On another thread, Heartprayer wrote:

quote:

The moral fibre of the nation must be apparent also in its treatment of prisoners. Not only for ideological reasons, but because any other choice undermines the international authority of the United States of America. That has been one of the greatest costs of the last eight years. Enormous opportunities for true international cooperation (including against terrorism) have been squandered.

I agree with this completely, except for the implication that U.S. authorities have been involved in some kind of wholesale torturefest during the past eight years (when "you-know-who" was President!).

Let's discuss:
1. What is torture? What differentiates it from legitimate pressuring a person for information?
2. Are there situations when torture (however defined) is legitimate? The presumption by many is that it is never appropriate. Is there a Christian position?

- - -

My thinking is that we will find a split within Christian thinkers on this topic similar to what we find with "just-war" . . . and for the same reasons. Those inclined toward just-war will probably be inclined to say that torture, when authorized by legitimate authority and with good reason, has its place in protecting the greater good. Those inclined toward pacifism will take the opposite stance -- that evil means can never be used to attain good ends.

What say you?

- - -
Let's consider "waterboarding," which seems to be a most controversial interrogation method, considered torture by John McCain and many others. Here's the deal: it works!

quote:

When the CIA used the water-boarding technique on al-Qaeda operative and supposed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused.

- http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

Other terrorists have reported information that resulted in lives saved as a consequence of waterboarding.
- http://thehill.com/byron-york/...orks-2007-12-13.html

- - -

And now a story that I once heard on NPR, though I've not been able to track it down.

Three terrorist suspects were arrested by British intelligence, who were near certain that the three had planted a bomb in a train station, to be detonated at a certain date and time. The three were questioned at length, but only scoffed and ridiculed their interrogators. Finally, a policeman pulled out a pistol and said he would shoot them one at a time if they did not confess. They sneered at him, whereupon he put his pistol to the head of one of the men and blew his brains out. The other two not only fessed up, but volunteered to lead the police to the place where the bomb was planted.

The score: one terrorist dead, hundreds of lives saved.

Reflections?

A few clarifications...
--------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
On another thread, Heartprayer wrote:

quote:

The moral fibre of the nation must be apparent also in its treatment of prisoners. Not only for ideological reasons, but because any other choice undermines the international authority of the United States of America. That has been one of the greatest costs of the last eight years. Enormous opportunities for true international cooperation (including against terrorism) have been squandered.

I agree with this completely, except for the implication that U.S. authorities have been involved in some kind of wholesale torturefest during the past eight years (when "you-know-who" was President!).

.

Phil, thanks for starting a worthwhile thread, and for setting the stage with excellent background information and some scenarios.

I would, however, like to correct one thing immediately: I have neither said nor implied that "U.S. authorities have been involved in some kind of wholesale torturefest". Nor do I believe that to be the case.

The USA has treated prisoners in ways that are in violation of both international and US guidelines (at least as we have previously known US guidelines). This is well documented, and I presume this is not a matter of contention.

I believe those practices -- however seldom or pervasive -- are not only unethical, but have in sum been detrimental to American interests.

An insistence on reciprocity
----------------------------------

I urge all who partake in this thread to very carefully consider any practices that you condone. Ask yourself:

Would I accept a foreign government treating a US citizen in a similar manner -- if the person being questioned is suspected of having similarly vital information?

HP et al, the U.S. is not at war now with any particular country, but with terrorists, who wear no country's military uniform nor abide by any treaties. When captured on the battlefield, they cannot be considered prisoners of war, but "enemy combatants." Their rights as prisoners aren't defined by any conventions, but by the U.S. own codes of conduct, which are highly ethical. If it's a question of reciprocity, forget it! Terrorist groups do not hesitate to torture or kill their captives, often in most cruel and gruesome fashion. There is no question of them saying, "well, they treat us decently (which we do) so we'll treat them the same when we capture them."

Truly, however, I suspect there's no significant discussion to be had, here. For one thing, torture is not the modus operundi of the U.S. military, and when it has been employed (depending on how one defines it), it's usually to obtain vital information from people who can supply it. If one believes there's just no scenario that can justify the use of "pressure tactics," then there's no discussion; it's just like discussing war with a pacifist.

