wings at 7:17 PM on December 18, 2008

Why are we still talking about this, I thought our guy won.
posted by empath at 7:18 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

apart from being wrong, torture just doesn’t work

Heck, before GWB came to power, even right-wingers knew this.
posted by hattifattener at 7:19 PM on December 18, 2008

Why are we still talking about this,

Because it's still being done.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 7:30 PM on December 18, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]

I don't think that they cared whether torture worked or not, they just wanted to torture people. They weren't looking for secrets, they were just trying to prove that they were bigger dicks than the terrorists.
posted by octothorpe at 7:43 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

At least we now know the equivalency of a shoe toss.
posted by isopraxis at 7:47 PM on December 18, 2008

(moral)
posted by isopraxis at 7:48 PM on December 18, 2008

This was interesting and I just watched Rachel Maddow's take on it and her interview with the author of the article.

I'm glad this issue is being brought back to light.
It seemed lost in the shuffle and ended with an unsatisfactory under-carpet sweep when it first came up, and it is one of the things I'd hoped this next administration will address and set right again.
Perhaps clarify the guidelines, make some apologies, and even slap a few people on the wrist for their actions and decisions about sanctioning torture in the first place.

I'd be happy to see this media attention resulting in some real political legislature.
posted by rmless at 7:50 PM on December 18, 2008

even slap a few people on the wrist for their actions and decisions about sanctioning torture in the first place.

Am I reading this right? A slap on the wrist for virtual drownings, beatings, stress positions?
Are you bullshitting me? A slap on the wrist?

These people should by all rights be drawn and quartered, disemboweled and placed head first on pikes. Lupus est homo homani. They started the fight. Let them suck up the lovely gravy themselves, instead of their witless troops.
posted by isopraxis at 7:56 PM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Sorry - should read Lupus est homo homini.
Vitriol got in the way of proper spelling.
posted by isopraxis at 7:59 PM on December 18, 2008

It's interesting how many well respected people are coming out of the woodwork now to condemn this stuff. I mean it's certainly good, but damn what a bunch of cowards!

Now I do know a lot of the people on TV now have been complaining about this for a while, they just couldn't get on TV. But check out this hardball episode where tweety gets all up in some torture proponents grill. Where the hell was that passion during the last eight years!

Still, all of this is very, very important. Nothing happens in this country without "elite opinion" being on it's side. All through the bush years anyone who was anti-torture was shrugged off as a nut ball, and that's not happening now. There's a real movement for justice brewing and we should all be supportive of people, even if they're late to the party.

That said, I'm kind of surprised that such high ranking people are making these calls while bush still has the pardon. Makes me wonder if it's not some scam to make sure bush understands the seriousness of the crime -- so he doesn't forget to pardon everyone, thus sparing everyone the "embarrassment."

It's my view that if you're going to come out for prosecutions this late in the game, you might as well wait until after the 20th.

I think it's also a big part of the reason why republicans want to try to hold up the Eric Holder nomination. They want to take him down a few pegs politically to make it more difficult to prosecute the torturers if he decides to do that (which he may not, we still haven't had any definitive statements)
posted by delmoi at 8:01 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Perhaps clarify the guidelines, make some apologies, and even slap a few people on the wrist for their actions and decisions about sanctioning torture in the first place.

I'd be happy to see this media attention resulting in some real political legislature.

It's legislation. And these people don't need a slap on the wrist, they need life sentences.
posted by delmoi at 8:05 PM on December 18, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

orthogonality: Participating Members in the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
Letter to President Bush Opposing Torture by Cardinal Francis George, chair of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Pope Benedict XVI specifically says torture should not be used against terrorists.
Pax Christi USA, the recognized peace and social justice organization of the Catholic Church, which regularly campaigns against torture at the White House and elsewhere.
Catholic Worker communities against torture
Busted Halo features "Torture and American Culture".
Evangelicals for Human Rights against torture.

Not enough. Never enough. But something. We continue to hold our churches accountable on this issue but, more importantly, we continue to hold all Americans accountable on this issue.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:20 PM on December 18, 2008 [14 favorites has favorites]

OK, slap on the wrist was my attempt at humorous understatement, which apparently didn't come across so well... Of course I think that wouldn't be nearly enough! I agree with you delmoi and isopraxis. Apologies for posting while tired.
posted by rmless at 8:23 PM on December 18, 2008

l33tpolicywonk writes "Letter to President Bush Opposing Torture by Cardinal Francis George, chair of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops."

I recall, during the election, some Catholic priests refused communion to Obama voters.

Did any refuse communion to torturers? To Catholic torture apologists or Catholic members of the Bush Administration?

(Oh come on, they never did that in Franco's Spain, or Pinochet's Chile, who are we kidding?)
posted by orthogonality at 8:35 PM on December 18, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

orthogonality: Point taken and (long story short) one argued ad infinitum in the Catholic circles that discuss these things. Those priests were, however, reprimanded by their bishops in at least most cases. I don't think refusing communion is a great method of discourse within the Church, but that's a whole huge other issue...

I will be the first to say we haven't done enough. To Spain and Chile, I'd add El Salvador too. I will also be the first to say, however, that Americans in general have not done enough. The matter-of-fact truth, however, is that Catholic teaching rejects torture as an intrinsic evil (wrong in every instance). Most Christian denominations (save only Southern Baptists, I think) make similar declarations. However, it was not the Church that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint": it was a culture willing to sacrifice its moral backbones, both religious and secular, for patriotic jingoism which did that.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:58 PM on December 18, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

Those priests were, however, reprimanded by their bishops in at least most cases.

Fetch... the Cushions!
posted by Eekacat at 9:41 PM on December 18, 2008

I recall, during the election, some Catholic priests refused communion to Obama voters.

