What is Torture?

October 8, 2007

Comments

Before everybody jumps all over me (or, at least, before they jump all over me for the wrong thing), I’m probably more of an anti-torture absolutist than James is and I’m certainly more of an anti-torture absolutist than some commenters here are. I don’t plan to explain my reasoning or defend it again here. Check the several posts on torture over at The Glittering Eye for my thoughts on the subject. Suffice it to say I think that torture is not only a crime, it’s a mistake.

That’s not the subject of this post and discussion thread. The relevant definition of torture from the UN Convention on Torture is here:

Part I
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

~~To the best of my knowledge the U. S. is not a signatory to this convention.~~ Update: from Alex Knapp:

Actually, this treaty is the law of the land in the U.S. It was signed by the United States in 1988 and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

The parts of the convention that are interesting include that the pain or suffering must be severe, whoever inflicts the pain or suffering must intend to do so, a public official or person acting in an official capacity must consent to the action, and the action must not be incidental to lawful actions. So, for example, lawful imprisonment is not torture however much the one incarcerated suffers as a direct consequence of the incarceration.

In the light of the news stories and commentaries about former AG Alberto Gonzalez’s letter purportedly condoning the use of specific forms of coercive interrogation, I thought it might be instructive to consider the subject in more detail.

Should the definition above be revised? How?

Should the U. S. be a signatory to the Convention? Why shouldn’t it? Why should it?

Should the U. S. be held to this Convention whether it is a signatory or not? What’s the philosophical basis for this? Should other countries be held similarly accountable?

Is “coercive interrogation” synonymous with “torture”? I do not take that interpretation away from the definition in the Convention above. Why should it or should it not be considered so?

What is torture?

69 responses to “What is Torture?”

Alex Knapp

October 8, 2007 at 11:43 am

To the best of my knowledge the U. S. is not a signatory to this convention.

Actually, this treaty is the law of the land in the U.S. It was signed by the United States in 1988 and ratified by the Senate in 1994.
legion

October 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Actually, this treaty is the law of the land in the U.S. It was signed by the United States in 1988 and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

Doesn’t that mean that Bush’s attempts to alter that definition by Presidential fiat amount to a federal offense? And that anyone who acts based on Bush’s, Gonzalez’s, et al’s “new” definition are definitively criminals?
Anderson

October 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Why do you ask “what is torture” after posting the UN’s definition of it?

Coercive interrogation overlaps with torture but obviously there’s coercion that doesn’t inflict severe physical/mental pain and suffering. Blowing cigarette smoke in a prisoner’s face, or conversely denying a prisoner a cigarette; slapping a prisoner (to a certain point — heavy slapping can cause severe injury); etc., are coercion, and frequently bad ideas, but not torture.

Waterboarding, forced standing for many hours, hypothermia — those are pretty evidently torture. (I’d provide links, but they would send this comment to spam limbo.)
Anderson

October 8, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Doesn’t that mean that Bush’s attempts to alter that definition by Presidential fiat amount to a federal offense?

Alas, probably not. I’m not as up on the legal trickery as I’d like to be, but I think the MCA gave the President the authority to interpret various treaties, perhaps including this one. Congress would thus have approved.

The rubber on the road would be not the treaty language itself, but the federal statutes — what quibbles did they insert?

Beyond that, there’s the problem of an OLC (say) opinion that says “waterboarding isn’t torture under this definition, because __________” (insert legal-sounding bullshit here). Does that immunize those who take the advice? Are the authoring attorneys liable? There’s Nuremberg precedent that suggests they might be, but that’s a bit of a long shot in practical terms, however apt it may seem to Legion and me.
Triumph

October 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm

What is torture?

That’ easy. Torture is whatever Bush, the decider, wants it to be.

Next question, please.
G.A.Phillips

October 8, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Waterboarding, forced standing for many hours, hypothermia — those are pretty evidently torture. (I’d provide links, but they would send this comment to spam limbo.)

if you call this torture, then my junior high school football coach is a war criminal!
M. Murcek

October 8, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Do or say anything to make it stop? Even if that means confessing to an act (crime) you didn’t do? (Not like that hasn’t happened in police stations across the US like forever, and not just in the South) Hand over information that will probably get someone else killed?