Personally, I would rather see deals cut with prisoners who cooperate, guaranteeing them life and protection from reprisal. That usually doesn't work with ideologues, however, who often (these days) suicide for their cause. Pressure methods, in such cases, could be justified, provided:
a. there is reasonable cause to believe the prisoner has valuable info that could save lives;
b. the authorization is given by legitimate authority -- preferably, the President, or Sect. of Defense.
c. every means of non-violent pressure is exhausted first.
d. life and/or limb isn't really lost in the interrogation methods.

To my knowledge, the U.S. has followed such a procedure thus far. Not that that's stopped critics of the Bush admin. from making it seem as though the real bad guys in this world are the U.S., and not the terrorists!

Please forget us-them; let us address principles
----------------------------------------------------------

I believe we�re speaking past each other.

By reciprocity I most definitely do not mean to suggest that a terrorist organization such as Al Q�aida is on par with the USA or any other civilized country!

Even if every single accusation of prisoner mistreatment leveled at the CIA or US authorities should be true (which of course they�re not), the USA would still be morally far superior to these terrorist organizations. I wouldn�t dream of putting the USA or any Western nation on par with Al Q�aida in this debate! There is a world of difference between our treatment of "enemy combatants" and the contempt for human values terrorist organizations show their captives and victims.

I, too, am convinced that torture is not the modus operandi of the US military. Never has been! My impression is that the US military, the rank and file as well as commanding officers, as a rule show great moral integrity in just about every situation. In general I think mistreatment, such as that documented from Abu Ghraib is a rare exception, indeed.

However, if this discussion about the morality of torture is to have any meaning, we must lift it above the "us-them" plane. In our imagination we must allow other players than "us" and "them" to fill the roles.

The reciprocity that I request is simply that we ask ourselves the following with regards to any guideline, interrogation technique or method that we condone:

Would I accept a foreign government treating a US citizen in a similar manner -- if the person being questioned is strongly suspected of having committed or having planned to commit heinous acts against civilians of said country, and having similarly vital information about such imminent acts?

Many years ago I saw a documentary on the training of torturers under the Greek junta that made a deep impression on me. Key to that training was convincing the future torturer that there was in fact the equivalent of a "ticking bomb" scenario -- i.e. that the conditions in your point a) were fulfilled.

I personally am neither an absolutist nor a pacifist. For instance, I support the "search and destroy" tactics that have been used with great success by Western intelligence/military forces, and the many operations that never get press coverage. And, sure, there are scenarios where pressure tactics against prisoners might be justified. But just as surely the "ticking bomb" scenario is exceedingly rare; as others have pointed out, in practice it is close to a myth.

I am convinced that there are many functional reasons why torture simply does not work. (I can expound on this.) Furthermore, a good interrogator can obtain information without ever physically mistreating the prisoner.

My objections are voiced not out of concern for the well-being of Al Q�aida operatives (real or accused), but due to concern for the success of the war on terror! And for concern for the moral stature of the USA and other countries that might be tempted to embrace questionable practices.

I hope this clarifies my stance and what I am saying.

Sincerely,
HeartPrayer

Yes, I understand your stance, and it makes sense.

Please note that I did share four principles in my post above, and it represents my position, which is much more pragmatic than what I hear you saying. I wonder what you think of them, seeing as you acknowledge the possibility of scenarios when "pressure" might be justified.

In all of this, I'm still not clear about what constitutes "torture." It's pretty clear that pulling someone's fingernails out is, but flushing a copy of the Koran down the toilet? (which didn't really happen, btw) Loud rap music? (OK, that IS torture! ) Sleep deprivation? (hmmm)

We must note, too, that the Al Qaeda playbook instructs captives/detainees to say they were tortured, no matter what actually went on. Could be they've found a vulnerability in the Western press, which seems to presume guilt until proven innocence in such matters.

I think I am with you on this one Phil. I am actually quite close to being a pacifist, but Governments have a responsibility towards their citizens. If all other avenues have been exhausted and there is good evidence indicating vital information, then I would say certain forms of torture should be allowed.

The suspects have willingly entered into war with innocent people, war itself is psychologically and physically detrimental to a person's health. When one compares the effects of war and the effects of torture, they are propably similar, so the torturer is not causing more damage than the tortured person has entered into willingly anyway.

Case in point: The tortured innocent
--------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
We must note, too, that the Al Qaeda playbook instructs captives/detainees to say they were tortured, no matter what actually went on. Could be they've found a vulnerability in the Western press, which seems to presume guilt until proven innocence in such matters.

Good point. And had it not been for the ample photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib these accusations might have gotten far less press coverage.

I am working on an argument as to why torture (however you define it) is not an effective means for extracting information.

