[debate] is torture good or bad?

[Alan Light]

Gadi wrote:

"Torture is a very loaded subject this day and age. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms. Are we speaking morally? Are we speaking results-wise?"


We often attempt to separate what is "ethical" from "practical results", yet I am unsure that this is wise.

I am not sure why we make this division.  Perhaps because short term results are often contrary to what we consider ethical, we think that we should separate what is good from what is practical.  It might feel very good if we torture a subject and get an answer we like.  However, if we take the long view, what is good is almost always practical.  We might not feel so good about that answer we got, when we learn that by giving us a half-truth the subject has caused us harm, and that by torturing our victim we have created a thousand new enemies.  We have evolved these good traits precisely because they *are* practical, and have been proven practical for thousands or even millions of years.

The thief who routinely takes what others produce may prosper in the short run, but others will have as one of their virtues the desire to make thieves pay for their impositions on others.  Sometimes thieves prosper, but more often they do not.  Their habits, once discovered, at the very least preclude them from positions of trust where they may earn much more.  Charity is not extended to them so easily, and grudgingly if at all.

Of course, this is tempered by the fact that thievery, or at least the skills involved, are occasionally necessary to survival, so a small number of thieves stay with us - but only those who can temper their thievery (such as some lawyers ;-) can prosper.

For the majority, however, theft is not only ethically wrong, it is not practical.  Societies where thievery is common are poorer than those where it is rare.

Likewise, murder is both unethical and unpractical.  Societies where murder is common are poorer than those where it is not, and everyone is worse off.  There was, apparently, one tribe in Papua New Guinea where betrayal and murder were considered the height of virtue, but it was a very small tribe and the inhabitants lived in constant terror of being betrayed and murdered by the people they thought were their friends.  There was very little cooperation between individuals.  That ethic did not carry them far.

So when we look at the issue of torture and consider separately whether it is ethical and whether it is practical, we are setting up a false dilemma.  The majority of people in thriving societies consider torture unethical in most, if not all, circumstances.  These are the people who are descended from the evolutionary winners of the past, who passed on the trait of being opposed to most, if not all, torture.  Our ethical principles, whether hardwired into our brains or social artifacts, are a practical result of many debates, including the debate over torture.

We live in an increasingly interdependent web of alliances, and our potential partners do not trust people who use torture routinely, if at all.  Those who have a strong anti-torture ethic will eventually succeed in such an environment.

So, how exactly do we divide the ethical question from the practical one?

Should we?



"There are three core issues here. Should torture be used? Is interrogation a process of torture? How much do we know of either?"


Measuring by the gut rejection of torture which most healthy people have, we should be very wary of using torture.

Interrogation is sometimes necessary, and is not necessarily torture.  However, some forms of interrogation qualify as psychological torture, even if no physical force is used.  When a psychologist tells a child that their father doesn't really love them, falsely claims that the father has told them so, and that the child can have a cookie once they have testified against their father, that is psychological torture even though no one ever laid a hand on the child.

Psychological torture can cause a person to have a false and harmful view of themself, which can lead to false feelings of guilt and false confessions that can make this type of interrogation look very useful to observers even when it is merely extremely harmful.  When the interrogator is a trusted and loved authority figure, such as a pastor or teacher or parent or doctor, sometimes the fear of rejection is more than sufficient to get a child to say whatever they think is necessary to maintain their relationship.  Psychological torture of this type is quite common and accepted in the United States, and is probably most visible in religious settings.  See the film "Jesus Camp" for one example.

Psychological torture does not provoke the same gut revulsion in most people that physical torture does, but it still produces poor results including lots of false positives and harm - sometimes great harm - to its victims.



"Hypothetically, I can condone torture under extreme conditions if it actually works, and then when other techniques won't bring results in time. But what conditions are extreme and how do we define the relevant variables?"


I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows.  This is why I would not change the laws to allow torture in some cases, but would allow a defendant charged with torture to introduce mitigating circumstances.



"There NEVER will be clear-cut research, but some research would be nice to stop cheap demagogy on both sides of the debate."


OK, maybe we can allow torture of demagogues.  John McCain already did his time, though.  ;-)

 

"Language is often used in hyperbole, trying to hide actual meaning. Murder, rape, etc. are examples of loaded language much like "interrogation" has now become. Torture is not necessarily the right word to use and the line between interrogation and torture needs to be clearer. To simplify a complicated subject, interrogation is by questioning, torture is physical coercion."


I would add that psychological torture is also by coercion - just not physical coercion.  Implying that a person will be rejected by society or God for not professing or even believing certain ideas can be just as coercive and harmful to a victim as physical coercion, especially if the person is entirely dependent on others for their well-being, as with small children.



"    1. Is torture effective? How so?
    2. Does torture hurt interrogations? How so?
    3. What interrogation techniques work, and why?
    4. Are non-coercive interrogation techniques less, more or as
      efficient as torture?"


1.  I believe torture is effective in the way that most habitual torturers want it to be, in that they feel better by causing others pain.  In terms of getting good information, many professional interrogators have a total disdain for information obtained via torture.  But then, some professionals swear by it.

I am inclined to agree with those who disdain it, primarily due to multiple anecdotes of torture victims making up stories to appease their torturers.  Even John McCain admitted he did this.  Likewise, we all know of suspects that have implicated others in their crimes, even when submitted to simple interrogations.  The U.S. court system frequently rewards snitches with shorter prison terms, and prisoners have gone so far as to develop networks to obtain information about people they have never met, so that they can testify against them in the courts and shorten their own jail time.  In the recent supreme court case where the justices determined that schools have a right to strip search students to obtain evidence for trivial offences just such a dynamic was at play - one troublesome student had attempted to deflect attention from herself by accusing another student of having Advil on her person.

2.  Torture hurts interrogations in almost all cases, because it produces an adversarial relationship with the suspect.  Without such an adversarial relationship, some prisoners will brag about their crimes, others are liable to want to explain them because very few people want to be considered evil by those around them.  Persons who have committed crimes for ideological reasons (or frequently, just defended themselves against the unlawful impositions of a State) are liable to want to get their message out.  In all these cases relationship-building will be far more useful than an adversarial relationship.

3.  Many professionals recommend the relationship-building described above.

4.  Many professionals claim that non-coercive, or mildly coercive, interrogation techniques are most effective - and frankly, given the statements of professionals on both sides of the issue, these guys sound smarter.



"It makes a case that torture is probably unnecessary and suspected to be counter-productive for interrogation purposes. But this is not shown to be researched."


And of course, it has not been researched for very good reason:  no one would allow such research to be done because it would violate and harm the research subjects.  That in itself should suggest that such techniques should not be used on persons who legally we should presume innocent until found guilty.  I recognize that the U.S. government has ignored basic human rights by arguing that their victims were not U.S. citizens, but that is not sufficient cause in my mind to ignore their humanity.

Judging from the reaction around the world, others were also not convinced.  Remember what I said earlier about an interdependent network of alliances based on trust?  The United States has pretty much ruined their reputation abroad - and Obama looks like he will continue this trend.



Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090502/4132d46b/attachment.htm>