Replies

This topic was much written about last year re: the AQ and Taliban detainees. Most of the experts I read about agreed that torture wasn't particularly effective in obtaining RELIABLE information. Eventually most people will just tell their interrogators whatever they think they want to hear to make it stop. And then you have the hard cases who will die before they'll talk.

Evidently there are other, psychological methods to extract information that are both more humane and more effective. At least that seems to be the consensus of most of the intelligence types I've seen talking about it.

It's something I haven't been able to decide on. Are they really different or only qualitatively so?

I think one has to weigh the situation and consider each case existentially. Let's say you capture someone and you know she has knowledge of where a suitcase nuke is located in a large American city, and you know she knows when it is set to detonate. I believe in that case, the end justifies the means. Our morality should never be used against us!

Shades of gray occur when you don't know if the person knows something "interesting." Or when what the person knows is of tactical relevance. I don't think I can approve of torture unless there is some sense that the captive's knowlege can save many lives.

On the battlefield, I think we should strive to operate under the terms of the Geneva conventions. I emphasize strive. Troops should be well-versed in the rules, and should be supervised and held accountable for their mistakes. The question of what accountable means would be up to a jury of their peers.

When we think about the bravery of our troops, remember, they each know that sadistic torture is waiting for them regardless of what they can supply their captors. This deepens my appreciation for their service.

In case I haven't been clear, I believe we should avoid torture under almost all circumstances. Resorting to torture for tactical reasons, especially given the fact that we're the invading army in Iraq (in this case), would be quite unforgivable. It would also pitch us off of the higher moral ground we so much need as we try to engage the population. These opposing forces are their sons and brothers.

In the end, I think we have to decide what is least distressing for our consciences.

Are they really different or only qualitatively so?

Just throwing this out there for the sake of argument, but sadism seems to be a profound character flaw. OTOH, there is nothing in general to suggest that a military interrogator, say, who is applying a little physical pressure to a prisoner in order to extract some specific piece of information, has a flawed character.

The one would gladly torture anyone [he could get away with torturing] for as long as possible. The other would have little or no interest in doing that.

Iraqis, at least those in the Baath Party, all seem to be genuine sadists.