In the meantime we can consider the plight of the poor chap who happens to be innocent. (Hopefully that is not too far-fetched?) It is he who finds himself in the most dangerous situation! Not having any information, the torture will continue far longer, in an effort to extract the information the interrogators are convinced he has.

Furthermore, in order to stop the torture, he is liable to say just about anything. In other words, he will give the interrogators incorrect information -- possibly dangerously incorrect. And he may even confirm or name new innocents as accomplices.

The disinformation from the tortured innocent is only one example of why torture is not an effective means of extracting information.


PS. Substitute "pressure techniques" for torture if that makes it more palatable. The inherent danger is the same.

Yes, HP, Abu Graib happened (somehow I knew you'd get around to this). And, yes, innocent people can be tortured, which is why my first principle was that one must have strong evidence that the person is guilty.

Jacques' point is excellent, however, in that anyone captured in a war context has already taken the risk of being wounded or killed, and so torture in certain situations is simply part of "warring." Mistakes can/will be made, but sometimes the risk of doing nothing for fear of making a mistake is worse.

I outlined four principles a couple posts up. What do you think of them?

Hi Phil, I am still digesting the principles that you outlined above. Rather than addressing them immediately and in the abstract, I propose to examine a series of hypothetical scenarios, historical and current situations, and pragmatic considerations.

Out of that, and hopefully a frank discussion in the weeks to come, I will crystallise a well-reasoned response to the principles you�ve mentioned. Fair enough?

Scenario 1:
In country CC, the tactics of guerilla organisation GG include placing landmines near prosperous villages considered loyal to the President, an unelected autocrat. This has resulted in many men, women and children losing limbs or life.

A man named DD is arrested at his work place by the President�s security forces. Although unarmed, and no compromising evidence is unearthed in his office or home, he is accused of helping carry out the campaign. The security forces wish to extract information on the names and whereabouts of his alleged accomplices, as well as where landmines have been or are planned placed.

The source of the accusations against DD is anonymous. He proclaims his innocence and says someone tried to blackmail him, and he refused to pay.

Can "pressured interrogation" / torture be defended in this case?

HP, the first principle I outlined above is:
a. there is reasonable cause to believe the prisoner has valuable info that could save lives;

I don't think the example you give above meets that criterion as one anonymous accusation (in the absence of other incriminating evidence) doesn't meet the standard of reasonable cause. If this criterion isn't met, then one can't proceed to the next ones.

Here are some thoughs from Mr Tom Ridge.

This is deeply shocking. And extremely disappointing.

It is indeed bizarre. Go to church on Sunday morning; sign secret memo ordering torture on Sunday afternoon. In 2,000 years, humanity has learned nothing.

The survey question: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"

That's pretty vague, actually. What is meant by "torture" and what is "important information"? I guess we're supposed to think that churchgoers are more intolerant or mean-spirited than non-churchgoers (who are generally more liberal, and perhaps don't even think there's a war on terror going on -- would be interesting to see how the two groups replied to that one).

I articulated four principles above, but there wasn't any discussion of them. Here they are again:

quote:

Personally, I would rather see deals cut with prisoners who cooperate, guaranteeing them life and protection from reprisal. That usually doesn't work with ideologues, however, who often (these days) suicide for their cause. Pressure methods, in such cases, could be justified, provided:
a. there is reasonable cause to believe the prisoner has valuable info that could save lives;
b. the authorization is given by legitimate authority -- preferably, the President, or Sect. of Defense.
c. every means of non-violent pressure is exhausted first.
d. life and/or limb isn't really lost in the interrogation methods.

quote:

I articulated four principles above, but there wasn't any discussion of them

I think in Europe these are questions that wouldn't even be raised. Having lived through a thousand years of war and torture, Europeans now share a visceral sense that certain actions are abhorrent.

Abhorrent methods are also ineffective
------------------------------------------------

They are not only abhorrent -- there is every reason to believe that they are, in fact, ineffective. And I strongly hinted as such in the discussion above.

In practice the "Ticking Bomb" scenario is a myth, except in artificially contrived circumstances such as those portrayed in the TV series "24" (produced by Fox).

Furthermore, there is a collateral damage here that is little discussed: By rationalising torture as "pressure methods" (sic), we are opening a Pandora’s box of effectively granting other governments license to use similar methods for their own ends.
.

There's a good article in "The American Catholic on this topic, and some great comments following. Check it out.

