For some weird reason, the subject of torture comes up with macabre frequency among my training partners. It is, of course, a purely hypothetical subject for us. But when you study a warrior's art, I think conversations of this sort bare something of the speaker's soul.There is an apparent weight shift toward the permissive view of the subject. That is, the belief that sometimes nothing else will do seems to have most of us. I am in the minority that does not think "torture" is an appropriate act for the United States. I like to think that the permissive view holds sway among a group of macho, Right-leaning guys because it is a hypothetical topic for us. After all, no one wants to appear soft on terrorists.
I came across this article -- yes, from the Left-leaning New Yorker -- that shares many (not all) of my views and says them better than I can, so I'm going to post it here. Among the many views of mine that it shares is that the permissive view is growing in popularity because of the TV show "24." Even my mother-in-law, a dyed in the wool Liberal herself, loves Jack Bauer and how he can make the tough decisions. Whenever the subject of torture is brought-up by my classmates, they always invoke the "ticking time bomb" scenario, and I can practically hear the distinct "beep-beep" from "24" in my head as they press me to agree that in that circumstance torture might be necessary to stop a catastrophe.
Well, yes, if it looked like drilling out a terrorist's knee was the only way to stop a multi-megaton nuke from going off in downtown Manhattan, I admit the option will begin to look good. My problem is in deciding where the threshold is: what if it is a pipe bomb attached to a single child in Kansas? Yes? No? Maybe so? As the article points out, ticking time bomb scenarios are actually very rare.
One of the other problems is that there is no commonly accepted definition of "torture." Which is why there is still much hand-wringing over the "aggressive interrogation techniques" the present administration wants to use. Like pornography, we know torture when we see it. Scenes from the Saw horror movies, or Hostel definitely count as torture. But is sleep deprivation torture? I'd say allow some techniques that disorient a subject. At least it is easier to draw lines around non-physically abusive techniques.
Senator John McCain is no stranger to torture, he experienced it first hand as a POW, and you never hear him say anything positive about it. He never says, "Oh yeah, it worked on every one of us. We sang like canaries after the thumb screws." He'll tell you it stregthened the captives' resolve. It is pretty widely known that torture will make people talk, but it doesn't always get them to tell the truth -- which just degenerates into a cycle of more abuse to keep the person talking.
It's always easy on "24," they always have the right bad guy, the act is usually accomplished quickly, and then the subject (victim? I know it's hard to sympathize with scum) always tells the truth. I like to remember the USA Network show "La Femme Nikita." They used torture regularly too. It didn't always work. In one episode, they brought in a terrorist and told her in great detail how they planned to break her. She looked straight in the eye of the torturer and lifted her hands off the table. Then the terrorist reached out with one hand and started breaking her own fingers. The torturer nodded and left the room. "We'll get nothing from that one," she told her boss. But that's just fiction, right?
8 comments:
jrf, to respond to your post, you tempt the devil in us.
And that is part of the point.
This always tempts the devil in us.
I was tortured by Dr. Venom and Dr. Mindbender. They strapped me to a device that ripped the memories from my head. Those were the days...
It is not easy being the good guys.
jrf...I am so disappointed in you.
"beep-beep"
It is hard to be morally absolute when you are the victim. Which is why law enforcement organizations pull officers from investigations that could cause moral conflict.
The question is not whether or not my actions would be "acceptable," it is whether they would be right, or wrong. They would still be wrong.
And where is the guarantee that such a deviant will tell me the truth? In a ticking time bomb scenario, there is actually an incentive to send me in the wrong direction so the deviant can still win. After all, what am I going to do to him afterwards? Kill him?
But you missed part of the point of the post: the ticking time-bomb scenario is practically non-existent in real life. Either you find out about a plot far in advance, or too late. Almost never with a day or an hour to spare. And if you do uncover such a plot, do you know you have the right person to question, let alone torture?
