What do you think?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206219,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206219,00.htmlhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
Optional:Waterboarding demonstration/simulation. Please be advised that the content on the following link may be disturbing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdswfKFt4wo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I would like to make a specific point. From my personal, although admittedly limited, research on the subject, while the bombing of Hiroshima MIGHT have been a necessary factor to end the war with minimal casualty, the bombing of Nagasaki was almost certainly not-- the Japanese had decided before the second bombing that they would surrender, it was only because of an internal coup that they were not able to formally. Thus, while in one case, the use of excessive force gave a possibly favorable result, in another, the exact same procedure, caused a huge amount of unnecessary death. The same situation is true of torture. Even if it were true that torture can be effective (And the article from the washington post my name links to provides a clear argument as to why this isn't true), the risk is simply too high that in fact it won't have any effect at all. Even from a cost-benefit analysis point of view it is suspect at the least. Furthermore, the situation of the ticking time-bomb is not a realistic situation. Much of modern torture is a slow, painful process that wouldn't be effective in a no-time situation. In addition, the idea of the time-bomb is actually a fairly rare situation, in which torture would not be beneficial towards one of the most powerful effects of the bomb-- that of terror. In modern warfare, knowing that the government was able to stop this one bomb would have little effect over the fear people would feel because a bomb could be placed in the first place.
Michel Foucalt writes that as Justice becomes more concerned with discerning the truth, as through torture, it is no longer held responsible for the actions that ensue from it-- they are considered side effects of justice, not acts by it. In this way, it is freed to act unjustly-- in essence, "Justice" becomes unjust. Torture is a horribly cruel action. When the state writes off the cruelty of the action to "finding the truth to save the people," it externalizes the cruelty of the act upon the people as a whole, and disguises the fact that the state acts with the cruelty of torture to reinforce its power, to make it clear that the state has the ultimate power- and to use horrid torture simply to reaffirm torture is simply unjusifiable.
I have decided that I support waterboarding in most circumstances. I think that despite its cruelty, there are some moral sacrifices that must be made to ensure the freedoms of our own citizens. If torturing one person, a gulity person at that, will save thousands of lives, why should we not carry it out? Even if the person that is tortured is innocent, I still think that it is better to wrongly torture one person and remove all doubt that he/she is dangerous to our country than to not do anything at all and allow our citizens to be vulnerable and in danger. Like one of the articles said, we must choose between the lesser fo the two evils, unfortunately.
Also Ben- I think that though you are probably right about the fact that the bombing at Nagasaki was not very necessary, you must understand that the Americans did not know this at the time. Sure, in hindsight it seems cruel after we had just bombed Hiroshima, but during a time of war and panic, the Americans did not know how close the Japanese were to surrender, and they were looking for anyway possible to end a disatrous, disgusting war. As you said, because of an internal coup they were not able to surrender formally, so how were the Americans supposed to know what was necessary and what wasn not? Thus despite it being possibly unnecessary looking back on the evnt, I think that, at the time of a war,the bombing of Nagasaki was justiified and made sense.
Cary- I realize that you think that the torture of one person is justified if it would save the country. However, I hope that you read the article that I am linking for a second time, which specifically tells you why torture would NOT save thousands of lives. There is no reason torturing someone would remove all doubt that they were a threat to our citizens-- it really tells us nothing, it just hurts the person, and possibly makes them and others angrier and more violent. Thus, on that level using torture to remove the threat is a terrible idea. Further, what you support will create a slippery slope-- if it is better to torture someone and remove any threat regardless of whether a person is "innocent", then we might as well just torture EVERYONE, and then there will be no threat. Your plan absolutely does not protect our rights- it marginalizes them in exchange for security. In addition, it creates a xenophobic world-view where everyone that is not "one of us" would be suspect, and thus ought to be tortured. While I am sure this is not a scenario you really want to see, it logically follows from the statement "Even if the person that is tortured is innocent, I still think that it is better to wrongly torture one person and remove all doubt that he/she is dangerous to our country than to not do anything at all and allow our citizens to be vulnerable and in danger." Although many call torture a "necessary evil," in fact it is no more "necessary" than slavery, or any other civil liberties violation that was justified as "necessary evils." We cannot ever try to prioritize our rights, giving up some to protect others, because at that point we put a price on rights, and they lose their inherent inalienability. Because of this, we have to treat all rights as inviolable, following the logical categorical "This right can never be violated."