Seems the results acheived could be a factor in making the determination.
M. Murcek

October 8, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Also, not to be flip, but one interrogation suspect’s torture might be another’s break from the monotony of sitting in his cell.
Anderson

October 8, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Here’s Robert Conquest, the noted (and quite conservative) historian of the Soviet empire, on torture by forced standing:

Even the ostensibly nonphysical methods used in 1936 are described by victims as both mentally and physically devastating. One man arrested briefly told me that the comparatively mild-sounding stoika, when a prisoner was kept standing against a wall for days, was hardly bearable. Torture is, one might say, a worse crime against humanity than killing.

Here’s Prof. Darius Rejali, who has studied the CIA’s adaptation of Soviet methods:

In 1956, the CIA commissioned two experts, Harold Wolff and Lawrence Hinkle, who described the effects of forced standing. The ankles and feet swell to twice their normal size within 24 hours. Moving becomes agony. Large blisters develop. The heart rate increases, and some faint. The kidneys eventually shut down.

(Googling will produce the links.)

So, tell us more about Lubyanka Junior High, sir!
mannning

October 8, 2007 at 1:41 pm

From this post I take it that you reject torture in all circumstances, including the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. You can settle your debt with those killed later.
Stormy Dragon

October 8, 2007 at 1:42 pm

If you really need to think about whether something is or isn’t torture, then the answer is probably yes.
Triumph

October 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm

From this post I take it that you reject torture in all circumstances, including the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. You can settle your debt with those killed later.

Even though the “ticking time bomb scenario” is a hypothetical fiction, the best way to prevent it is to round up everyone and shoot them first before they can even construct the bomb.

It’s a flawless plan.
mannning

October 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Tell me how you know the TTBS is a fiction? Do you think that any participant in such a situation would talk about it? Have you ever seen documentation of hard-core torture published by the government? Has Bush ever said that he authorized hard-core torture in any specific case? Has any victim survived and talked about it?

Or, is it just your opinion?
Ugh

October 8, 2007 at 2:41 pm

mannning – I’ll posit you the TTBS is completely 100% true, except in my version the terrorist can only be made to talk if you rape your 10 year old child in front of him? So, rape or no rape, mannning?

You can settle your debt with those killed or your child later.
mannning

October 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Your “flawless plan” has sprung a huge leak! “Everyone concerned” with a terrorist bomb effort isn’t known to the government a priori. A pity! Would have been so nice to get rid of them beforehand.
Triumph

October 8, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Your “flawless plan” has sprung a huge leak! “Everyone concerned” with a terrorist bomb effort isn’t known to the government a priori.

I did not say “everyone concerned”–but “everybody.”

If the CIA wants to stop anything bad from happening, they can do it by picking up everyone and dealing with them.

As the saying goes, “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out.”
mannning

October 8, 2007 at 3:08 pm

UGH: I would trust torture methods to give the results needed, if they are going to be successful at all, since the terrorist has only death to contemplate, and could well simply laugh at any responses such as you disgustingly throw up, and still remain completely silent afterwards. Or he could think up yet another requirement, etc. ad infinitum. He should know up front that he will be tortured till he either gives up and tells what he knows, or he dies a very long, slow, and agonizing death, which is what some would argue for in the first place! His (your) bizarre conditions have no effect on the process.
mannning

October 8, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but your CIA has just shot you in the foot.
Ugh

October 8, 2007 at 3:59 pm

mannning – we’re playing games about wildly unrealistic scenarios where we know certain things with complete certainty, so, I’m telling you in this game we know with 100% certainty that if you rape your child the terrorist will divulge the location of the bomb and the information for disarming it in time to save lower manhattan. So, rape or no rape?
David Nick

October 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Actually, this treaty is the law of the land in the U.S. It was signed by the United States in 1988 and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

Doesn’t that mean that Bush’s attempts to alter that definition by Presidential fiat amount to a federal offense? And that anyone who acts based on Bush’s, Gonzalez’s, et al’s “new” definition are definitively criminals?

If he is getting away with illegal immigration what makes you think he can’t get away with torture?

While the official policy may state “No! We don’t do that” the question is: Do you believe it?
ken

October 8, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Is is it torture? Did the Bush administration change US policy in order to utilize torture? Yes and yes.

When your interogation methods require that you have a doctor supervising the interogation it is because the prisoner is being tortured. Period.
mannning

October 8, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Ugh : My answer is quite clear from my post. Your little twist is meaningless, or can’t you read? There would be no reaction to any demands or promises from the subject but more torture, till he gives up the information he has–or dies.
Games are not the subject here, except in your mind.

