scumble on 13/10/2012 at 08:22
Quote Posted by Muzman
The pro argument generally comes from a common sense view that if someone is keeping a secret they'll give it up to avoid pain and another common sense view that we will know the right time and situations to apply this pain. It's got that dangerous ring to it where it seems clear and obvious, but it's not.
Well Muz, I thought one of the big issues with torture is that people who know nothing will confess to things so the pain will stop. Starting from the assumption that you have someone who knows something is a bit of a hole in all practical arguments for using it across the entire thread. It's more likely you'll end up with a load of useless confessions or dodgy information.
I still think that the rational arguments for torture or blowing people up with drones "because don't you know this is war!" are fail because the context in which it becomes "acceptable" are actually objectionable for a load of other reasons. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like to stop at the ideas of "defending national security" or some equally dubious excuse, because it isn't good enough.
Think hard to figure out how to remove the conditions where torture occurs. Maybe it's impossible but I'd rather follow that line of thought, even if the conclusion isn't terribly optimistic.
DDL on 13/10/2012 at 08:36
I'm a bit confused as to why everyone objects to drones, when they're doing basically the same thing as attack planes/copters would be doing: blowing up perceived threats from a distance. It's like..people particularly hate that it's drones, rather than that it's 'blowing up perceived threats from a distance'.
demagogue on 13/10/2012 at 08:43
In the law of armed conflict, part of the definition of a legitimate military target is it's participating in a field of war, and taking it out has a legitimate military purpose. When you have drones flying deep behind lines into non-war zone areas and taking out increasingly civilian-like targets in civilian-like areas, you're stretching the concept of field of war and legitimate military target. You're getting out of the boundaries of armed conflict and into extrajudicial criminal justice.
Edit: I mean if we've learned one thing about the war on terror in the last decade, it's that terrorism is not a good fit for the norms of armed conflict and is closer to criminal justice. These are not military professionals that you can just put in a POW camp until the state of armed conflict is over and happily release them back to their home government. These are civilians with a personal malevolent intent to kill as many people as they can as long as they live. That's the line between war and crime. So we're not talking about legitimate military strikes to advance legitimate military objectives (taking a strategic hill). We're talking about bringing justice to individuals for their criminal intent & actions, mens rea & actus rea, with no real military purpose as that's normally understood. This is law of armed conflict vs criminal law 101 stuff.
DDL on 13/10/2012 at 11:29
So if were helicopters doing it, people would still object?
I guess I just find the media's tendency to focus on the wrong aspect to be quite frustrating. "Drone attacks cause unrest" implies that the drones are the problem, rather than say "attacks on civilian targets in non-warzones cause unrest", which puts the emphasis where it should be.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion.
SubJeff on 13/10/2012 at 12:54
Quote Posted by scumble
Well Muz, I thought one of the big issues with torture is that people who know nothing will confess to things so the pain will stop... ...It's more likely you'll end up with a load of useless confessions or dodgy information.
What about in cases where the useless information will be harmless? Why do we care if they lie then? If the gold isn't in the location they say you're still in a no gold situation and no worse off than you were.
This is, of course, assuming the prisoner has this information at all and that is why you need strict rules on using torture.
demagogue on 13/10/2012 at 13:06
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
What about in cases where the useless information will be harmless? Why do we care if they lie then? If the gold isn't in the location they say you're still in a no gold situation and no worse off than you were.
This is, of course, assuming the prisoner has this information at all and that is why you need strict rules on using torture.
Wat? You're using the words "harmless" and "no worse than you were"... You do realize that there's a bloodied body heaving at your feet and spitting up blood on your boots? (Possibly innocent... How do we know; have we had a trial?) Or did you mean harmless in the sense that wiping the blood off your boots with a hanky doesn't do
you any harm, possibly an inconvenient cleaning bill?
Edit: Sorry I was putting it provocatively for the point; I understand you weren't saying that... I was just challenging that your understanding of "harm" wouldn't include the target of all people. But even put aside the guy's suffering and just talk about *us*. There's still an issue I think... Let's just talk about the fact we're making exceptions for incredibly cherished rights in the liberal democratic tradition, the right to a trial with all the protections that come with that, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, security during detention, the rights to life and health and the inviolability of the body, rights against self-incrimination, prohibitions on disproportionate punishment or degrading treatment, and not least the prohibition on torture itself which is rather established law in the developed world... I think every time the system is reduced to tossing aside a basic right to allow very brutal means, it does a deep harm to the culture of rule of law and human dignity (not just to the subject, but to the torturer that has to live with themselves having done such things, and our political culture itself for having authorized it as consistent with our allegedly liberal democratic values), that you at least have to ask yourself, for extreme cases, is it worth the harm that's going to remain with the participants and with ourselves as a culture long after the deed is done.
I perfectly understand and am not unsympathetic to the tragic dilemma of time-sensitive crises when you have people with information in custody, and the maxim that a constitution & basic rights are not a suicide pact... Sometimes governments are pushed into incredibly bad positions by zealots with no thought but to kill as many as possible, and I would never envy their position in dealing with them responsibly to protect who knows how many potential victims. I just don't have illusions that some steps they are tempted to take, like torture, are somehow completely "harmless", or that watering down the rule of law to deal with these crises won't leave its mark.
Muzman on 13/10/2012 at 14:29
Quote Posted by scumble
Well Muz, I thought one of the big issues with torture is that people who know nothing will confess to things so the pain will stop. Starting from the assumption that you have someone who knows something is a bit of a hole in all practical arguments for using it across the entire thread. It's more likely you'll end up with a load of useless confessions or dodgy information.
I think you're confusing my position somewhat because I used the term 'common sense'. Anything that's considered common sense to me is generally immediately suspect and highly likely to be wrong. I think this is the proper position to take on anything that attracts the label. It's just that it explains why we keep having this debate whenever shit gets real; it really really seems like it should work just fine thanks to the simple picture of suspect witholding information we generally have in your collective heads.
LarryG on 13/10/2012 at 15:01
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
What about in cases where the useless information will be harmless? Why do we care if they lie then? If the gold isn't in the location they say you're still in a no gold situation and no worse off than you were.
Misinformation is never harmless. At best it diverts scarce resources onto useless tasks; at worst it puts those same resources into harm’s way (ambushes, traps, etc.).
demagogue on 13/10/2012 at 15:08
I wouldn't even try to work with his logic on this. Breaking people's bones and beating them to the brink of death is never harmless by definition. Don't even let him get away with having "torture" and "harmless" / "no worse than before the beating" in the same sentence. It's beyond perverse. You cannot even meet the legal definition of torture without severe harm in the sense of severe pain or permanent bodily or mental damage.
Edit: To the extent he has a point, he needs to word it a completely different way... The police have no less information than they had before the beating; just a bloodied pulp of a person now on their floor with possibly nothing to show for it. Well yeah of course Policeman Joe isn't going to feel too bad about it... But there's a reason why basic civil rights do not ask the police their personal opinion or care what they think when making laws to protect people from the police, to protect them from abusive police actions themselves.
Muzman on 13/10/2012 at 15:26
Considering most thought experiments on this offer some ticking time bomb, or buried alive scenario as the best case for torture, there is very real harm to be done by incorrect or difficult to interpret information. Nobody in those situations has the resources to come back from a wild goose chase. Time and man power spent following up bad information isn't free. And then you've blown your shot if it turns out wrong. All subsequent information, regardless of the pain inflicted, is questionable in the same way. (someone might have covered this already)
