Torture should not be legal under any circumstances. Although Michael Levin writes a convincing argument, he was able to do so by over-simplifying situations and results. Capturing someone who is known to have all information about the attacks is highly unlikely, and if (s)he did, he would probably be important enough to the operation to either withstand the torture or lie. The entire argument is writen under the assumption that everything will work according to plan.
Even if a line is drawn on where torture is no longer an option, to torture one person will set a precedent. It has been proven that when a society first allows something like this, everyone follows prodedure, but over time the line begins to stretch. Eventually there is little to no discretion when it comes to utilizing brutal and unconstitutional methods of extracting information.
There isn't a guaruntee of catching the right person. It's unlikely that we'd even be able to narrow it down to ten people. So what do we do with those extra nine? Personally, I'd rather die than live knowing that my survival is directly the cause of the suffering of nine innocents at the hands of my government.
Levin describes not being willing to "dirty their hands" as cowardice, but I disagree. Only a coward has the guts to torture a defenseless person, no matter how evil the victim is.
13 comments:
Once again, I believe you are blowing this out of proportion. Your first statement was "I believe torture should not be legal under any circumstances," yet you then go to attack the author's argument by saying it only works when everything goes according to plan. What about the times when everything does go according to plan? What about the times the criminal is sitting there admitting he knows the information with a crazed look on his face? Is that not a good time to utilize torture? Your next argument was extremely vague. You stated that usually the US Government only would be able to get it down to 10 people. First of all, the author does not advocate torturing those people. Second, you then go to say that you would rather die than know you personally caused the suffering of the other nine innocents. Honestly, nobody is getting tortured over just you in jeopardy, especially not ten people. That notion is far off the point. So assume you meant you are one of 200 people on a plane. You and twenty-five people are willing to die so that the people don't feel pain. What about the five-year-old soon to be orphaned, and the others on the plane who just want to live to see their families again. They certainly will not share your opinion. And finally, no, the US Government will almost never have such a broad number of suspects as ten people. Often times in these situations the true criminal is easy to find when he shows up to collect the ransom money you said you would give him or outwardly announces himself as the terrorist mastermind outside the White House. Thus your argument is corrected. When there are 200 people on a plane, the five-year-olds entire nuclear family is at stake, and there is one identifiable criminal. Im sorry to inform you that you will probably be the only one who would give up their life rather than cause pain to the man (OR WOMAN) who jeopardized it in the first place.
I strongly disagree with the comment of the one who calls himself "jd". He makes a lot of assumptions that are unfair assumptions. For instance, he says that if you had the choice of dying or living but another person being tortured, the 199 other people "on the plane with you" would rather live. As we all learned from the movie "Dark Knight", sometimes a boatload of people might rather die than force innocent men to die. The Dark Knight was written by three men who all have had past experience with psychology and social science.
You also ask, "What about when everything goes according to plan?" and "What about when the criminal has admitted to knowing where the bomb is and is sitting with a smug look on his face, waiting for it to go off." Show me one instance when this has happened in the US and I'll take it all back.
OK Noah, let's try to separate reality from movies. You emphasize your point, but movies, regardless of who the "masterminds" were behind them, will be twisted, manipulated, and skewed in the attempt to make more money. I have never seen the movie Dark Knight, but I assure you, this does not apply to what I have said. People being tortured are not being killed. Killing them entirely defeats the purpose. Second, in the Dark Knight, EVERY ONE of the victims who were being MURDERED, had done nothing wrong. i assure you, with torture that is not the case. Regarding a Historical example, the author already provided the possibility of assassinating Hitler. If that does not bear close enough resemblance, then go ahead. Find another example that supports your claims. But please, don't refer to fiction.
Matt:
How is an exagerated hypothetical situation relevant when you are talking about turning an unethical concept into reality? Sure, no one would deny that in that scenario torture is a possible solution. The problem is that you have over-simplified the course of events. A situation like that will never happen. Even if it did, the types of people who put themselves in a situation like that are the types who will go to any length to defend their cause. This terrorist could easily withstand 5 minutes of torture. In his mind, all you're doing is justifying his actions.
When talking about actually putting into practice a concept such as torture, one has to look at plausible situations.
You complain that terrorists are not like this abby, and you refute Matt's hypothetical situation with lack of plausibility. I would like to ask you, however, have you really researched this to the extent that you portray yourself to have? Doing a simple google search has provided me with plenty of examples of successful torture proceedings not too far off of what Matt described. Of course the bomb was not atomic, and 70000 people were not in danger, but a number such as 300 or even 120 constitutes a dire situation. When faced with this do you think torturing one man is practical? I personally believe, when hundreds of a nation's people to whom it has promised and obligated to protect are now on the brink of death, and one man holds the key to their survival, the morality of the issue no longer matters. The rights of a man who is trying to kill you just don't apply. Otherwise, a man fighting back against a gang attack could be prosecuted.
Elmo,
Unlike some others, I think your argument is very strong and I understand your point of view. I think when you talk about how torture sets a precedent, you are correct. Torture sets a precedent for more torture, and the torture just continues. Although I don't agree with you completely, I agree on a lot of your points.
Abby......
I'm sure you have heard an earful about this..but I, too, am going to have to disagree with your argument that torture should not be legal. Is it your opinion that if we are presented with a situation where torture is the only way to save millions, you would have those millions die?
Hello Abby. After reading your argument, I am mildly confused as to your background in criminology. Assuming that you haven't had much background in terrorist interrogation and criminal psychology, how is it that you can presume to know how the mind of a terrorist works? Or, for that matter, that terrorists are some kind of generic breed, each one with the exact same mindset? You criticize the author for utilizing over-specific and hypothetical instances to support his argument (which he does do shamelessly, by the way), but you yourself use the exact same technique:
"and if (s)he did, he would probably be important enough to the operation to either withstand the torture or lie. The entire argument is writen under the assumption that everything will work according to plan."
Well, your argument here is written under the assumption that the terrorist is important.
Not only to you appear to have a background in criminology, but you also seem to be some kind of immortal that has lived for thousands of years, during the span of which torture has become legal, and entire civilizations have become torture-hungry fiends. Why to you act as though you have witnessed torture over the ages, and even in the future? Exactly what evidence can you present that society will lapse into torturing everyone and everything if torture in certain specific instances is allowed? The answer to that, is of course, none. Because you are not an immortal and omnipotent being. You are a high school student living in Carmel, Indiana. You have no background in criminology or terrorist interrogation. You are neither a social scientist nor an experienced government agent. So, when making grand sweeping statements about society and the minds of criminals, makes sure that you have the experience and evidence to support your claims. And, when criticizing others for using hypothetical situations, be sure that you yourself are not also guilty of such an argument.
Keep in mind that this comment is in no way a slight against you. I personally have absolutely nothing against you. This is simply criticism regarding an argument that I felt compelled to comment about.
Post a Comment