You can go play now.
Anderson

October 8, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Manning, if you particularly cared, you could google up the various fallacies wrapped up in the “ticking time bomb,” and you might understand why Ugh et al. have no particular patience for someone who trots it out under the mistaken impression that they’ve lit upon something persuasive.

But try this: the premise of the TTB is that there’s a very short amount of time (“ticking,” right?), and that a great disaster will occur if the bomb goes off, and that one is so lucky as to actually know that the guy in custody is the guy who knows where the bomb it, how to disarm it, whatever.

Now, assuming this guy is some sort of fanatical terrorist — because otherwise, what’s he care, right? — is a little torture going to make him give up the goods?

It’s PRECISELY in such scenarios that a subject is most likely to resist, despite torture — “if I hang on one more hour, the infidels will perish!”

Torture as actually used by the U.S., Soviets, etc., has nothing to do with any such scenario, but rather aims at breaking down the personality over a period of days or weeks.

Or you can just ship the guy to Egypt or Syria, like we did with al-Libi, who confessed to all sorts of Saddam-Qaeda ties after he’d been beaten a few times. ‘Cept he was making it up to get his torturers to stop. Oops.
anjin-san

October 8, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Just the fact that we are having this debate says something very revealing and very sad about Bush’s America…
Tano

October 9, 2007 at 2:17 am

To follow up on Anderson’s point re. the ticking time bomb.

Try to imagine what you would do if you were a terrorist (or perhaps just a good guy, a special forces person, part of a team that is sent in to blow up al-Q headquarters). You are captured and tortured. Of course you would be the hardest nut to crack – for you believe absolutely in your mission, and you have trained for it, and you are willing to sacrifice your own life for the mission. And of course, if you really cant take it anymore and crack, then tell them finally where the bomb ISN’T. The torture would probably stop long enough for them to pursue the wild goose chase, and the bomb will go off.

Why do people who raise the ticking time bomb scenario always assume that when the terrorist cracks he will give valid information? Giving false information would stop the immediate pain and insure the success of the mission.
davod

October 9, 2007 at 8:45 am

I am a little surprised at the debate. The only reason we are discussing this is because President Bush tried to quantify what corecion as acceptable during interrogations. He did this to provide real protectons for interrogators.

All other President’s were content to let coercion proceed under the “What I don’t know won’t hurt me”

As you can see from some the comments here, no form of coercion is really acceptable to some. Standard US police interview tactics could be considered torure to some.
Anderson

October 9, 2007 at 9:02 am

And of course, if you really cant take it anymore and crack, then tell them finally where the bomb ISN’T.

Oh yeah, I forgot — “Dantooine; they’re on Dantooine.”

Recall how Ron Suskind described the feds’ rushing to counter one “plot” after another that they coerced out of Zubaydah … none of which was real.

As you can see from some the comments here, no form of coercion is really acceptable to some.

WHICH comment, Davod? Quote it, please.
Ugh

October 9, 2007 at 9:35 am

mannning – since you’re only willing to play the silly TTBS game by your rules, let’s try this one.

Suppose instead of one person in custody we have two. We know one of them is the terrorist who will give up the location of the TTB after a few runs of the blow-torch (or whatever is your preferred form of torture), and we know the other person is completely innocent. Unfortunately, we just don’t know which of the two people is the terrorist, just that one of them is. Torture them both?
cian

October 9, 2007 at 9:42 am

For decades people behind the Iron Curtain looked to America as prove of what could be. The simple fact that such a country as ours existed, where citizens could live as they chose, speak freely and conduct their lives without fear of arbitrary arrest and torture (its what we used to call Soviet interrogation techniques before we started replicating them) was enough to keep hope alive. For citizens today this remains the case by and large. For non-Americans, not so much.

The flag our fathers and grandfathers raised all over the world thus signifying the end of terror for millions, is now in danger of signifying something entirely different, and while the G A Philips of our world could care less, the rest of us must. We cannot live alone on this planet, at the expense of others, and to the detriment of all.
davod

October 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm

CIAN:

It is easy for us to sit in front of our computer screens and pontificate on what others may or may not think of the USA. So I will do so.

I would suggest to you that freedom loving people in some of the more repressed countries in the world would look upon what we are discussing here as ridiculous. Torture in the most vile forms is the the norm in some of these countries.

Why are Iraqi’s refugees trying to get to the US. Surely, Europe would much more welcoming.
cian

October 9, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Davod,

What I meant of course was that not only did these things not take place in the US, but we stood up, spoke out and acted against such acts wherever they took place. A position we can no longer hold. Freedom loving people everywhere best look elsewhere.

As to Iraqis desire to come to America? Over 6 million have fled their homes and are now living in abject poverty in refugee camps scattered along the Jordanian and Syrian borders where there is no electricity, no clean water, no schools, medicines or hope. If America would take them they’d love to come. Alas….
Anderson

October 9, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Torture in the most vile forms is the the norm in some of these countries.

America – Land of the Free, Home of “Torture Lite”!

How chest-thumpingly patriotic. Brings tears to my eyes, it does.
mannning

October 9, 2007 at 3:34 pm

1. We don’t torture the man: we lose a million or more people.
2. We torture him and get false information.
2.1 BOOM comes before we can try again.
2.2 We try again: back to 2. or on to 3.
3. We torture him and get good information: No BOOM!

Looks like in one case we win and save millions of lives. In all others we lose if the BOOM comes first, or we lose if we simply do not try.

“Ticking” can mean minutes, hours or days. If it is minutes, we probably lose. If it is hours we have a small chance. If it is days, we have a much, much better chance. We don’t know how much time is available to start with, obviously, so we have to decide what to do immediately.

Does anyone dare to deny these millions of victims their chance to live?
mannning

October 9, 2007 at 3:42 pm

ADD:
3. We torture him and get good information:
3.1 BOOM comes before we can disable the bomb,
3.2 We disable the bomb: No BOOM!
Wayne

October 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm

The “We torture him and he gives false informationâ€ argument doesn’t hold up in the real world. There are tried and proven techniques that can separate the false information from the true information.
mannning

October 9, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Thank you, Wayne, this means that if we torture the man, we will get good information, either in time, or not. If not, we lose, and if so, we win.

Looking at the various responses to this question, I see a definite pattern of evasion of an honest answer. That is because the scenario is compelling one to admit they would indeed employ torture under these conditions. So every means must be tried to avoid the honest answer, which is simply that sometimes torture is the way to go.

The most ridiculous attempt was to suggest rape/no rape by me of my daughter, yes, or no. Most others attempted to put the scenario in the fantasy box, shut the lid, and think no more of it, thus avoiding an answer to what to me is valid question. That is the timbre of the soft posters, when challenged by a hard question.

The TTBS has been around since perhaps 1904 or earlier; it is by far not new. In its essence, it is a persuasive case, except,as I pointed out, it forces evasive answers from many.

Let us hope those that find themselves in the heart of such a scenario in the future know what they are doing and make the right decisions. 🙂
Wayne

October 9, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I for one think there shouldn’t be a general policy of torture but can see scenarios when it would be wise. Also some individual’s definitions of torture are ridiculous including anything that causes mental stress. Some consider being handcuff or having a hood place on your head as torture. They need to leave la la land and enter the real world.
mannning

October 9, 2007 at 6:33 pm

There is a large difference between laws, policies, directives against torture, and a moral abhorrence of torture. There is also most likely a large difference between the inclinations of the various men that would be directly involved in a specific TTB case, whether they are deterred by the laws, etc. or morals, or not deterred at all. Most citizens would agree to laws and policies against torture, for many reasons, not all innocent. But, I will bet that most citizens would cheer the torturer in the TTB case, if he were successful, and if they found out about it. One must always appear to be on the right side, and not get one’s hands dirty.

Hypothetical thought experiments are a valid method for exposing the operative elements in a moral conflict, or in philosophy. One merely has to refer to Socrates for examples. In his arguments, however, it seems that the opponents do try to answer his challenges, and do grant him victory when he proves his case. However, practically every leftist source, Wiki included, has NOT really tried to give an answer, but to duck it, always using derogatory terms and hiding behind “how terrible!” No logic at all is applied.
It is intuitively a bad thing, so do away with the argument.
Wayne

October 9, 2007 at 8:31 pm

It’s kind of like slaughter of cattle for their meat. They want their hamburger but don’t want to think about what it takes to get it to them. They are willing to pass regulation on what constitutes a humane method but are too squeamish to do it themselves. They hide their eyes and try not to think about it. However, if they can’t get a hamburger they will scream from the rooftops.

They want a secure America but close their eyes at what it will take to secure it. When something does happens they will scream why didn’t someone protect us.
mannning

October 9, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Google TTB Wayne, and read the Wikipedia entry. You will see those hamburger moaners and screamers in action!
mannning

October 9, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Try assuming that the right answer is that torture is sometimes warranted, such as in the TTB case.

Now the question is, in what other circumstances is torture warranted? And, to what degree of torture? If we agree with the assumption, we have admitted that we will sin under a few circumstances, so now it is only a matter of how far and to what degree.

When innocent lives are at stake?

When our troops are at high risk?

When the nation is threatened with subversion, betrayal, or insurrection?

When we catch a spy and need to know what he has compromised?

Never?

Finally, we get to the question posed up front. What are the principal torture methods and how are they classified by degree?
Grewgills

October 10, 2007 at 2:29 am

Try assuming that the right answer is that torture is sometimes warranted, such as in the TTB case….

Then manning illustrates the slippery slope of an official policy allowing torture.

Bill Clinton said it well on MTP,

I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth…
The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.â€ I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences.
Ugh

October 10, 2007 at 7:56 am

mannning – your refusal to even answer the question of whether you’d rape your daughter in order to save millions of lives shows who is avoiding the hard questions around here.
G.A.phillips

October 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm

The flag our fathers and grandfathers raised all over the world thus signifying the end of terror for millions, is now in danger of signifying something entirely different, and while the G A Philips of our world could care less, the rest of us must. We cannot live alone on this planet, at the expense of others, and to the detriment of all.

What kind of dribble is this, I make a joke with some truth in it, so people like me is why our flag is losing its worth or changing?

lets see, how about your j.H. football coach banging your head on a locker every day because your hair is to long, or constintly whipping the back of your legs with a hotwheel track for talking to girls(at lest every other day), lol not to mention the practice, lol made me a little tougher, but I never got my hair cut!

*********We cannot live alone on this planet, at the expense of others, and to the detriment of all.******

Dude this all that liberals do, lol,lol,lol,……………
Wayne

October 10, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Ugh
Your scenario is very unlikely. One never knows for sure until they are put in that situation. Personally I would sacrifice the millions. Regardless I wouldn’t judge or prosecute a person who made either choice.

Grewgills
Yes we must be careful of the slippery slope. However it is a slope that we need to take on. We should keep in mind the dangers in doing so but it can be done.
mannning

October 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm

It is indeed a slippery slope! But the slope should be very carefully defined and controlled. Interrogators must know the current versions of the limits, even if they decide to violate them.

It is necessary to hold an inquiry into the specific circumstances of a suspicious interrogation, and to indict interrogators that have provably crossed the line. In the trial that follows, they should have every opportunity to justify their actions, including use of positive results of their efforts, the full and unedited recordings of the interrogation itself, and any other information deemed relevant. If the inquiry or trial requires use of highly classified information, the trial must be held in a classified setting, with impartial, cleared judges in attendance.
mannning

October 10, 2007 at 4:28 pm

It is obvious that some people posting here simply cannot read, Ugh being the first one. Twice I gave my answer to his ridiculous question, yet he persists.

OK, one more time: The subject of an interrogation would not be permitted to say anything except about the subject at hand: i.e. where the bomb is, how much time is left, etc., and the torture would continue to the end point. The interrogators would control every word he says, by making him answer only in their prescribed manner. Any vile suggestions on his part would be choked off before they were completed.

The reasons for this are clear: time is of the essence; torture is the selected means, not barters, trades, or other irrelevant, delaying, or false suggestions from the subject; and whatever the subject says must be treated very carefully to separate truth from falsehood and delays.

Thus the vile scenario would simply not occur.

OK, Ugh, you answer the question I posed. would you torture the TTB subject or not, to attempt to save that million lives?
Grewgills

October 10, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Wayne,
It has been taken on. We chose a place for the line and we signed a treaty that formalized it. I have seen no credible evidence that justifies moving the line further down that slope, much less evidence that would justify abrogating our treaty obligations. The burden of proof is on those who wish to abrogate our treaty obligations rather than on those who wish to uphold them.
Grewgills

October 11, 2007 at 11:29 am

OK, one more time: The subject of an interrogation would not be permitted to say anything except about the subject at hand

or else what? you’ll torture him more?

and the torture would continue to the end point.

What is the end point? death? That seems the most likely.

The interrogators would control every word he says, by making him answer only in their prescribed manner.

or else more torture?

Any vile suggestions on his part would be choked off before they were completed.

Would the suggestions have to be more vile than the torture that was being inflicted?

and whatever the subject says must be treated very carefully to separate truth from falsehood and delays.

How do you separate fact from fiction without independent verification? Verification requires time you do not have in your (incredibly unlikely) scenario.

Thus the vile scenario would simply not occur.

What you have said does not negate Ugh’s scenario. It does however evade it, just as you accuse him of evading your scenario. Ugh’s question is fair game in the hypothetical world you are working in. It amounts to asking how far you would be willing to go. Would you torture or rape the terrorist’s wife in front of him to break him? What about his children?
All above scenarios are so incredibly unlikely (Ugh’s admittedly moreso) that putting in place policies to address them specifically would cause more problems than it would address.

As a general answer to your unlikely hypothetical along with the others. If someone is willing to commit an atrocity in order to prevent a greater atrocity they should be willing to take the responsibility for their actions. It is possible, though not at all likely, that this would prevent someone not willing to accept those consequences from pursuing actions that could possibly save lives. It is much more likely that creating a loophole will lead to abuses. In any cost benefit analysis one must consider the probabilities of the events in question.
Personally, I don’t know that I would be able to stomach torturing anyone though I would be sorely tempted. I don’t think anyone can know what they would do in such a situation, we can only know what we hope we would do.
mannning

October 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Why Ugh can have his scenario. But, I have not only evaded it, but shown that it would not happen in a well-run interrogation. Further, talking about hypotheticals, if such a proposition managed to be spoken during my kind of interrogation, it would not be believed. One cannot act on what one doesn’t believe.

Suppose I did believe the proposition, which is incredible enough, would I do that dastardly deed and with certainty save the millions? The answer is yes, if I could, but only if my daughter consented as well. I most probably could not, it being such a morally objectionable thing! You cannot necessarily carry out what you have decided you would do.

or else what? you’ll torture him more?

He will be gagged until permitted to utter a single answer to questions.

How do you separate fact from fiction without independent verification? Verification requires time you do not have in your (incredibly unlikely) scenario.

There you go again! You don’t. You are on your own experience and intuition. You succeed or fail right there, at that time.

…that putting in place policies to address them specifically would cause more problems than it would address.

There needn’t be policies in place at all up front, except any prohibitions that have been put in place. It is up to the interrogators how far they go, and they must stand inquiry and trial as a result, as I said in an earlier post: since they are the ones that must make the decision and must take the responsibility.

I read up on thwarted bombings in Google. There are quite a few, many from “turning” someone in the chain of terrorists. This is quite close to the TTBS, but possibly with more time available, and fewer potential victims. So the TTBS event is logically not so rare, and not so damned incredible at all. They didn’t say exactly how they turned the person, either, which is to be expected.

Ugh’s is indeed incredible.
Bruce Moomaw

October 12, 2007 at 6:17 am

If you allow torture at all — even in the case of the Ticking Nuclear Bomb (in which case most of us would say that it IS justified) — then you’re obviously faced with the problem of determining when it should NOT be used (as well as determining just how intense inflicted suffering must be before it officially turns from “non-torture” into “torture”). May I suggest that the only rational solution to this problem is to recognize that leaving such decisions up to a single man, wherever he is in the chain of command — from a low-level CIA officer to the President — is asking for disaster, and that the proper solution is to set up a Permissible Torture Court similar to FISA to consider every individual case where something which could reasonably be regarded as possible torture is to be inflicted, with a supermajority of the judges required to allow it? (And we had damn well better CALL it a “Permissible Torture Court”, rather than engaging in any of those cute little euphemisms we’re all so familiar with by now.)
mannning

October 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm

We have in this suggestion great merit, and great danger, just as in the FISA Court. The problem is reaction time. FISA, I believe, allows a considerable time lapse (72 hours?) before having to report a situation that went too rapidly to be processed.

This would be true for the PTC as well, or interrogators could not necessarily succeed in halting the bombing if they had to wait for the court’s decision. Thus it would by force of timing be left to the judgment of one or two, or a few men, not judges, but definitely with after-the-fact reporting, etc.

For lesser timing constraints in a situation, the PTC would be a good thing.
mannning

October 12, 2007 at 1:26 pm

So far, no one has addressed the question of “what is torture?” adequately. No one has formed a good working list of the main acts, and analyzed them thoroughly to discover the line of demarcation in each case. That was the original intent of this thread.