[debate] is torture good or bad?

[Alan Light]

Rob Enderle wrote:

"I think, to address this, we must first define evil."
 
Personally, I define evil as anything that is harmful to life.
 
Of course, that still leaves much open to interpretation.
 
"If you watch 24, Jack the hero, often uses torture to save the country or the world.  Consensus would appear to be that he is heroic, and the folks who argue he shouldn’t be allowed to torture (though this seems to be changing this season a bit) are portrayed as naïve or worse."
 
Yes, and that is a television show.  I suppose we should also rely on on intelligent TransAms and Superheroes to fight crime.
 
"I would argue torture therefore is a tool and that it depends on whether the tool is used against you or violates something you believe that defines the related act as “evil” if there are enough that believe like you then the consensus will be whether, for this specific use or uses, it is evil or not."
 
Certainly you can establish a consensus that an evil act is not evil.  That is quite common, even when the evil is ultimately to the detriment of those carrying it out and those supporting them.
 
"I would also argue that it may rarely be absolute because if someone you trust and believe in were to use it you are likely to define the use and the tool by the person and defend it suggesting in that use it wouldn’t be evil."
 
This is one reason why judges are expected to recuse themselves from cases in which they or someone they are close to is personally involved - relationships of trust do not necessarily make for good decisions, even if one intends to be fair.
 
"Now personally, I do view torture as evil because I believe it encourages abusive behavior and like any form of absolute power will corrupt the person using it."
 
I agree with you on this, but there is also a very good reason to believe that torture doesn't work and is counterproductive - especially that it produces blowback.
 
See this article for example:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html
 
According to Major "Matthew Alexander", an American interrogator in Iraq, the stories of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib prison were the primary motivator that lead foreign fighters to volunteer as suicide bombers in Iraq.  The concept shouldn't be too difficult for Americans to understand - the American Revolution was won in large part due to reactions to British atrocities, most notably the policy of burning homes and what was known at the time as the Waxhaw Massacre.  Blowback from the latter was soon evident when the "over mountain men", or the Tennessee Volunteers, reacted to the news with a battle/massacre of their own at Kings Mountain, and continued until at least 1815, when Andrew Jackson - who witnessed the results and was greatly assisted in establishing his career by one of the few survivors - repaid that debt again at New Orleans.
 
Bloody Tarleton was considered to be Cornwallis's greatest asset - and perhaps no one was more responsible than Tarleton for American independence.  History should certainly make us reconsider the usefulness of torture and atrocities.  It may frighten the enemy, but only to harden their resolve.
 
As Major Alexander says, "People will only tell you the minimum to make the pain stop.  They might tell you the location of a house used by insurgents but not that it is booby-trapped."
 
 
Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090501/5cea673e/attachment.htm>