• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On Torture, America Must Reckon with More than Gina Haspel

It's interesting that you choose that wording, "moral superiority," because morality is subjective.

Let me ask you a question I've asked others here -- but no one has had the guts to answer -- perhaps you'll humor me.

Suppose you have a young daughter and a kidnapper buried her in a box only big enough for her to have enough oxygen to sustain her for, say, 24 hours. The cops catch the kidnapper but he refuses to tell them the location of your child. Would you want to torture him? Or, would you let the hours tick by and let your daughter die?

You see, there is nothing moral about treating your enemy well, when the result of that treatment is the death of your own.

Torture for torture's sake, of course, is unethical. Then, it's just a desire to torture and that says more about the person doing the torturing than anything else. But, if you have a chance to glean information that saves the lives of your family (or countrymen), how ethical is it to allow them to perish because you're focused only on one side of the moral equation?

You assumed the sale too early with the daughter tactic. I've already said here that maintaining my humanity is worth whatever cost. I'm a Christian, so in my mind it's not just this life's loves and comforts I'm protecting. No matter how you spin it, there is no moral justification for torture, regardless of what your morals look like.

Worse, it's ineffective, and not all information gotten from torture tactics are as quickly vetted as "where is my daughter buried". (I have a son and no daughter, so I'm gonna switch from here on out). A person will say anything if you hurt them long enough. That's about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball, and you've lost your soul in the process...

Nah, Howie, there is no way you are going to emotion me into saying that torture is justified. If I was presented with that scenario, where I had to engage in torture to save my son, I can't say that I wouldn't have a very human reaction and resort to whatever it takes in a moment of weakness...I can't say I wouldn't reach across the table and push in the guy's Adam's apple with my thumbs until he ran out of oxygen permanently, if given the opportunity. But I would be wrong, and it would be a decision I would regret all the rest of my life. Which is why the family of victims are not permitted to interrogate suspects, but rather professionals are used.

Nope...sorry. Torture is an affront to all that makes us human, and I think the vast majority of people, if ever forced to witness a suspect be tortured, would feel incredible discomfort, attempt to help, and be a strong advocate against torture going forward. All this talk about our enemy this and our enemy that is very tough sounding, but is without a footing in reality. The only ones that would really speak up for torture from a place of real understanding are either so brain washed and desensitized that they have somehow, temporarily or permanently, lost track of their humanity, or they are psychopaths who never had any to begin with.

Hopefully this is me rising to the occasion to answer your question again... ;) Now, let me ask you one.

I don't know your age, so I'll with if your brother or sister, or son or daughter, were in the military, were captured by enemy, and were tortured extensively, would you be ok with that? Would you say "Well, they were probably concerned about their own folks, so that's why my loved one was tortured, no harm, no foul, it's war"?

And if your loved one came home, but was never the same, would that be ok because it was war and torture happens? What if they died while being tortured? Would you be ok that their last days were spent in pure agony and terror? The hours spent in an on again / off again pendulum of hope and despair, matching the beginning and end of each torture session? The purgatory spent in a cell, wondering when your next brush with Hell was going to come? Would you look at that enemy, who was perpetrating this abuse on your loved one, and say "look, it's ok, I know you have to do this, and I admire you for the strength it must take to do this to my loved one, I'm sure that it is justified because you are only trying to save your own people, so carry on"?

Do you think anyone should engage in torture? If it's justifiable for America, it is justifiable for Korea or Syria or Iran or anywhere else. I'm not saying it's not happening in those places, but by standing up for torture here, you're standing up for it there. Is this actually what you want me to take away from our conversation?
 
You assumed the sale too early with the daughter tactic. I've already said here that maintaining my humanity is worth whatever cost. I'm a Christian, so in my mind it's not just this life's loves and comforts I'm protecting. No matter how you spin it, there is no moral justification for torture, regardless of what your morals look like.