Did any refuse communion to torturers? To Catholic torture apologists or Catholic members of the Bush Administration?

(Oh come on, they never did that in Franco's Spain, or Pinochet's Chile, who are we kidding?)


Positive Catholic Information Overload Alert!!!! Shift the goalposts! Quick!

Thanks for your post, l33t. It made my day brighter.
posted by Nonce at 9:44 PM on December 18, 2008

Cheney Defends Torture: It ‘Would Have Been Unethical Or Immoral’ For Us Not To Torture
posted by homunculus at 9:57 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Where were the Christians?

I see l33t has posted some links with regards to this. You make an excellent point that the same evangelicals who go apeshit over gay marriage were silent on the use of torture. A lot of them were even pro-war. But as you saw, Catholics are another matter altogether, and that the head of their church explicitly condemns the use of torture should give you a good idea about where the denomination stands on torture. As l33t said, a person can never do enough to fight back against it. But since you asked where the Christians were, well, there some of them are.

As for torture itself, it boggles my mind that it's become a discovery that torture does not yield accurate information. Haven't we already known this? Did the Killing Fields teach us nothing?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:34 PM on December 18, 2008

Rachel Maddow interview with David Rose, the author of the Vanity Fair piece.
posted by homunculus at 10:44 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

It was unethical for me not to throw my shoes.
posted by isopraxis at 10:51 PM on December 18, 2008

The problem with torture is that (at least theoretically) it's supposed to be the very last resort... when everything else has failed I have to do something that I could never do unless my very survival depended on it. Survival. That's the way you can rationalize the unspeakable: "Me" or "Him". The problem is that when this sort of dilemma ceases to be personal and become institutionalized it turns into "Us" vs "Them" And at that point the people ordering the torture as well as the people carrying it out are given a free pass. "Just following orders." You don't have to decide whether the means are justified; you just have to do your job and believe (or hope) that you are absolved of any responsibility for what you are doing. The reason ordinary humans can perform such unbelievably inhumane acts is are because the people at the very top have created the illusion that this is not only what needs to be done, but it is also the right thing to do. These are the people that need to be held accountable.
posted by tighttrousers at 10:52 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I was attending Kansas State University when President Bush came to speak; I didn't bother trying to get tickets -- the line for Gorbachev a few months prior wound through the building of my own department and several others, and I didn't want to endure that sort of line just to see the President poor public speaking skills in person.

I did however, watch the lecture live on local cable access via the University TV station. I remember being surprised that they were actually running questions; there was a parade of praise and adulation, and one interesting question about "How cutting student financial aid is supposed to help" (he claimed, likely truthfully, to be unaware that this had happened). It wasn't until days later that I came to regret the adulation and self-centeredness the student body chose to show: Bush had basically come to announce we do indeed torture in a place unlikely to have reporters who understood the significance and ask unflattering questions.
posted by pwnguin at 10:54 PM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Thank for this. Coincidentally I was trying to argue about this stuff today at work to a few of my incredibly misguided coworkers who continue argued that torture is in fact justified. I think I have a LOT of ammo to use against them tomorrow. Nothing much, I'm going to just print out a few of these articles and place them on their desks. And then they'll wave them off because obviously the reporters are biased and are picking and choosing a few small cases and that they mean nothing.

What a horrible decade it's been for justice. I sincerely hope that we punish those responsible for this to the highest level in the Obama presidency, but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by Green With You at 11:09 PM on December 18, 2008

Thank for this. Coincidentally I was trying to argue about this stuff today at work to a few of my incredibly misguided coworkers who continue argued that torture is in fact justified.

Justification of torture is a rationalized revenge impulse. I don't even think the people who argue for it believe it produces valuable intelligence. But when they see Jack Bauer in the room with that homocidal terrorist lunatic, see that he's done playing games, he's mad as hell, and isn't about to think twice about human rights or international law, and see him just have at the guy, there's a reason why this strikes a visceral cord in some people.

The same people still angry and afraid over terrorist attacks would love nothing better than to get their hands on the people who did this, rip out their fingernails, hang them upside-down in a vat of water, electrocute various body parts. That type of anger blurs cognition - people suspected terrorism are guilty. Having an object upon which to focus our fear and anger - the suspect - brings those feelings rushing to the surface, straining to break free. Any talk of due process, habeas corpus, treating a prisoner according to the law - that's the last thing the revenge impulse wants to hear.

This is why you hear "Well if they captured one of our guys you think they wouldn't torture him?" Because this isn't about getting information in the most expeditious manner possible. It's just about vengence.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:47 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

These people should by all rights be drawn and quartered, disemboweled and placed head first on pikes.

No. They should be jailed or executed humanely (to the extent that's not an oxymoron). Otherwise, you're just doing the same thing they did. I suppose your reaction should help you understand where they were coming from, though.
posted by hattifattener at 1:10 AM on December 19, 2008

Besides, it is confounding all relations to expect that a man should be both the accuser and accused; and that pain should be the test of truth, as if truth resided in the muscles and fibres of a wretch in torture. By this method the robust will escape, and the feeble be condemned. These are the inconveniences of this pretended test of truth, worthy only of a cannibal, and which the Romans, in many respects barbarous, and whose savage virtue has been too much admired, reserved for the slaves alone.

...

This infamous test of truth is a remaining monument of that ancient and savage legislation, in which trials by fire, by boiling water, or the uncertainty of combats, were called judgments of God; as if the links of that eternal chain, whose beginning is in the breast of the first cause of all things, could ever be disunited by the institutions of men. The only difference between torture and trials by fire and boiling water is, that the event of the first depends on the will of the accused, and of the second on a fact entirely physical and external: but this difference is apparent only, not real. A man on the rack, in the convulsions of torture, has it as little in his power to declare the truth, as, in former times, to prevent without fraud the effects of fire or boiling water.

Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, 1764
posted by matteo at 1:21 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Why are we still talking about this, I thought our guy won.

So that the next guy who wins but isn't "ours" won't feel so free to do these evil things, and because the people who did them have earned some real punishment. Electing a President is not a global RESET button that erases the consequences of what went before; we all have to live with those consequences to one degree or another. It's worthwhile to build pressure for making the consequences severe for those who caused the torture.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:12 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Well, I don't know about other Christians, but I was generally shouting and frothing about the torture thing pretty much from the moment I heard about it.

But carry on, please. Obviously Christianity, unlike every other possible religion and subsection of humanity, contains only people who all act and think in a massive bloc and doesn't actually contain any dissent, discussion, or differences of opinion.

Do I wish Christian opposition had been more vocal and immediate? Of course! Frankly, everyone's opposition should have been more vocal and immediate; this has been going on for years now - at least six openly. That is wasn't shut down immediately it became known is basically a giant kick to the balls of morality (not to mention the US's reputation).

Where were the Christians? Where the f*** was everyone? Response was tepid all around. There are a lot of high-profile "Christians" who have tried to turn my religion into a political appendage, and they like to yak about morality as if they'd know it from a dead hamster. You'll forgive me if I don't fall over in shock that there's hypocrisy among rich guys and would-be politicians.

Frankly, I'd rather there was less complaining that X group or Y group didn't complain loudly enough, and more focusing some attention on the assholes in Congress who let it happen. They're the jerkoffs who are supposed to keep the lunatic executive branch in check. They've got the power. Lord knows I voted (enthusiastically) for Gore and then (reluctantly) for Kerry; fat lot of good I was able to accomplish.

---

In a less "Oh no you di'n't!" tone, I do think one of the major reasons Christian leaders in general were quiet on this was because there was a real dilemma for them. No, seriously. They had a tough choice.

Imagine, please, that you believe wholeheartedly that abortion is literally a murder, as heinous as any stabbing or shooting. You are now faced with a choice between cheering for the party you've been told is actively attempting to promote abortions and keep them legal (presumably to better enable unprotected sex with underage girls while shooting up) and the other side, the party you've been told over and over and over is the "Christian" party and the party of "family values" and "morality," which now is torturing these enemy combatants. Not killing (at least that's not widely known at the first juncture). Definitely immoral, but compare nasty treatment to murder.

So you've got innocent children's lives at stake on the one hand, and the immorality of torture on the other. And your congregation is quite firm in their established beliefs (i.e. Democrat = baby-murdering gay drug user). Add to that the fact that most of them (quite possibly including you) are getting their news from Fox, or a similar right-leaning agency, and thus the actual FACTS about the torture are being diluted considerably, such that many people were under the honest impression that nothing more serious than shouting and some rough shoving was going on. You're supposed to say something, but denouncing the Republicans leaves you apparently in favor of dead babies, and you don't even want to believe that Boy Bush really truly knew what was going on in the first place...

That's a rock and a hard place; I'd probably have a hard time thinking of what to say in that situation, too.

Should they have spoken up anyway? Absolutely. 100%, no questions from me. But you can see where the dilemma might have arisen, such that they would prefer keeping quiet and hoping it all turned out to really be nothing (instead of the increasingly appalling mess it's turning into.)
posted by Scattercat at 3:59 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

You know, I always come back to this aspect of the supposed justifications from torture apologists. I hear what you say about a "Ticking Time Bomb", and the *need* to get answers. We've all seen the many movies and tv shows relying on that plot device. Here is where it all falls apart. If someone *believes* in America so much that they're willing to PERSONALLY CHOOSE to violate the Laws of the United States -- and everyone knows it's wrong to torture people ( non consensually, of course, but that's another message board... ) -- I digress.

If someone *believes* in America so much that they're willing to PERSONALLY CHOOSE to violate the Laws of the United States to torture someone to obtain what they believe to be necessary information -- why don't they have the balls to surrender themselves to The Law, and take their chances explaining their reasoning to a Judge and Jury of Their Peers? If the truly believed in the NEED for their choice, why wouldn't they?

Because they're pussies, who, when we look closely, are just covering up their ENJOYMENT of torturing people -- to "Get Even" for the attacks -- with their supposed patriotism.

They don't surrender themselves for judgement, because they KNOW they're criminals, and are afraid of the consequences of their choice to break the Law. And rightly so. I think hanging's too good for torturers. They should be tortured, then hanged, but then I think that's unusual enough to be stricken on constitutional grounds. Life in Federal Prison works. Banishment works. Kick 'em out and take away their passport. You supposedly loved America so much, right? America hates torturers. Goodbye Forever.

I also think, but haven't had my coffee, so that's iffy.... that's part of why there wasn't widespread religious denouncement and ostracising the supporters -- because everyone secretly enjoyed "Getting Even" more than the really believe in G-d.

Oh, the hypocrisy!
posted by mikelieman at 5:32 AM on December 19, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

So you've got innocent children's lives at stake on the one hand, and the immorality of torture on the other. And your congregation is quite firm in their established beliefs (i.e. Democrat = baby-murdering gay drug user). Add to that the fact that most of them (quite possibly including you) are getting their news from Fox, or a similar right-leaning agency, and thus the actual FACTS about the torture are being diluted considerably, such that many people were under the honest impression that nothing more serious than shouting and some rough shoving was going on. You're supposed to say something, but denouncing the Republicans leaves you apparently in favor of dead babies, and you don't even want to believe that Boy Bush really truly knew what was going on in the first place...