An interesting article. Here is one of the things that caught my eye :

quote:

"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

-- Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

Recently a friend of mine made the comment that perhaps God is using militant Islam to judge the excessive materialism and secularism of the western world.

He was in no way stating that he knew this to be a fact or that he was sure that it was. It actually came up during a conversation we were having on the different images we get of God when we look at the Old and New Testament.

I personally have struggled with the idea of God's judgement in light of God's Love. I've heard all the old arguments about the necessity of God's judgement but have always felt they were insufficient to explain the very human images of an angry wrathful and judgemental God in the O.T. vs. the Loving, Merciful and Gracious God of the N.T.

We both circled around the idea that God's judgement in the O.T. e.g. the destruction of all life in the flood, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the resulting destruction of pharaoh's army, the genocide enacted on Canaan and the death resulting from famines and war that God allowed in order to judge Israel, were all necessary in order to preserve the good and stop the full force of the evil that would have resulted if these judgements were not effected during that specific time (rather than held back until the final judgement).

In light of this I myself concluded that perhaps it is necessary at times for God to judge during physical earth time and that He may use very normal ways of doing it e.g. allowing the Babylonians to conquer Israel and hence perhaps allowing America and the UK to fall victim to the attacks of militant Islam.

Please hear me, I'm not saying this is the case, more wondering whether anybody thinks this is something that they would find difficult to fit into their image of God.

Much Love in the Lord Jesus

Jacques

P.S. with regards to war and torture, do you think a Christian, who is seeking to follow the will of God and to act in every way and situation the way Jesus would act in that situation, would be willing to engage in war and/or to torture somebody that God loves regardless of their sinful actions. I'm not sure myself, but again this certainly touches on issues of judgement, however, Vengeance is mine says the Lord.

Jacques, yes -- difficult to fit the idea of God using militant Islam to judge the West. Besides, it hasn't been going so hot for them of late. In many ways, materialism has its own built-in punishments -- emptiness, loneliness, poor health, etc.

As for your P.S. question, it's a good one, but one must ask if a Christian who is seeking to follow the will of God will allow countless innocent people to be killed if torture could put a stop to it? These aren't happy choices, to be sure.

- - -

A few comments posted on the page I cited above:

quote:

Should not there be an analysis of the severity and imminence of the harm that could be prevented by torture? For example, the classic Dirty Harry movie scene where the criminal has trapped a victim in a vault that will run out of air shortly. There is no reasonable chance of finding the victim in time to save her. Dirty Harry tortures the criminal to force him to tell the location and the girl is saved. Would the church forbid torture in that situation?

quote:

Oh, I’d say that torture is quite effective as demonstrated by the fact that it has been part of human conflict as far back as historical records reach. John McCain was a rather brave Navy Pilot, but as he admitted torture broke him.

quote:

I think a question that fathers need to ask themselves is “would you waterboard someone to save your child”? Most fathers, I think, would say yes - though I’m sure they wouldn’t be proud of it. So, if it is OK in that circumstance, why isn’t it OK for the president to authorize it to save people he is supposed to protect?

quote:

I am unequivocally opposed to torture - including waterboarding and other so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques. I have no doubt that torture can be “effective” in getting the subject to tell what he knows, but I am nevertheless of the mind that we should not engage in grave intrinsic evils even if some good may result. In other words, no torture under any circumstances.

quote:

First of all, if something is intrinsically evil, there’s no ‘analysis’ that will justify it. There are plenty of people who make elaborate arguments to justify the personal and social utility of abortion and contraception. If the Church isn’t willing to consider those, then why would she consider torture?

quote:

I imagine that God might have a problem or two with our enemies who behead American captives and make snuff films about it. Compared to the enemy we have been fighting our behavior has been light years better. Just condemnation of abuses is one thing; we must also remember that the jihadists observe no rules of war at all.

etc. etc.

In all of this (as on this thread), a clear definition of what constitutes torture is missing. For some, it is as menial as loud music, or sleep deprivation; others want to go so far as to say that waterboarding is not torture. Is the "good-cop, bad-cop" routine torture? Solitary confinement? Prison itself? Seems to me that there's a continuum of punitive discomforts imposed on prisoners. Where to draw the line?

Here's an article wherein a retired Naval aviator describes how, as part of his training, he was subjected to a wide variety of harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. Apparently, this is rather common, especially for special forces.

quote:

Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.

He goes on . . . Not pleasant, for sure.

So now, does the U.S. military torture its own soldiers?