Worse, it's ineffective, and not all information gotten from torture tactics are as quickly vetted as "where is my daughter buried". (I have a son and no daughter, so I'm gonna switch from here on out). A person will say anything if you hurt them long enough. That's about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball, and you've lost your soul in the process...

Nah, Howie, there is no way you are going to emotion me into saying that torture is justified. If I was presented with that scenario, where I had to engage in torture to save my son, I can't say that I wouldn't have a very human reaction and resort to whatever it takes in a moment of weakness...I can't say I wouldn't reach across the table and push in the guy's Adam's apple with my thumbs until he ran out of oxygen permanently, if given the opportunity. But I would be wrong, and it would be a decision I would regret all the rest of my life. Which is why the family of victims are not permitted to interrogate suspects, but rather professionals are used.

Nope...sorry. Torture is an affront to all that makes us human, and I think the vast majority of people, if ever forced to witness a suspect be tortured, would feel incredible discomfort, attempt to help, and be a strong advocate against torture going forward. All this talk about our enemy this and our enemy that is very tough sounding, but is without a footing in reality. The only ones that would really speak up for torture from a place of real understanding are either so brain washed and desensitized that they have somehow, temporarily or permanently, lost track of their humanity, or they are psychopaths who never had any to begin with.

Hopefully this is me rising to the occasion to answer your question again... ;) Now, let me ask you one.

I don't know your age, so I'll with if your brother or sister, or son or daughter, were in the military, were captured by enemy, and were tortured extensively, would you be ok with that? Would you say "Well, they were probably concerned about their own folks, so that's why my loved one was tortured, no harm, no foul, it's war"?

And if your loved one came home, but was never the same, would that be ok because it was war and torture happens? What if they died while being tortured? Would you be ok that their last days were spent in pure agony and terror? The hours spent in an on again / off again pendulum of hope and despair, matching the beginning and end of each torture session? The purgatory spent in a cell, wondering when your next brush with Hell was going to come? Would you look at that enemy, who was perpetrating this abuse on your loved one, and say "look, it's ok, I know you have to do this, and I admire you for the strength it must take to do this to my loved one, I'm sure that it is justified because you are only trying to save your own people, so carry on"?

Do you think anyone should engage in torture? If it's justifiable for America, it is justifiable for Korea or Syria or Iran or anywhere else. I'm not saying it's not happening in those places, but by standing up for torture here, you're standing up for it there. Is this actually what you want me to take away from our conversation?

I appreciate your answer, but I don't have time right now to respond in the way it deserves a response. I will respond, however, because I'm interested in finding out why you feel it would be wrong to do "whatever it takes" to save your child in the hypothetical situation. In reality, it would be immoral to place the welfare of a kidnapper over the welfare of an innocent child, but we'll chat about that when I get time. Work beckons. Have a good day in the meanwhile.
 
I appreciate your answer, but I don't have time right now to respond in the way it deserves a response. I will respond, however, because I'm interested in finding out why you feel it would be wrong to do "whatever it takes" to save your child in the hypothetical situation. In reality, it would be immoral to place the welfare of a kidnapper over the welfare of an innocent child, but we'll chat about that when I get time. Work beckons. Have a good day in the meanwhile.

Alright, lady, sounds good to me.. :) I'll wait for your question before I start responding, despite the fact that I'm chomping at the bit...hehe... Would be helpful if you included your stance on religion in your question, as that will likely factor into my answer.
 
This illustrates a problem the left has. They rule from the heart rather from the head. She is a good choice for the position and after 911, most Americans would have gladly held the A-rab down while information was extracted about follow on attacks.

You guys on the right don't ever use your head, who the hell are you kidding. torture doesn't work, its not like hte movies where Jack Bauer tortures a guy and gets the info he wants. Secondly, torturing makes us the bad guy. You brag about our behavior after 9/11, but we lost all moral high ground, we have become the bad guys who have killed so many more than terrorists did on 9/11. Many people captured and tortured may not even be terrorists, or those who had their families killed by american bombs may not have been, well, they may very well be now. Terrorists had no problem recruiting after our actions, and especially after invasion of Iraq.

