Leon, isn't self-defense just a specific example of the necessity defense? One where not only your own right to action as been raised but your responsibility to your fellow has likewise been lowered?
On another note, I find necessity/self-defense thought experiments well suited towards defining what is and is not torture. Anyone who was being water-boarded, for example, who managed to break free and injure or even kill their interrogators has a fine self-defense claim. Ergo, they are likely being tortured.
Torture is an ugly word with ugly connotations. I cannot imagine using such means to extract information from POWs, criminals or other human beings on which human rights should be legitimately conferred. Unfortunately the circumstances we find ourselves in today lead us to rationally formulate new kind of morality applicable to the new threat we are confronted with.
My point is that an enemy capable of inhuman acts of cruelty, absent of any compassion and humanitarian logic, often acts outside the international Law of Warfare and cannot be answered with the same old tactics that might've worked in previous conflicts. At the same time new technologies and communications revolution have created a much faster paced world with more immediate and time critical threats than ever before in our history. Forceful coercion could at times be the last chance remaining to gain clues to an unraveling situation prior to a devastating terrorist attack. In such cases where there is a potential tradeoff of the life of one, possibly terrorist, human being for the substantial number of American lives, coercion in my view becomes a morally imperative course of action.
Thus I strongly disagree with Leon's characterization of torture as "monstrosity" not worthy of absolution. It is indefensible, in my eyes, to keep an act, potentially instrumental in great moral good, illegal.
I hold that use of force be provided for in training of our civilian agents and military intelligence personnel, with extreme penalties for unjustified use and full delineation of circumstances where it would be applicable. There should be absolutely no shame in using the necessary means in saving American lives.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is not clear to me how the example of starving men cannibalizing another equates or is even analogous to torture. In the case of starvation, the profound, worsening threat to systemic homeostasis causes equally profound changes to mental states that include desperation, impulsiveness, and even psychosis. Acting under extreme starvation is acting under extreme physical and mental duress, and hence the murder and cannibalism ensuing from that extreme state are to some extent attributable to extreme circumstances. They might be considered crimes of passion, resulting from a cruel phenotype that emerges in starvation to avert death.
Torture is clearly a different, fouler category of misbehavior, in that it intends from the outset to do extreme physical and mental trauma, sometimes resulting in death. In recent cases of American torture, it would be difficult to claim similar extenuating circumstances for such deliberate acts, either in the people who committed the atrocities, or in those who set the policy.
The cases of cannibalism under starvation and torture are simply not alike at the levels of controllability, intentionality, and purpose.
False dichotomy. No respected intellegence gathering institution in the US has ever considered torture effective at anything other than extracting false confessions or extracting revenge. Neither is necessary to save lives.
I've never seen any proof of this particular claim. Considering CIA (as the most premier of the intelligence communities) does provide training for certain techniques your claim seems rather disingenuous. I am quite confident that other intelligence outfits all use variations on those techniques rather often. I wouldn't expect them to publish such information for your consumption and with good reason.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So the argument is that if the strictest penalties can be meted out for a crime of passion, they would certainly apply in the case of misdeeds done in response to ticking time-bombs? I'd have to agree with the logic.
However, whereas a merciful outcome is potentially reasonable in the case of starvation, it seems much less appropriate in the case of dubious bombs, especially in the case of manufactured intelligence, because really what's the point of torture if you manufactured the threat? That's a double whammy, ninth circle of Hell kind of intentionality.
For this to even be debated there needs to be some type of evidence that it will actually do something. Despite what it says in the movies this goes completely against the conventional wisdom and research of intelligence gathering.
Hmm, I will listen to it - for some reason it is not working out for me right now. That question seems rather illogical when you consider that the tactics in question have been utilized for quite some period of time by the most premier of Intelligence Organizations.
As a firm believer in the basic goodness of our Intel Community's motives (if not always methods) it is only rational to assume that the tactics have previous worked in providing meaningful and verifiable intelligence at crucial times.
Secrecy is the basis for all of the various intelligence gathering organizations. It is somewhat fallacious to believe that the most protected and closely held tools of the trade and the results of their utilizations will be disclosed to the general public. Thus it might be impossible for me to provide you with direct evidence of "torture's" feasibility.
Reference to the movies is unnecessary.