That's a rock and a hard place; I'd probably have a hard time thinking of what to say in that situation, too.


WWJD?
posted by geos at 6:02 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers. ~ Carl Jung
posted by infini at 6:06 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

WWOD?
posted by Xurando at 6:37 AM on December 19, 2008

You fancy pants liberals think you know everything. But the truth is you fail to learn from history - and history teaches us that torture works.

Look, there used to be witches. Europe in particular was awash with them. The witches were a terrible menace and worse, the witches would hide among the populace and blend in. The only way to find out who the witches were was to torture them. The long and short is that it worked - there are no more witches.

The same fate could befall terrorists, if you liberal pantywaists don't get in the way of the hard work our interrogators are doing.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:49 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Justification of torture is a rationalized revenge impulse
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:47 AM on December 19

I wish my coworkers had been making that argument, but if that's the real reason they condone torture they tried very hard to convince me otherwise. No, I heard stuff like "in times of war it's necessary", the ticking time bomb defense, if it saves live we have to put up with it, etc. They just wouldn't believe my assertions (as I didn't have any hard data at my disposal at the time) that torturing is in fact not only morally wrong (which they claimed to agree with, except for those 'exceptional circumstances') but also tactically ineffective in the long run. We cause our allies to lose faith in us as well as lose respect from everyone around the world that might have previously thought twice about stopping the madman we claim to oppose.

No, I just think they're dumb asses. That article, if I can convince them it's significant that so many in the intelligence community are certain it isn't effective and is actually harming things, then maybe they might start buying the arguments.
posted by Green With You at 6:57 AM on December 19, 2008

If someone *believes* in America so much that they're willing to PERSONALLY CHOOSE to violate the Laws of the United States to torture someone to obtain what they believe to be necessary information -- why don't they have the balls to surrender themselves to The Law, and take their chances explaining their reasoning to a Judge and Jury of Their Peers? If the truly believed in the NEED for their choice, why wouldn't they?

I tried to us this argument on my co-workers as well. That if they really believed that torture was effective and necessary that an individual could chose to do it and suffer the consequences that come from breaking the law. I couldn't even wrap my head around the twisted logic they used to say that wasn't possible so I can't reproduce it here.
posted by Green With You at 7:01 AM on December 19, 2008

The problem with torture is NOT that it should be a last resort. It is that it doesn't work. At least, not the way we have been taught by Hollywood that it does. It is remarkably effective at
Getting someone to say what they think you want them to say, but does not produce useful intelligence.
posted by Manjusri at 7:59 AM on December 19, 2008

The problem with torture is NOT that it should be a last resort. It is that it doesn't work. At least, not the way we have been taught by Hollywood that it does. It is remarkably effective at Getting someone to say what they think you want them to say, but does not produce useful intelligence.

So if they can figure away to extract useful intelligence through the infliction of pain, "the problem with torture" goes away? Screw that, Manjusri. You do realize that just by changing the focus of all future conversations about torture from "should we do it?" to "how best can we do it?" we become the kind of people to whom the former question ceases to matter. Personalities, and morals, are fluid. Let's not go there.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:23 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

They just wouldn't believe my assertions (as I didn't have any hard data at my disposal at the time) that torturing is in fact not only morally wrong (which they claimed to agree with, except for those 'exceptional circumstances') but also tactically ineffective in the long run.

When emotional and moral appeals don't work, I usually use the Khmer Rouge is a recent example of torture's ineffectiveness in gathering intelligence. Whenever the Khmer Rouge would take some poor soul to Toul Sleng for interrogation, they'd torture him or her in order to get names on other enemies of the state - who do you know who is a counter-revolutionary, who's a Vietnamese spy, who's an American lackey and so on. Of course eventually, even the most morally upright person starts naming names - any names - just to make the pain stop. Those people named were then rounded up for more of the same. And so on. In the end, millions were executed, and four years after taking power, the Khmer Rouge was overrun by the invading Vietnamese army anyway. So if you need to take a cold, clinical look at torture strictly as a way to gather information, the Killing Fields are a great example of how poorly it operates.

Should they have spoken up anyway? Absolutely. 100%, no questions from me. But you can see where the dilemma might have arisen, such that they would prefer keeping quiet and hoping it all turned out to really be nothing (instead of the increasingly appalling mess it's turning into.)

I fail to see a dilemma. You'll also notice that among many Christians it's possible to believe strongly in many different positions that stem from different political parties (being against legalized abortion AND the death penalty, for example). If anyone was reluctant to condemn torture because they were worried it might ally them with pro-choice politicians, then I can't see how that person is thinking morally. Condemning evil isn't a partisan choice.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:45 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Sorry. That was a bit strong. But the "it's wrong because it doesn't work" argument always gets me. This is torture, people. What next? The U.N. reports on genocide: "Remarkably ineffective."
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:58 AM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Why are we all sitting here typing our outrage to "the choir" instead of GETTING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!

Damn it! Cheney has literally admitted on national media that he approved behavior that is internationally defined as criminal, making him complicit.

This is no longer a philosophical hypothetical; it's a freaking reality.

Me shakes head in disgust ...
posted by aldus_manutius at 10:11 AM on December 19, 2008

Why are we all sitting here typing our outrage to "the choir" instead of GETTING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!

Everyone: TO FOOT LOCKER!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:47 AM on December 19, 2008

Decades after a notorious experiment, scientists have found test subjects are still willing to inflict pain on others - if told to by an authority figure.

US researchers repeated the famous "Milgram test", with volunteers told to deliver electrical shocks to another volunteer - played by an actor.