Jesus christ, the dumb that comes from so many on the right is astounding
 
America has lost its way. That so many support torture is pretty much all you need to see the loss of moral capacity. That they have been led to that position by their government by way of fraud makes it very sad indeed.
 
You assumed the sale too early with the daughter tactic. I've already said here that maintaining my humanity is worth whatever cost. I'm a Christian, so in my mind it's not just this life's loves and comforts I'm protecting. No matter how you spin it, there is no moral justification for torture, regardless of what your morals look like.

(I'm having to "snip" some of your text because my answer exceeds the word limit.) There actually is a moral/ethical basis for torture, and the debate often centers around what is known as the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a terrorist planted a bomb and was then apprehended. If the bomb isn't located, hundreds of people, or more, could die. Do you torture the terrorist? Assuming you've exhausted all other avenues, promises of leniency, threats of harsh prosecution, etc., and failed -- the only moral thing left to do is to torture in an attempt to locate the bomb and save lives.

Worse, it's ineffective, ....... That's about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball, and you've lost your soul in the process...

It is sometimes ineffective, sometimes not. "Enhanced interrogation" of Nazi soldiers by the British in WWII, led to revealing plans and locations that saved countless Allied lives. Was it moral to torture in order to defeat Hitler? I say yes.

..... But I would be wrong, and it would be a decision I would regret all the rest of my life. ...

I really doubt your son would regret your decision to save him, and I think that you would come to understand that it would have been the right thing to do. Allowing the child to die would have been a more grievous moral sin.

Nope...sorry. Torture is an affront to all that makes us human, and I think the vast majority of people, if ever forced to witness a suspect be tortured, would feel incredible discomfort....

I'm sure they would -- I would -- and yet, if the torture was the only way to glean information to save others, I would understand its value.

The question you have to ask yourself is not whether the act is immoral, but whether it is more or less moral than the alternative. Protecting the comfort of a kidnapper at the cost of a child's life is much less moral than torturing the kidnapper to save the child's life.

Hopefully this is me rising to the occasion to answer your question again... ;) Now, let me ask you one.

I don't know your age, so I'll with if your brother or sister, or son or daughter, were in the military, were captured by enemy, and were tortured extensively, would you be ok with that? Would you say "Well, they were probably concerned about their own folks, so that's why my loved one was tortured, no harm, no foul, it's war"?

.........

No one is "okay" with a loved one being tortured, but international law has not stopped many of our adversaries from engaging in the act. The father of the American who came back from North Korea in a coma found that out. Americans stuck in Turkish, Mexican, South American, South African, and many Middle Eastern or Asian nations are physically punished, despite international law.

I would certainly not like it, but I understand that I could not stop it.

Do you think anyone should engage in torture? If it's justifiable for America, it is justifiable for Korea or Syria or Iran or anywhere else. I'm not saying it's not happening in those places, but by standing up for torture here, you're standing up for it there. Is this actually what you want me to take away from our conversation?

Yes, I support torture in limited applications. Alan Dershowitz proposed seeing torture "warrants" that allowed interrogators to used "enhanced" techniques, and that's not a bad idea, but it should probably be the decision of a judge who can assess the situation with outside eyes. I don't think there's a need to use torture when the information being sought is not a "ticking time bomb."

Torture should not be allowed for the vast majority of detainees or suspects -- only when the person has vital information that will save the lives of innocents.

Consider this -- torture to save lives is not different from shooting a person in self-defense or to save the life of another. If an officer is called to a domestic disturbance and he sees a deranged man point a gun at a defenseless woman, he is justified by law to shoot the man. The shot may kill the man or maim him or cause other long-term problems, but the officer is right to shoot. Same thing with torture, if the suspect has information that will save lives, it's a moral imperative that you try to get that information. Not doing so is akin to that officer just standing by and letting the man shoot the woman.

Morality is subjective and measured by the consequences.
 
(I'm having to "snip" some of your text because my answer exceeds the word limit.)