The Americans didn't know that Nagasaki would not be necessary. They did not know that there would be a coup. My argument in fact hinges on that fact. There is no way of knowing whether it was "necessary" (and the necessity of Hiroshima is debatable as well), and because of that the certain and huge harms outweigh the benefits that happen once in a blue moon. The same is true for torture. If torture were in fact effective, and we tortured everyone on earth, we would stop every terrorist. The benefit of this would be to save thousands of lives a year. Nevertheless, the cost would be outrageous-- 7 billion people losing their liberty and being cruelly tortured. Further, the anger people feels would inevitably create more terrorists. And all that is assuming that torture would weed out all terrorists and all plots.
Even more, the necessity of Hiroshima, while debatable, is on much stronger ground than torture. Japan was an outright enemy, who had accounted for 106,207 Americans killed, and 248,316 wounded and missing. They were a specific enemy in primarily symmetrical warfare, and we knew that we could "procure their surrender". On the other hand, terrorists are by no means a unified, markable enemy, and they fight using asymmetrical combat that means that it is nigh impossible to discern an enemy with a neutral person or even an ally, especially since we are not at war with any given country. Thus we can never really be sure if those we are harming with torture are "one of us" from "one of them," and so there is not much tactical benefit available. In addition, it is not likely that by torturing enough terrorists we will finally stop terrorism forever, which is the parallel of what Hiroshima accomplished, permanently ending the Japanese threat.
Although I respect people's instinctual desire to want to be safe at all costs, I think that it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of government is not to keep us safe, but to protect our rights. To quote the venerable Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
And a third link to the Wash. Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
I feel that in general, the topic of torture just seems to be not so controversial when maybe looking at numbers, but for me, it becomes even more controversial the more I think about. I keep thinking about stepping into a politician's shoes, and how many points come up when debating the issue.
Sometimes I see myself demoralizing the issue, if torturing one person is worth it if it can save an entire group of people. (Which I realize can sound terrible, but literally I'm starting to go crazy debating stuff.) If one knows that someone is say, a terrorist, but you need more information or something, is it justifiable if you know that more information from one person would save so many more people?
And then there's the other side that's like, cruel and unusual punishment isn't justifiable at all. That waterboarding or any prolonged torture is just terrible. And then my religion kicks in, and my conscience is like, "Umm, WTF? You're Catholic, you can't justify torture/WWJD? or What would Jesus say?"
And maybe everyone else immediately responds no when asked if torture is justifiable, but I can't help but try to think of every scenario, and that's driving me insane.
In general, I don't mind the government slightly curbing my liberties in order to ensure the safety of a larger group (I know Ben is going to hate me for that comment lol). BUT in this case, I do not think the government has the right to torture people. If it were indeed true that by torturing one person, truth that can save many lives would be revealed, I would be all for it. But the reality of the matter is first of all, there is no way to know if the right person is being tortured. Second of all, there is no way of knowing if (assuming the right person is being tortured) if he/ she will tell the truth even under waterboarding. The person can pursue in lying. Finally if the person is the right one and he/she does say the truth, it is impossible to verify if the facts he/she reveals will be so vital in saving lives.
It will also be difficult to decide in which case scenarios it is okay to use torture...after all torture can't be used for every petty crime. What really scares me is that the use of torture will become more and more common and will begin to be used in inappropriate cases.
All in all torture is clearly "cruel and unusual punishment," and as much as I would like to believe that it can save thousands of lives...that is simply not the case.
Although torture can be construed as cruel and unusual punishment, what are the alternatives to getting valuable information that could prevent thousands of casualities of innocent civillians? To torture one person who potentially could provide information to save thousands of lives seems to be a minimal cost. Even though that sounds evil and cruel and I am seriously opposed to human suffering, when I think about this issue in terms of a leader of a country, I would want to look out for the greatest good. My question is, is there any way to extract this kind of information without torture and making even one person suffer?
Of course Angela would bring religion into this....Itjust struck me that Jesus went through torture and sacrificed his life to save everyone.
Of course he like, "approved" of it, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.
My opinion on water-boarding differs. If we are in a situation where torturing someone will save lifes and essentially help us, then i still don't like the idea of torturing another human but in this case, i think it is ok. But on a different note, if we torture someone, how will we know that they wont just torture our men right back?
Torture doesn't have utilitarian benefits-- it is a fundamental (and wrong) assumption that torture is so efficient at gaining information-- indeed, there is considerable data that shows it to be LESS effective than non-violent interrogation. To say that the human-rights violation is justified is therefore a null argument.