Even after faked screams of pain, 70% were prepared to increase the voltage, the American Psychology study found.

Both may help explain why apparently ordinary people can commit atrocities.
posted by infini at 11:01 AM on December 19, 2008

The worst aspect of this outgoing administration that the torture issue highlights, even more than the torture itself, is that they tried to build a morality-distortion field that would make torture (and other actions like unilateral war, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc) legal and ethically justified. To me that's the hallmark of true evil.

*******

Scattercat, re pointing a finger at Christians, and particularly the evangelical variety... one of the things that has been trumpeted by the "right" ever since Reagan is how they represent the "Moral Majority", and how their rise ushers in a new era of principled, ethical, common-sense, value-based governance... values that apparently God-fearing, saved-by-Jesus people possess in abundance.

So... fast-forward to now, as we stand amidst the ruins left by the last 8 years of this. Economy's bad, ethics are in tatters.

No I'm not accusing the Christian right for the mess (and I agree that they were in some fashion duped and used) but they still hugely backed the fuckers who did, and when they could have spoken out clearly and with all the political power they possess... to stop a war, to stop torture... they didn't. They could have. But they didn't.

I think this needs acknowledging. I need to see a Time or Newsweek cover article showing some senior evangelical leaders weeping at the pulpit and acknowledging publicly the epic moral fail of the people they supported, and their complicity by their silence as this unfolded. Or they get to wear this forever, IMHO.

(BTW I like Christians. Two of my favourite parents are Christians)
posted by Artful Codger at 11:07 AM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

You are now faced with a choice between cheering for the party you've been told is actively attempting to promote abortions and keep them legal (presumably to better enable unprotected sex with underage girls while shooting up) and the other side, the party you've been told over and over and over is the "Christian" party and the party of "family values" and "morality," which now is torturing these enemy combatants.

Very, very, very weak soup.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:28 AM on December 19, 2008

When emotional and moral appeals don't work, I usually use the Khmer Rouge is a recent example of torture's ineffectiveness in gathering intelligence.

A good historical example of why torture is unnecessary are the WWII interrogators from Fort Hunt, who were able to get information from Nazi prisoners using raport-building techniques.

Another more recent example of the same is Matthew Alexander (pseudonym) and his team of military interrogators in Iraq. They refused to use torture, and they successfully hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
posted by homunculus at 12:19 PM on December 19, 2008

Green with You:

Pose to your co-workers this scenario. Say that the US has a terrorist in custody, a terrorist who we believe may information about a bomb that may have been planted in a major US city. We also happen to have his wife and his 10 year old daughter, both of whom are US citizens. Assume that from our intelligence agencies we know that the terrorist is highly resistant to torture, but has an incredible affection for both his wife and daughter. In fact, our sources say that years ago, extreme torture of his wife and child were enough to have him confess information before, when all other tactics had failed.

Ask your friends if they would be willing to torture the wife and daughter to find the location of that bomb. Ask them if there would be any act they would not do to find the location of that bomb.

Because if it really is about saving lives, and ticking time bombs, then it becomes a utilitarian calculus. The pain inflicted on a few to save the lives of many, as a guiding principle, doesn't care about the identity of the tortured individual; it just matters that the lives saved outweighs that person's pain.

If they really want to save lives, why would torturing the terrorist be ok but not the daughter? You're torturing one person to stop the "ticking time bomb." Everything mechanically is the same. Taking the example even farther, if the terrorist told us that the torture of a complete stranger in front of them would be enough to make them confess, and we had reason to believe this was true (it had worked in the past, lie detectors, God came down and told us to believe it) shouldn't your friends be willing to do that, since it could possibly save lives?

The point I try to make with this example is the one Marisa Stole The Precious Thing is making: that torture isn't about intelligence, its about desert. For your friends, terrorists deserve to get tortured, and that's why its ok. If it's just about saving lives, then we should be willing to torture anyone at all that will prevent the loss of life. Utility demands it.

If they are willing to stick to their guns, and do torturous things to wives and daughters and innocent strangers, then my premise is wrong about them and its not about desert. But every pro-torture person I've discussed the issue with has balked at my scenarios.
posted by shen1138 at 12:49 PM on December 19, 2008

“The American Public has a Right to Know That They Do Not Have to Choose Between Torture and Terror”: Six questions for Matthew Alexander, author of How to Break a Terrorist
posted by homunculus at 12:59 PM on December 19, 2008

The point I try to make with this example is the one Marisa Stole The Precious Thing is making: that torture isn't about intelligence, its about desert.

"You're walking along in a desert -"

"Which one?"

*zaps Leon with cattle-prod*
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:37 PM on December 19, 2008

shen> ...Because if it really is about saving lives, and ticking time bombs, then it becomes a utilitarian calculus. The pain inflicted on a few to save the lives of many, as a guiding principle, doesn't care about the identity of the tortured individual; it just matters that the lives saved outweighs that person's pain.

Here's the thing - it's NEVER that morally clear (unless you're watching "24" or "Die-Hard 14") . It's never "which wire do we cut" or "only the master password will stop the timer". Never, outside of a TV or a cinema or a time machine. It's always messier. So allowing any of these "what would Jack Bauer do?" scenarios to enter a serious conversation about terrorism or the morality of torture is always a derail.

Secondly, and more important, the "pain inflicted on a few to save the lives of many" is exactly the justification used by those we call terrorists. They obviously believe they're doing something to achieve a goal; they don't blow people AND themselves up because they didn't get enough hugs as a kid. If we use the same argument for murder... then we become just like them.
posted by Artful Codger at 1:56 PM on December 19, 2008

“How many pastors and priests and bishops spoke up?”

