Comments on: Torture

By: saint

saint — Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:38:56 +0000

I’m not sure how far I would go either. Like Bene, I have to put myself in the shoes of the interrogator…and ask myself those questions, while standing before my God. Self defense or going to the defense of others is different from planned coercion.

Bowden’s article quoted an interrogator who said that those who have ‘religious’ ideals are tough to break and rarely do break. So if we are thinking coercion is necessary for say, terrorism suspects, and if some of these are religious fanatics…well…

I think we have to sort those issues out because I see a very trigger happy mood permeating. A case of shoot first and don’t bother asking questions. So I doubt that such an attitude would also argue for restraint in interrogation, or that interrogation will be limited to hard core terrorist cases.

At the same time, there is much that can be done in terms of preventing situations like this arising in the first place (although I doubt they can be eliminated by human means). Sadly it seems some of us have only woken up to that since September 11, which is why many now see ordnance as the only option.

By: The Chairman

The Chairman — Fri, 03 Oct 2003 05:18:49 +0000

I truly believe that although we live in a civilized society, we are fighting uncivilized people. We cannot fight them using our rules. When someone attacks you in the street do you use boxing rules and cry foul when your attacker breaks one, or do you street fight and win and defend yourself (and others). Is torture ideal? NO. Is it sometimes necessary to provide the greatest amount of protection for the populace? Yes. Would I be willing to do it if it were legal in the USA? I think so, but it would be difficult. It is not an easy question, but it is important that, as believers, we know where we stand.

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:08:40 +0000

Andrew:
I think you are looking at this discussion in a way I would. Starting somewhere.
As a citizen I ask myself if I could step into any job or responsibility the law allows.

If Canada had the death penalty, could I be the executioner?
If Canada allows security and military to use torture and coercion, could I train and carry these through?
Then, as a citizen I ask myself if I’m willing to give my government room to do what I cannot or will not do.

As a believer I ask myself if these are the only options available to us.

I have questions, but I don’t have answers.

By: Andrew Duncalfe

Andrew Duncalfe — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:29:28 +0000

At the risk of looking down a slippery slope, I think that there might be individual cases where the ends justify the means. I think that a captive terrorist who knows time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocents if not retrieved in time might be one such case. However, if you read the article, Mr. Bowden makes a distinction between all-out torture and torture-lite, or coercion. The article suggests that torture is not generally effective, since the body can adapt to pain. Coercion, which plays more on discomfort and mental pressure than outright pain, and doesn’t generally leave long-term damage, appears to more effective. In the cases where information must be forced out of someone, if coercive measures are the only tool that will do the job, then I think that they should be used. However, as also indicated in the article, the use of such measures should be against the law, and interogators who use them must account for their actions after the fact.
(I mentioned “twisting arms” above as a figure of speech, not as a specific technique that may or may not get someone to talk.)

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:53:41 +0000

Andrew:

Are you suggesting the ends justify the means?
And do you honestly think all you’d have to do is twist an arm?
Is torture the only way to get information to save lives?

By: Andrew Duncalfe

Andrew Duncalfe — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:48:36 +0000

So Chris, to take an example from the article, you would rather pay for the physical wellbeing (and consequent silence) of a captured terrorist with innocent blood? It’s a horrible connundrum, but it seems to me that it’s less bad to twist a terrorist’s arm to get him to share whatever information that he may have, than to keep him comfortable in mind and body and allow uninvolved people to die in a future terrorist attack. If this makes me a potential perpetrator of atrocities, well, watch out for my name on the news.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:48:03 +0000

You’ve taken that first step on the slippery slope to being a perpetrator of atrocities Andrew. If it is evil it is never appropriate no matter how much that cripples our ability to fight even greater evil.

Evil always perpetrates greater evil not good. This is a problem that is haunting the America today. The installation of Saddam Hussien in Iraq being a classic example. They undoubtedly felt that that evil was justified in their war against the greater evil that was Iran but look what it achieved. Genecide and a threat to world peace.

We cannot always stop other people from being evil but we can always stop ourselves.

By: Andrew Duncalfe

Andrew Duncalfe — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:07:11 +0000

The Atlantic has a long article about torture as its cover story this month, that I just happened to read this evening. It looks at some of the complexities in the use of torture, and concludes that it should be illegal in decent society. However, there will inevitably still be individual cases in which some form of physical coercion is needed to gain information from a prisoner. In these cases, says the Atlantic, the interogator must willingly break the law, and willingly accept the consequences if a court rules that he was wrong to do so.
I think that torture is something that must be treated as anathema by any decent society. However, I think there are cases where it’s better to exert evil against one (or a few, whatever) presumeably evil people in order to prevent a greater evil against a greater number of innocent people. In these cases, I agree that those involved must be individually held account for their actions afterwards.
The Atlantic Online has an interview with Mark Bowden, the author of the article (and also of a number of books, including Black Hawk Down) here.