"Conventional wisdom" when held by outsiders with no deep involvement is pretty much worthless to this argument. Anecdotal evidence from former operatives can always be skewed to fit various agendas.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not exactly - the basic premise of necessity is a "choice of lesser evils" - wherein both potential victims are morally blameless in a given situation. In self-defense, the premise is that there is an individual who, by their aggression (or, in some cases, a reasonable appearance of aggression) forfeits their appeal to the criminal law. Thus, there are many limitations on "necessity" that are commonly not found on "self-defense." A fairly common one, which I support, is that "necessity" cannot be invoked to defend against a capital crime.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
it is only rational to assume that the tactics have previously worked in providing meaningful and verifiable intelligence at crucial times, otherwise you are alleging an incredibly vindictive, vengeful and incompetent vision of the CIA.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Methinks you are missing the point - mercy would presumably not be meted out if the threat turned out to be manufactured; and in fact, many "necessity" statutes require the jury to inquire upon whether the defendant actually made the choice of the lesser evil (when viewed in hindsight), rather than whether it reasonably appeared to the defendant that they were making the choice of the lesser evil.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I think that the issue is that torture doesn't work as a tactic in a counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism.
There is no question that it can be used to gain confessions (often false), or to force an individual to reveal the rare non-expiring information ("Where did you hide the money? We know it is in the house!").
However in a situation where potential targets know that they may be captured, intel expires (ticking time-bombs for example, and nobody in Gitmo knows anything that is still worthwhile). Likewise, the few cases where it succeeds in gaining a bit of intel are more than offset by the increased anger in the population that spawns new members in the insurgency and makes cooperation with the force significantly less likely; and this cooperation is a MUCH more effective means of gathering intel.
Comments :
My property professo
My property professor had a much more concise summation of the court's holding: "No more cabin boys!"
Leon, isn't self-def
Leon, isn't self-defense just a specific example of the necessity defense? One where not only your own right to action as been raised but your responsibility to your fellow has likewise been lowered?
On another note, I find necessity/self-defense thought experiments well suited towards defining what is and is not torture. Anyone who was being water-boarded, for example, who managed to break free and injure or even kill their interrogators has a fine self-defense claim. Ergo, they are likely being tortured.
Leon, I'll probab
Leon,
I'll probably never be able to say this again, but I agree with you 100% on this particular subject. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Well done Leon.
Well done Leon.
Now back to partisan debate please.
I enjoyed reading ab
I enjoyed reading about this case.
Torture is an ugly word with ugly connotations. I cannot imagine using such means to extract information from POWs, criminals or other human beings on which human rights should be legitimately conferred. Unfortunately the circumstances we find ourselves in today lead us to rationally formulate new kind of morality applicable to the new threat we are confronted with.
My point is that an enemy capable of inhuman acts of cruelty, absent of any compassion and humanitarian logic, often acts outside the international Law of Warfare and cannot be answered with the same old tactics that might've worked in previous conflicts. At the same time new technologies and communications revolution have created a much faster paced world with more immediate and time critical threats than ever before in our history. Forceful coercion could at times be the last chance remaining to gain clues to an unraveling situation prior to a devastating terrorist attack. In such cases where there is a potential tradeoff of the life of one, possibly terrorist, human being for the substantial number of American lives, coercion in my view becomes a morally imperative course of action.
Thus I strongly disagree with Leon's characterization of torture as "monstrosity" not worthy of absolution. It is indefensible, in my eyes, to keep an act, potentially instrumental in great moral good, illegal.
I hold that use of force be provided for in training of our civilian agents and military intelligence personnel, with extreme penalties for unjustified use and full delineation of circumstances where it would be applicable. There should be absolutely no shame in using the necessary means in saving American lives.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is not clear to m
It is not clear to me how the example of starving men cannibalizing another equates or is even analogous to torture. In the case of starvation, the profound, worsening threat to systemic homeostasis causes equally profound changes to mental states that include desperation, impulsiveness, and even psychosis. Acting under extreme starvation is acting under extreme physical and mental duress, and hence the murder and cannibalism ensuing from that extreme state are to some extent attributable to extreme circumstances. They might be considered crimes of passion, resulting from a cruel phenotype that emerges in starvation to avert death.