Well, generally speaking I agree with your sentiments. But without delving into some “no true scotsman” thing here - the Christians (and others) were, y’know, putting it on the line:

Two Catholic priests may go to prison over torture protest

Local clergy lobby officials to ban torture by U.S. agencies

Speaking of Jesus being Beaten - Pax Christi “we reiterate our Church's profound respect for the dignity of all persons and reject as antithetical to Christianity any and all justifications for the use of torture”

Rabbis for Human Rights: A Jewish Statement Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees Under United States Control

An Open Letter Urging Action by Congress
National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Witness Against Torture and Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq organized a march to the US Mission to the United Nations to demand US compliance with the UN's recommendation that the detention center at Guantanamo be shut down.

United Church of Christ against Torture

Clergy and Laity Concerned about Iraq allied with United for Peace and Justice (who were just out here last weekend)

Twenty-seven religious leaders, including Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, have signed a statement urging the United States to abolish torture immediately
Last week a group of American Roman Catholic peace activists held a march to the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba, protesting conditions for terrorism suspects

So, some people are walking the walk. I suspect these aren’t the folks you’re talking about though. So minor point. But (some) religious folks have been a big help in protesting torture.
Others, not so much.
(Just thought I’d add to the links)

“The problem with torture is that (at least theoretically) it's supposed to be the very last resort.”

I thought it was never to be used under any circumstances. I’d die before I’d torture anyone. I’d never follow that order. And it’s a shame that such a mindset is no longer taught.
But I think your analysis is very astute.

“Why are we all sitting here typing our outrage to "the choir" instead of GETTING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!”

You gotta sleep. You gotta eat. Work. etc. But for the past buncha years I’ve been pretty rabidly doing something about it such that my otherwise tidy savings is pretty much in a shambles.
People *are* doing things. It’s just not getting a lot of press. And now, it seems to be getting more.
You don’t need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing.

But I dunno what "enough" is. You’d think folks with direct experience with this saying “It don’t work” and “It’s wrong” would change minds. You’d think someone like me (et.al.) saying explicitly that I would kill a torturer on GP might resonate (and I would - given I’m witnessing it, or about to, firsthand).
Nope.
They just keep saying it. Keep urging it.
I’m fairly convinced, absent some other agenda I can’t fathom, Cheney (et.al) is insane.

(And thanks for posting Matt Alexander (et.al) homunculus)

I mean - how far do you go? It seems like it’s worth open insurrection, but then, innocent folks might get hurt there so is that the best option?
I think constant pressure and pursuit. I have been speaking to anyone who will listen about prosecuting members of the Bush administration for war crimes. Tilting at windmills maybe, but keep at it long enough...
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on December 19, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Durn you are missing the point of the "torture doesn't work" argument. It is not a call to improve the methods, but a rebuttal to the "ticking clock" or "last resort" arguments.

The point is that, since the consensus among experienced interrogators is that torture is an ineffective tool to produce intelligence, any discussion of ticking clocks or last resorts is moot. It doesn't work even in those scenarios.

But in a purely academic answer to your question, assuming a method of torture was found that did produce reliable intelligence, and assuming a magical method was found to identify with 100% accuracy guilty terrorists, I would have no problem with the infliction of suffering on the guilty to save the lives of innocents. This is a pretty mainstream position, which is why the ineffectiveness of torture, and inaccuracy of methods used to identify perpetrators are the strongest arguments against torture.
posted by Manjusri at 3:22 PM on December 19, 2008

shen1138

I had forgotten that those coworkers were all going on vacation today so I probably won't really have a chance to talk about it again with them any time soon. However, I managed to get my Chinese coworker to agree that if someone could prove to him that killing all the Chinese people on the planet ultimately saved lives he'd be down with it so I don't see why he wouldn't be fine with torturing the suspect's family to get him to talk.
posted by Green With You at 3:30 PM on December 19, 2008

Durn you are missing the point of the "torture doesn't work" argument. It is not a call to improve the methods

No, but you are missing the fact that it can't be one without the other.

Had you said that one of the problems with torture is that it doesn't work, I would have agreed. But it is not the problem with torture. Our problem with torture should first and foremost be moral. To someone who sees torture strictly as a means to an end, telling them "it doesn't work" is not saying "it can't work" -- that would be nice to say, but of course we can't know that. "It doesn't work" hasn't stopped pouring millions (billions?) into the missile defence system. Not working hasn't stopped terrorists from blowing things up to try to achieve political change.

Besides, this entire line of argument completely ignores what may be the primary use of torture: as a weapon of terror. If anyone understands that no good information can be gained from torture, surely it is the torturers themselves. It is a punishment for those presumed guilty, and a warning to others. Where does that put your argument of effectiveness?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:54 PM on December 19, 2008

> But in a purely academic answer to your question, assuming a method of torture was found that did produce reliable intelligence, and assuming a magical method was found to identify with 100% accuracy guilty terrorists, I would have no problem with the infliction of suffering on the guilty to save the lives of innocents.

Hooray! it's "Minority Report"!

The problem with wasting pixels (or breath) on that argument is that it builds a nice wide on-ramp to at least two slippery slopes. Ok, so we all agree you won't (yet) get 100% accuracy of the guilt so it's all moot...? But wait... what if we knew with...99% accuracy? Surely that's enough... 80! do I hear 80%? 70% and one eye witness? And so on.

Secondly... guilty of what? Is this person guilty of... placing the bomb and starting that cool little red LED timer (that beeps!)? Or is s/he guilty of... being related to suspected parties? Agreeing with party of interest on an internet forum? Guilty of being brown with a funny towel on their head?

