On Torture...
Seems yesterday a lot of people blogged on the subject of Torture all around LJ yesterday... Here I suppose is my comment on it (as prompted by one of the other posts I read around the net, and also posted out there as a reply):
I'm willing to stand against torture under pretty much ANY circumstances, for a couple of reasons:
1. Torture doesn't work-- it gets you what the person tortured thinks you want to hear, so you'll stop torturing him/her-- doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not-- he/she will say whatever will make you stop. This doesn't make for actionable intelligence. While I have noted that someone above has claimed that that the GW Bush administration got actionable intelligence from waterboarding a few people, I don't believe they did-- as the person above can only refer to rumor and vague statements instead of specific points of actionable intelligence that were confirmed to be true-- sounds to me like he's reading from the propaganda page used to justify the administration's actions. This problem is even worse, in that so many of the people we've tortured or might torture are innocent victims caught up in the net in the first place-- we can get confession of all kinds of war crimes out of them by use of torture, but none of it's true.
2. If we torture people (as our country has done quite a few times lately), and it becomes public knowledge (as it has), we lose a lot of steps in the 'ideological war' we're engaged in-- it's impossible to get others to see you as any kind of good guy if you're the one constantly violating accepted standards of international law and common views of moral conduct. This is even more blatantly a problem when we've been catching and torturing innocents, and then using the 'confessions' to try to justify it. It's also very hard to charge people for war crimes that we've committed ourselves. Over the long-term, winning things like a 'Global War on Terrorism' does depend on winning over public/international opinion, 'hearts and minds', etc-- unless we want to commit genocide to win, part of 'winning the war' is going to be found in social/political solutions, not strictly military ones.
We can't find such solutions by taking stupid actions that turn the very people we're trying to get on our side against us. Every time we torture someone, it gives Al-Qaeda and their friends more propaganda issues to use against us.
I do not at all excuse the enemy for what they do-- I do not think their actions provide any justification for us to do wrong though.
On the subject of 'dirty hands' though-- I find a huge problem with our whole society. An awful lot of people are arguing in favor of using torture in at least some circumstances, but the same people are not the ones who will be torturing suspected terrorists in pursuit of 'information'. We also have a lot of sunshine patriots and oh-so-brave "conservatives" in this country who talk so much about the wars we need to be fighting here there and anywhere-- but always so long as it's someone else who's going to do the actual fighting. On the moral standpoint-- I do not think you escape any of the moral responsibility for someone else's actions taken in your name that you justified and approved of.
This statement in the original post, "I believe the problem of dirty hands is a serious moral issue and that, indeed, there are times when all choices cause harm. I tend to side with Camus in thinking that, in such situations, you do what one must to minimize the harm done - but you also must pay the price for having caused that harm," is generally a good point, but also seems to me to be used just as often as a cop-out, basically saying that I want someone else to do something questionable and hold themselves accountable for it.... so long as I'm not the one personally getting my hands dirty.
I don't think that anyone can or should stand up in favor of any of these actions-- torture, going to war, killing regardless of reason, unless that person is willing to do those actions themselves, not just send someone else to do it for you. If you're not willing to go do it for yourself, don't ask someone else to do it for you.
Gotta add-- my dead-set objections to ever using torture as expressed here are more practical than moral-- I do consider torture to be morally wrong. I do also recognize that there are situations where one has the choice of several evils... kill someone, or allow innocents to be killed, as one example.... and has to choose which is the lesser evil, and then go ahead and commit it.
I don't think there's much question here or elsewhere whether torture is morally wrong-- the question is whether you can justify committing that wrong or not, and for me the reasons why it can't be justified or used are practical ones.
(obligatory disclaimers: My opinions expressed here and elsewhere are entirely my own. However, I am a veteran , and I have served in Iraq during the current conflict. Take that however you like.)
I'm willing to stand against torture under pretty much ANY circumstances, for a couple of reasons:
1. Torture doesn't work-- it gets you what the person tortured thinks you want to hear, so you'll stop torturing him/her-- doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not-- he/she will say whatever will make you stop. This doesn't make for actionable intelligence. While I have noted that someone above has claimed that that the GW Bush administration got actionable intelligence from waterboarding a few people, I don't believe they did-- as the person above can only refer to rumor and vague statements instead of specific points of actionable intelligence that were confirmed to be true-- sounds to me like he's reading from the propaganda page used to justify the administration's actions. This problem is even worse, in that so many of the people we've tortured or might torture are innocent victims caught up in the net in the first place-- we can get confession of all kinds of war crimes out of them by use of torture, but none of it's true.
2. If we torture people (as our country has done quite a few times lately), and it becomes public knowledge (as it has), we lose a lot of steps in the 'ideological war' we're engaged in-- it's impossible to get others to see you as any kind of good guy if you're the one constantly violating accepted standards of international law and common views of moral conduct. This is even more blatantly a problem when we've been catching and torturing innocents, and then using the 'confessions' to try to justify it. It's also very hard to charge people for war crimes that we've committed ourselves. Over the long-term, winning things like a 'Global War on Terrorism' does depend on winning over public/international opinion, 'hearts and minds', etc-- unless we want to commit genocide to win, part of 'winning the war' is going to be found in social/political solutions, not strictly military ones.
We can't find such solutions by taking stupid actions that turn the very people we're trying to get on our side against us. Every time we torture someone, it gives Al-Qaeda and their friends more propaganda issues to use against us.
I do not at all excuse the enemy for what they do-- I do not think their actions provide any justification for us to do wrong though.
On the subject of 'dirty hands' though-- I find a huge problem with our whole society. An awful lot of people are arguing in favor of using torture in at least some circumstances, but the same people are not the ones who will be torturing suspected terrorists in pursuit of 'information'. We also have a lot of sunshine patriots and oh-so-brave "conservatives" in this country who talk so much about the wars we need to be fighting here there and anywhere-- but always so long as it's someone else who's going to do the actual fighting. On the moral standpoint-- I do not think you escape any of the moral responsibility for someone else's actions taken in your name that you justified and approved of.
This statement in the original post, "I believe the problem of dirty hands is a serious moral issue and that, indeed, there are times when all choices cause harm. I tend to side with Camus in thinking that, in such situations, you do what one must to minimize the harm done - but you also must pay the price for having caused that harm," is generally a good point, but also seems to me to be used just as often as a cop-out, basically saying that I want someone else to do something questionable and hold themselves accountable for it.... so long as I'm not the one personally getting my hands dirty.
I don't think that anyone can or should stand up in favor of any of these actions-- torture, going to war, killing regardless of reason, unless that person is willing to do those actions themselves, not just send someone else to do it for you. If you're not willing to go do it for yourself, don't ask someone else to do it for you.
Gotta add-- my dead-set objections to ever using torture as expressed here are more practical than moral-- I do consider torture to be morally wrong. I do also recognize that there are situations where one has the choice of several evils... kill someone, or allow innocents to be killed, as one example.... and has to choose which is the lesser evil, and then go ahead and commit it.
I don't think there's much question here or elsewhere whether torture is morally wrong-- the question is whether you can justify committing that wrong or not, and for me the reasons why it can't be justified or used are practical ones.
(obligatory disclaimers: My opinions expressed here and elsewhere are entirely my own. However, I am a veteran , and I have served in Iraq during the current conflict. Take that however you like.)