Torture is clearly a different, fouler category of misbehavior, in that it intends from the outset to do extreme physical and mental trauma, sometimes resulting in death. In recent cases of American torture, it would be difficult to claim similar extenuating circumstances for such deliberate acts, either in the people who committed the atrocities, or in those who set the policy.
The cases of cannibalism under starvation and torture are simply not alike at the levels of controllability, intentionality, and purpose.
voracious.
False dichotomy. No
False dichotomy. No respected intellegence gathering institution in the US has ever considered torture effective at anything other than extracting false confessions or extracting revenge. Neither is necessary to save lives.
I read it as a debun
I read it as a debunking of the ticking time bomb hypothetical.
I've never seen any
I've never seen any proof of this particular claim. Considering CIA (as the most premier of the intelligence communities) does provide training for certain techniques your claim seems rather disingenuous. I am quite confident that other intelligence outfits all use variations on those techniques rather often. I wouldn't expect them to publish such information for your consumption and with good reason.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Of course - which is
Of course - which is the only compelling argument in favor of torture that I've seen.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
So the argument is t
So the argument is that if the strictest penalties can be meted out for a crime of passion, they would certainly apply in the case of misdeeds done in response to ticking time-bombs? I'd have to agree with the logic.
However, whereas a merciful outcome is potentially reasonable in the case of starvation, it seems much less appropriate in the case of dubious bombs, especially in the case of manufactured intelligence, because really what's the point of torture if you manufactured the threat? That's a double whammy, ninth circle of Hell kind of intentionality.
The question remains
The question remains whether it is effective in gathering intelligence. Link (the question comes up at 3:50):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5421356
For this to even be debated there needs to be some type of evidence that it will actually do something. Despite what it says in the movies this goes completely against the conventional wisdom and research of intelligence gathering.
Hmm, I will listen t
Hmm, I will listen to it - for some reason it is not working out for me right now. That question seems rather illogical when you consider that the tactics in question have been utilized for quite some period of time by the most premier of Intelligence Organizations.
As a firm believer in the basic goodness of our Intel Community's motives (if not always methods) it is only rational to assume that the tactics have previous worked in providing meaningful and verifiable intelligence at crucial times.
Secrecy is the basis for all of the various intelligence gathering organizations. It is somewhat fallacious to believe that the most protected and closely held tools of the trade and the results of their utilizations will be disclosed to the general public. Thus it might be impossible for me to provide you with direct evidence of "torture's" feasibility.
Reference to the movies is unnecessary.
"Conventional wisdom" when held by outsiders with no deep involvement is pretty much worthless to this argument. Anecdotal evidence from former operatives can always be skewed to fit various agendas.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not exactly - the ba
Not exactly - the basic premise of necessity is a "choice of lesser evils" - wherein both potential victims are morally blameless in a given situation. In self-defense, the premise is that there is an individual who, by their aggression (or, in some cases, a reasonable appearance of aggression) forfeits their appeal to the criminal law. Thus, there are many limitations on "necessity" that are commonly not found on "self-defense." A fairly common one, which I support, is that "necessity" cannot be invoked to defend against a capital crime.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
correction to 2nd pa
correction to 2nd paragraph:
it is only rational to assume that the tactics have previously worked in providing meaningful and verifiable intelligence at crucial times, otherwise you are alleging an incredibly vindictive, vengeful and incompetent vision of the CIA.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Methinks you are mis
Methinks you are missing the point - mercy would presumably not be meted out if the threat turned out to be manufactured; and in fact, many "necessity" statutes require the jury to inquire upon whether the defendant actually made the choice of the lesser evil (when viewed in hindsight), rather than whether it reasonably appeared to the defendant that they were making the choice of the lesser evil.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
yes, I too suspect m
yes, I too suspect mercy would not be an option.
I think that the iss
I think that the issue is that torture doesn't work as a tactic in a counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism.
There is no question that it can be used to gain confessions (often false), or to force an individual to reveal the rare non-expiring information ("Where did you hide the money? We know it is in the house!").
However in a situation where potential targets know that they may be captured, intel expires (ticking time-bombs for example, and nobody in Gitmo knows anything that is still worthwhile). Likewise, the few cases where it succeeds in gaining a bit of intel are more than offset by the increased anger in the population that spawns new members in the insurgency and makes cooperation with the force significantly less likely; and this cooperation is a MUCH more effective means of gathering intel.