The point is... I thought we sorta kind of agreed that we want a world where it's NEVER OK to torture or inflict pain on another. For ANY reason. So we shouldn't be carving out Cheney-esque exceptions to this, should we? We don't condone or practice torture, full stop.

Someday, it's quite likely that we will have sufficient means and techniques to reasonably ascertain guilt, to tell truth from lies, and we will then truly be able to force the truth out of someone. Your argument would then make torture OK. Is this what you really said?

On preview, what Durn just said.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:22 PM on December 19, 2008

"No, but you are missing the fact that it can't be one without the other."

Patently false. To say something doesn't work does not imply that one should try to make it work.

"Our problem with torture should first and foremost be moral."

Sure, but the question is why? I'm afraid "This is torture, people." isn't all that persuasive to anyone who isn't already convinced.

I agree with you that one of the real purposes of torture of a weapon of terror, though I'm not sure how many of the "bad apples" actually inflicting it understand this (as opposed to those at the top ordering it who understand all too clearly). Another purpose is to produce fraudulent intelligence to manipulate public opinion. Typically the efficacy argument is the first step to convey these points. e.g. "Since torture doesn't actually work, what do you suppose they getting out of this?".

on preview: Arful Codger: I don't think you understand the term academic or that 100% != reasonably.
posted by Manjusri at 4:36 PM on December 19, 2008

> "Artful Codger: I don't think you understand the term academic or that 100% != reasonably."

I understand those terms enough to believe that you in effect said:

"IF we could ascertain guilt 100% then I would approve of torture to save the lives of innocents". So if YOU knew someone was "guilty" you'd be OK with torturing them. That's scary, dude.

If really, you don't approve of the use of torture, then why not come out and say it, without the hypothetical hedge?
posted by Artful Codger at 4:57 PM on December 19, 2008

Ok, for anyone who found my comments confusing: I've been frothing at the mouth over this for something like six years now, to the point that anyone who knows me tiptoes around the subject so as not to set me off.

But simply saying "TORTURE BAD" is neither interesting conversation, nor is it persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I am more interested in discussing why it is bad. The notion that there is some consensus that it is never ok to inflict pain is ludicrous. I do think the fact that we are torturing innocent people for no tangible benefit (and I would argue at considerable cost to our national security) is abhorrent to the average person. The trick is getting them to understand this.
posted by Manjusri at 5:47 PM on December 19, 2008

I'm saying "TORTURE WRONG", which is different. Sorry if it isn't scintillating conversation.

I agree that there are certainly enough practical arguments against torture; but there are also such things as Right and Wrong. When our government starts trying to tell us that sometimes wrong is right, for allegedly pragmatic reasons, I think it's important to be clear and to state unequivocally: "No, fuckwits, this is wrong". Disregard for principles is a big part of how things got to be so fucked up.
posted by Artful Codger at 6:57 PM on December 19, 2008

Patently false. To say something doesn't work does not imply that one should try to make it work.

Well yes, that is patently false. It's also a strawman. See, I did not make the argument that one should try to improve upon coercive methods of information extraction. I said that those who already see torture as a means to and end will treat the reality (if they face it at all) of "it doesn't work" by trying to make it work. For someone characterizing others' comments as purely academic, I don't think you're taking a very realistic look at how those in this mindset you're talking about works.

But more importantly, I don't agree at all that because we cannot agree on what is right and wrong when it comes to morality, that we should abandon the conversation for practical considerations of utility. I joked about a U.N. report on genocide concentrating only on its ability or inability to meet the goals of those carrying it out. But really this is the kind of conversation you are advocating having, and it's an easy, easy out for the opposition -- in fact, movement of this debate is one of the key methods of the right. Imagine turning any ethical quandry into a utility-only argument -- violence directed at civilian populations in time of war, the death penalty (over $ to keep prisoners alive), the war on drugs as successful economic practice -- or more directly, why not slavery itself?

In any case, as I said, I'm not suggesting that the moral argument be the only one; only that it be the primary one. Elimination of a consideration from debate is a powerful tool to eliminating it from the thoughts and concerns of those debating.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:43 PM on December 19, 2008

When somethings going wrong

You must whip it
posted by raider at 7:46 PM on December 19, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Durn, one can see torture as a means to an end, and on learning that it doesn't actually work decide it should be abandoned rather than improved. In fact, I think we are watching a generation of Americans come to this realization. The claim that you cannot separate the efficacy argument from a call to improve is patently false.

I don't see a real dichotomy between a moral argument and a practical one. If torture did save innocent lives, and could be inflicted only on those responsible for heinous crimes I would view it as a lesser of evils and thus a moral act. This is not and will never be the case, and it is therefore a purely academic point (I do reserve the right to characterize my own comments as academic). But many people believe this to be the case when the government tells them so, and this belief is what allows them to accept it.

It sounds like you guys are advocating a deontological approach. Since it apparently brought you to the right side of this issue, that's good. But I don't buy that this approach deserves primacy because I don't think it has much potential to change minds, nor do I see any evidence that it results in improved values or principles. If one is trying to move a society engaging in genocide to stop, making the case that it will not accomplish their goals is going to be a much more compelling argument than simply telling them that genocide is wrong.
posted by Manjusri at 1:05 AM on December 20, 2008

> If torture did save innocent lives, and could be inflicted only on those responsible for heinous crimes I would view it as a lesser of evils and thus a moral act.

As long as you or anyone holds this to be a valid statement, the opportunity will always exist for a case to be built for torture. So once again, it seems you approve of torture, under a given circumstance.

A clear statement of principles is necessary. A principle is the stake in the ground, an unambiguous reference by which we and others can easily judge the morality of an action.