There is plenty of evidence that an experienced interrogator can get almost anyone to open up eventually. You'll note that in addition to saying I wasn't against all pyschological pressure, I didn't say we should close Gitmo... Maybe some of those captives just need a little more time to stew. In fact, good interrogation can be checked against known facts and over time usually provides more, better and consistent results. I really should provide citations for this anecdotal evidence, but I'm so confident that it is true that I'll let you guys google the topic. I'm sure you'll have a hard time coming up with a legitimate study showing that torture produces useful information on a consistent basis.
BTW, though that is a favortie Orwell quote of mine, you'll find that Orwell said many contradictory things. Consider that he includes an iconic scene of torture in 1984 involving a rebel, a cage, and some hungry rats. The reader sympathizes with the rebel, who is being asked ridiculous questions to which he has no answer.
OK. You partly have me on the question, "Who determines right and wrong?" Is it religion? philosophy? law? popular opinion? me? you? How about: all of the above to varying degrees.
BUT first, let me say this question came up almost verbatim in my college philosphy class (many) years ago. The guy who asked was the kind of frat boy who wore his baseball cap backwards. I wish I could report the professor's exact answer to you, I can't. (I think it had something to do with modern philosophy tackling this question by critiqueing the foundations laid down by Plato and Aristotle... blah, blah...) I mostly remember the horribly sour expression that crossed the professor's face because she a.) knew this question was at the heart of all philosophy and there was no good answer for this smartass, and b.) she knew she was being baited.
The hard truth is: there is no Ultimate Authority laying down right from wrong in such a way that everyone will universally agree. Sorry.
Now, that said, you are not off the hook for your decisions. You are a human adult possessing free will and all that implies. You also exist inside a reality that has imposed certain rules from many different directions. You may, in fact choose to ignore some of them, but you can not choose to ignore all of them. For example, you can not choose to ignore Gravity.
In a philosophical context, even if you choose to ignore all of the moral tenets handed down by society, religion, law, and moral philosophy -- you are still, wittingly or not, choosing to live by the philosophy of Nihilism. You will also find that since the vast majority of the world has chosen a more ordered system, you will be an outcast, and quite possibly hunted down for your actions. Not the best choice for you to make.
Morality, right versus wrong, is a notion influenced in individuals to a greater or lesser degree by the sum total of religious, philosophical, legal, and other societal notions down through the centuries. You say "nothing is definite." Here's a short list: Murder, Rape, Incest, Child Molesting, Theft, Bestiality. None of these are wrong?
"But," you say, "I can think of an instance in which (fill in blank) may be justified!"
OK, but I'm sure that if you are a person of concience, I can name several other scenarios in which you and I will agree that the act is wrong. Now, where did that come from? (I don't have that answer either.)
While there may not be an Ultimate Authority figure (outside of religion) dictating "This is Right. That is Wrong." We do have some other truths that seem to point us in the right direction.
So, assuming you do not make the Nihilistic choice, and agree to live in society, we find that certain behavior brings hard and soft benefits. Hard benefits bring us external rewards: companionship, shelter, food, warmth. Soft benefits bring internal rewards, like the sense of satisfaction or accomplishment.
I'm going to jump forward in this logic chain... Ultimately you have to make moral choices that truly benefit you in the societal context you live. No, you don't get to use this as an excuse to drink heavily and cheat on your spouses -- that's not a real benefit. No, we're talking about ordering your life in such a way as to be a good person, and bring good to those around you.
In the absence of an external Moral Authority, you must be your own. This is a mighty responsibility. You owe yourself to make the best possible moral choices. You have to be able to look yourself in the mirror. If you have responsibility over others, then you owe them the same mighty responsibility you owe yourself to choose wisely.
Religion sums up these concepts in a phrase that you hear echoed in every major modern religion: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But you don't have to be religious to see the wisdom in these words.
If you think this is too much to bear, don't despair and become a Nihilist. Just remember the last religious words uttered by Buddha:
"Do your best."
holy shit! look at the big brain on jrf. i sure am glad that you are on our side bro. hope the wife and puppies are fine. when my vaganitis clears, maybe i can come train. hope to see you then.
Post a Comment