Just as Angela said - I can't decide whether i fully support waterboarding, I agree with Ben when he says that torturing wouldn't in fact save peoples lives- but at the same point i still believe that in some cases the information - we may receive from those we have tortured may help us.
In response to Allie's comment:
I don't really think there is an "effective" means to extract information from someone, but torture is certainly not the option. The truth of the matter is that if a person sets his/her mind to not revealing a certain piece of information he/she can be resolute enough not to reveal it even when undergoing torture. Unfortunately, we do not yet have any means of forcing a person not to lie. Although there are certain techniques to determine if a person is lying, all these methods are foolproof yet. Hopefully, we'll have better means in the future, but again I am going to stress TORTURE IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!
Lian, if torture is not the answer, then what is the alternative? I am not certain that there is an alternative to torture, but to look at the fact that torture has saved so many lives speaks for itself. I agree its inhumane, but isn't it worse to have many innocent lives taken than torture just one or a few individuals?
i think that the us should outlaw waterboarding. it clearly states in the constitution that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited and we can't violate a document which is the foundation of our nation. i think waterboarding is extremely cruel and unusual. i didnt even know it existed until we brought it up during class today. i think that the government can find plenty of other ways of finding out the truth rather than using torture. and also i believe that if we use torture, the victims would make up lies just to end the torture. then there is no point in using torture. basically, waterboarding has got to go.
--Nina Kim
Molly,
I find your point very interesting that because we torture others, they may torture us right back. youre right. we're not sure if other people will not torture our men in response to our torturing them. that is another reason why waterboarding should not be used and should be illegal.
--Nina Kim
Alison- the issue of an alternative doesn't need to be brought up when the original plan is shown not to have the initial benefits it is assumed to have (see my earlier posts), and when the costs are so great as those of torture, we are compelled therefore not to act
To boil my point down to a single sentence, that torture saves lives is a fundamental and wrong assumption, and without it torture can have no justification.
Sorry, i haven't been home all day, and had no frees at school.
I believe that torture is an okay thing to do. As long as the torture is not hurting (physically) others except the criminal (supposed).
Someone that is being tortured has some legitimate reason for this harsh interrogation (otherwise that person wouldnt be tortured).
I feel like sometimes u need to take drastic measures in drastic times, and times like these (terrorism), call for drastic measures to preserve peace.
I feel like the people being tortured have done somethignto deserve it and it is an okay thing to do in order to preserve tranqility and liberty.
-Nick Berman
Regarding Molly's comment:
I agree with your view on torture, but to answer your question about the possibility of torturing our men.
I must say i do not agree with our presence in Iraq, and i find that it is arrogant and harsh of us to be invading a land because we for some reason are the World Preservers of Peace.
Therefore (although to us it does not seem like it), the soldiers presence in Iraq represents a target for Iraqi torture. Although to us (and me), the Torture of soldiers in Iraq seems like a completely different scenario and without any justified reason, (to play devil's advocate) To some Iraqis, what they're doing provokes no need for torture, and their means are just...
I personally believe that Democracy is the way to go for stability; however, I dislike the US's idea that we should be the World mediator.
-Nick Berman
I personally believe that waterboarding is a cruel and inhumane act of torture designed at more efficiently getting information from captured terrorists. The only problem is that torture isn't proven to be more effective at recovering information than traditional interrogation methods. I feel if that was a more widely established fact, many people would see how unneccesary torturing captives is, and we could begin to treat everyone with the same dignity that we treat our own citizens.
Nick, while many would agree with you that it is right to torture terrorists, the problem with interrogation is that they are torturing suspected terrorists. You say that these people deserve this "harsh interrogation", but it is often the case that they are in no way connected to a terrorist cell, and in fact are completely innocent of any crime with the exception of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, far from preserving the peace, when innocent civilians are tortured, terrorists take this as a rallying call and prepare to "justly" strike back against the Americans, on the basis that they are unfit to live because they torture innocent people.
Alex,
My point is that random people from the streets (aren't to my knowledge) and shouldn't be tortured. The US gov. isn't going to just torture random people, they will have some sort of intelligence linking people to terrorism. Maybe the people getting tortured aren't connected to terrorism, but they know people who are. These people, to me, are guilty because they holding information back from the gov. that could save lives.
-Nick Berman
Post a Comment