Me too... :) I'm going to answer your response holistically, rather than point by point, so if I miss something, please do feel free to call me out on it.

Perhaps I am being a little too binary on this...and allow me a little personal reflection in this response, since this isn't formal debate... I'm torn between seeing what you're saying and knowing what I would personally do in the heat of the moment, and the more fundamental notion of rightness.

On the fundamental level, torture is always wrong. So, for that matter, is killing. We can think of exceptions, as you have, but that doesn't change the fundamental "wrongness" of the action, and should never be looked at with pride, but rather massive regret that another tactic couldn't have accomplished the same thing. Certainly there should be no programs of torture, as we see used in the states. When something becomes a program, we stop looking for better alternatives. If we say we must torture today, because there is no better way to get the information, we better be putting all our resources into finding a more morally acceptable solution.

I'm not a believer in "the ends justify the means"... When we use different rules for our loved ones, things get out of hand quickly. How many people should we be allowed to sacrifice before we must give up on our loved one? If we may torture, may we also kill? And how many? One? Ten? A hundred? A million? I know my son's life is worth more to me than all the people in the world...but is that right? I'm not saying I wouldn't, and I said that in my last post, too. I'm just saying it wouldn't be right. Sometimes horrible, awful things happen...they happen all the time, seemingly with more regularity than the super good, wonderful things. Do we let these things make us horrible and awful as well, or do we strive to continue to be decent human beings, even if it hurts incredibly to do so? I guess that's something we each have to answer for ourselves...

Another issue I have is your comparison of torture vs. self defense. In the case of self defense, the threat is imminent and obvious. Bad guy has gun pointed at you (or someone you hope to save), you have gun pointed at bad guy, someone's gonna die, so you make sure it's not you. Torturing suspects is a different proposition, since there are any number of ways that authorities could grab the wrong person. How do you know if he's holding out, or just doesn't know? How do you know that the answer you get is the truth? Twist mah nipple long enough, I'll tell you I'm Kurt Cobain, back to save the human race from bubblegum pop music. Basically, there is far more opportunity to get it wrong, and do you really want to get it wrong with torture? What's an acceptable tolerance level for that?

As for what other countries do, yes, they do use torture in the places you have said. So, is your argument that America is no better than those places we are told are so horrible that America must get involved to stop them? If so, then save everyone's time and money and let them do what they do, rather than going over, as in the case of Iraq, as some knight in shining armor, there to bring civilization to the barbarians. You can't both claim moral superiority and engage in the same activities as the countries or organizations you claim moral superiority over, you just can't.

I think on some things you need to make a stand, Howie. If you can't say "No, torture is wrong", I'm not sure what's left...kill and torture pretty much sum up the worst of what we can do to each other. I guess we could start raping people for information, but I'm pretty sure that would constitute torture as well. I'll give you that sometimes (though perhaps not as often as it is used) there's no other option, I'm not completely naïve. But I would suggest that represents a major failing, not an acceptable program or practice, to the point where people would defend it. Rather it should be said shamefully, followed up quickly by "but we are looking this moment for another way".

In my opinion, or course... :)
 
Very well put Nate.
 
Yes, let's be clear by all means. Since 2009, all US intelligence agencies are required to abide by the US Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners.

To be very clear and concise, the US Army Field Manual forbids waterboarding. In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act (by which Federal funds are allocated to the military) specifically forbids any US federal agency to participate in waterboarding.

Just ran across these while looking for an appropriate place to mark the 30th anniversary of the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie bombing.

In the context of real war for survival the US Army Field Manual codifies dereliction of duty. Why? Because any government which does not make use of all means at its disposal fails in its duty to its people. Think about it -- here's a speech never to be given.

Head of Government, Country X: "My people, today we have surrendered after a long and bitter war. Although we lost, we can take pride in the fact that we fought in accordance with the highest moral principles, never sacrificing them for mere military advantage. Advance units of the occupying army will arrive soon. I know you will treat them positively as our surrender agreement requires."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom