On the subject of torture, the debate has two parts, "does it work?"" and "is it right?".Many people think if torture is morally wrong, then it does not matter whether it works. But actually, it is important to find out once and for all if it works, because no matter what the law says, no matter whether is is immoral or not, if it works, some people will do it and try to cover it up. Actually, I guess torture will happen if some people believe it works. Therefore we need to decide if it works or not, and if it really does not work, get that information out to Fox News right away.
Second is the debate on whether it's morally acceptable or not. Well that debate would certainly be over in a hurry if everybody knew it didn't work. To me the only possible outcome of a moral debate would be to split people into two camps. That's why it would be better to come to some kind of provable scientific conclusion. A conclusion that would have some hope of winning over everybody. You can't do that with a morality debate.
There is one more thing to be debated: should the people who did the torturing be jailed? The problem with that is the democratic nature of America would be compromised. You cannot jail people for basically losing an election without destroying the most basic concept of democracy - the peaceful transition of power based on counting ballots. Justice and democracy are not the same thing and sometimes you need to make choices. Democratic elections are not a very good instrument of justice, unfortunately.
I actually think the evidence is pretty conclusive that torture does not work, and so I would support the idea that we focus on that aspect of the debate, although it does seem to be a vulgar way to settle the matter. I think some people would enjoy doing the debate on moral grounds because it makes them feel superior at the end, whether they win or lose. Debating on a practical level means you can't afford to lose, and even if you win, you feel kind of dirty because you took the low road. But on the other hand, you might make a factual, scientific case for humane treatment that everybody can agree to, and it could have more far reaching effects. Not only in America, but around the world.
Torture, of course will continue to be used where it obviously works, such as extracting false confessions in order to convict political opponents in countries without a true justice system. And to give sadistic people their jollies. Torturing for information may also be used in these same countries - since they're doing it anyway, might as well see if they can get some information out of the prisoners. They have all the equipment already paid for, and nobody will hate them any more for it, as they are probably fully hated already. Countries like that may be willing to take flawed information over no information. Usually they have no other way of gathering information, such as from friends or sympathisers.
I prefer to leave the moral issue out of the discussion because, like most moral discussions, it's interminable.
ReplyDeleteBut, as for, 'Does it work?'
Of course it does!
If your objective is punishing heretics or slaying witches. For military intelligence (that oxymoron, again), not so well.
However, as far as, 'it would be better to come to some kind of provable scientific conclusion,' that discussion, too, seems to have become interminable.
Secret U.S. Justice Department memos released last week indicate that, '[i]n 2006, a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers set out to settle [whether torture worked]. Their conclusions, laid out in a 372-page report ... argued against harsh interrogation.'
Like most evidence of torture's unreliability, this too will, no doubt, be disregarded.
Torture is a symbol of the control of the torturer over the victim. As a symbol its only real purpose would be to make regular patriots/believers feel good, and help unite them in a common cause. But we are no longer in the Dark Ages, which is why torture is actually not such a good symbol any more.
ReplyDelete