I don't really know what you're fighting against here. We in the west already believe without question in a whack of principles - the right to "life, liberty and the purfuit of happineff", democracy, equality. We don't have to engage in pragmatic justifications - these are our principles. This is what we hold to be true. End of discussion.

Torture belongs in this group. We don't torture. We believe it to be wrong. It was a lack of principles that allowed torture to jump back onto the table in the first place.

We agree that torture is currently ineffective as an intelligence tool, except that you've just said that if it DID work in a specified condition... then given that condition you'd use it. I'm sayin... why? Isn't torture just wrong, anytime?

I have neither the wisdom nor the attention span of Plato, but I'd bet that given your quoted statement above, he could logically corner you into applying thumbscrews to your grandmother in less than 3 pages.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:55 AM on December 20, 2008

Chris Matthews and Christopher Hitchens take on Michael Smerconish for his pro-torture views.
posted by homunculus at 12:02 PM on December 20, 2008

Marjorie Cohn: It Would Be Illegal for Bush to Pardon Himself or Cheney for Torture and Obama Is Legally Required to Prosecute
posted by homunculus at 1:18 PM on December 20, 2008

Apologies for the line-by-line, but in the interest of clarity...

"As long as you or anyone holds this to be a valid statement, the opportunity will always exist for a case to be built for torture. "

Absolutely. Since this is pretty much the default way humans think about it, this isn't something that's ever going to go away completely.

"So once again, it seems you approve of torture, under a given circumstance.".

In a wholly unrealistic circumstance, sure. Since I can't envision a plausible scenario where I would approve, it would be far more accurate to say that I disapprove strenuously of torture.

"I don't really know what you're fighting against here."

I noticed ;). I think the rage we all feel about this muddles communication and makes us all a little knee-jerky. I started off objecting to the idea that torture is acceptable as a last resort. A few people didn't like my reasoning (though I'm sure they concur with the conclusion) and we drifted into something resembling deontology versus utilitarianism.

"A clear statement of principles is necessary. A principle is the stake in the ground, an unambiguous reference by which we and others can easily judge the morality of an action."

Whose principles? Yours, mine, or the people who think they approve of torture right now? How do you convince someone who does not share your principles? I would start with something we surely all agree with: If torture serves no constructive purpose and is in fact counter-productive it should not be permitted. This is a good choice because it is low-hanging fruit. The case that it is counter-productive is very strong, and the case for constructive purpose is virtually non-existent.

"We in the west already believe without question in a whack of principles - the right to "life, liberty and the purfuit of happineff", democracy, equality. We don't have to engage in pragmatic justifications - these are our principles. This is what we hold to be true. End of discussion."

Then how do you explain extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons and the reelection of G.W. Bush? I live about as far west as you get and my district voted for prop 8. I know people who thought they were doing a moral thing voting for that out of blind adherence to principles.

"Torture belongs in this group. We don't torture. We believe it to be wrong. It was a lack of principles that allowed torture to jump back onto the table in the first place. "

This is probably the crux of our disagreement. I think we both know that we in fact do torture. Not for a lack of principles, but for the wrong principles. l33tpolicywonk's excellent comment notwithstanding, there seems to me to be a large overlap between the segment of society that backed this policy shift, and people who have strongly held convictions not grounded in reality.

"Isn't torture just wrong, anytime?"

Not in the "24" universe. If guilt is beyond question and lives will be saved you will find that many if not most people would side with the torturer. Which is why the implausibility of the scenario is important to stress.

"I have neither the wisdom nor the attention span of Plato, but I'd bet that given your quoted statement above, he could logically corner you into applying thumbscrews to your grandmother in less than 3 pages."

I would take that bet and your money. My grandparents are deceased, and though one was a compulsive gambler, I'm confident none were ever accused of any heinous crimes.
posted by Manjusri at 1:18 PM on December 21, 2008

Biden Not Ruling Out Prosecuting Bush Officials For Prisoner Abuse
posted by homunculus at 9:40 PM on December 21, 2008

Where were the Jews, Ortho? Where were the Muslims? Where were the Buddhists? Where were the vegetarians? Where were the American Indians? Where were the southpaws? Where were the democrats in congresss? Where the fuck were you, orthogonality?
posted by garlic at 8:51 AM on December 22, 2008

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Calls for Independent Counsel to Investigate Cheney and Rumsfeld for Violating Torture Laws
posted by homunculus at 8:57 AM on December 23, 2008

Torture prosecutions finally begin in the U.S.
posted by homunculus at 3:17 PM on December 31, 2008

Of course torture works to get information in "ticking bomb" hypotheticals, because hypotheticals are fantasies you've concocted. In fact, if you're going to leap into the world of fantasy, it's probably a lot more efficient to get your information using a Vulcan mind-meld.

I suspect that the reason the U.S. government were so keen to use torture was for the same reason the Inquisition used torture - they needed to fabricate an army of Evil Terrorists / Heretics to "prove" that the stories they were spreading were true. The existence of Guantanamo was used as evidence for the existence of this army of terrorists (because if they had been picked up, they had to be terrorists, didn't they? Q.E.D.)

The bonus for the U.S. over the Inquisition is that when they've finished with their prisoners, they've probably fabricated an actual army of people who want to hurt the U.S.

So a Win/Win, there.
posted by Grangousier at 3:32 PM on December 31, 2008

They didn't 'probably fabricate' an army of such people, they definitely created an army of them, and it happened before they were finished with their prisoners. I don't disagree with the motives you've assigned the Bushites, though. The whole enterprise is massively stupid and evil.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:25 AM on January 1

Inside The CIA: Not Able To Say No To Torture?
posted by homunculus at 10:05 AM on January 6

Leon Panetta: No Torture. No Exceptions.
posted by homunculus at 8:41 AM on January 7