Should We Torture Suspected Terrorists?
paulekman.com
paulekman.com
Some people want to torture terror suspects because they want suspected terrorists to suffer, and they want the government to be willing to make them suffer. Let's just admit that - it's about nothing more than the desire for simple retribution and sadism.
Dr. Paul Ekman is a worthy researcher, who studied facial expressions and has worked with the Dali Lama. The TV series, Lie to Me (now on Netflix) is wonderful and fun.
I was at Columbia University when the World Trade Center was struck. I used to work in a building across the street from the WTC. I could see the smoke down Broadway (Ave) from the WTC. Now there is a memorial (and an Apple Store will soon be on the site).
So, if torture would have prevented 9/11 should we have done the torture or should we have let 9/11 happen?
To me it is simple. Every single life is important. Ekman argues that while torture may prevent some terrorism it is not perfect. But, no intervention is perfect. Because surgery is not 100% in saving a life from a traffic accident, does that mean we don't do the surgery?
Instead of writing a blog post about torturing to save lives from terrorism, Dr. Ekman should visit with loved ones of victims of 9/11, and of terrorist attacks in Israel, France, ..... After speaking with 9/11 loved ones of victims, he could visit the loved ones of about a dozen teenage girls that were killed waiting in line to go dancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_massa...
Empathy is really important. I'm surprised at this blog post.
Except, apparently, the life of your torture victim. This comment is a disgraceful defence of barbaric practices.
Why don't you talk with loved ones of victims of 9/11?
Empathy his key.
I for one, know people who have lost loved ones from terrorists besides just missing out on it myself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/us/politics/amid-details-o...
Take careful note, my point is that they are equally deserving of those things.
Yes, it's barbaric to torture anybody for any reason.
Empathy is key.
Your abuse of traumatic events to support the horrific crime of torture is shameful. You are no better than those you claim moral superiority over.
The problem with these kind of "if torture would prevent..." scenarios is that there is generally no way of every being in a situation where you know that torture would prevent the harm that is hypothesized to justify it. (And, I've yet to see anything indicating that, even in the case where you somehow know that there is an imminent harm and know that a particular person has information that would allow you to prevent it, that there is any basis on which one could ever reasonably conclude that torture would be the most effective method of extracting accurate information.)
Even leaving aside the moral argument that torture is never acceptable whatever the benefits, none of the torture that has ever been done, no concrete policy allowing torture that has ever been adopted or proposed, and no approach to torture that is even conceivable given the information that appears to be available would ever be able to limit torture to situations where the kind of "if torture would prevent <specified class of harms>" scenarios that are frequently cited to justify it.
> The problem with these kind of "if torture would prevent..." scenarios is that there is generally no way of every being in a situation where you know that torture would prevent the harm that is hypothesized to justify it.
Just as in my example of a surgical intervention after a traffic accident, this is no guarantee of 100% success. The question to ask is not will every time be successful, but statistically will it be successful.
Just because you aren't 100% certain that torture would prevent a 9/11, or any other terrorist attack doesn't mean one shouldn't try the intervention.
Also, the fewer successful attacks, the less likely terrorists will keep attempting them, so it has a form of community effect when you prevent any victim from terror.
Empathy is key. Talk with victims of terror who have survived, but are injured. Speak with loved ones of terror victims. Get to know them and their feelings.
The problem with those who criticize interventions that can save lives from terrorists, is there lack of empathy for the victims that survive and the loved ones of those who don't.
The child without the parent. The parent of the child. For example, an American 13-year-old girl was recently killed by a terrorist in Israel. If torture could have saved her, then it should have been used.
Palestinian Man Stabs and Kills 13-year-old Israeli Girl Asleep in Her West Bank Home http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.728013
While one can't show 100% causation, statistically you can prevent these attacks and if you can, you should.
Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate intervention to get information could save lives.
The idea that you know for a fact that a ticking bomb exists and know for a fact that a particular target has information about it which could save lives, but don't know enough to act without information from that subject and don't have a more reliable way of extracting information from the target than torture is implausible on a whole number of levels.
The CIA and other organisations have been torturing "terrorists" quite a bit, they are remarkably quiet when it comes to naming examples to justify their actions. I'd honestly assume they have tortured more people that didn't have any knowledge about terrorism than they saved with the intel from those that did.
Can you name examples for your ticking bomb scenario? (as in, someone with the necessary information was in custody and known to have the information?) As far as I know, this wasn't the case for any of the high-profile attacks you appeal to.
There is little evidence torture actually works, and allowing it as a tool is way to ripe for abuse, even if you don't believe that torturing people is generally amoral. The data to support it just is not there.
No, with torture there is no scenario, given everything I've seen on the issue including from experts in interrogation, in which you can conclude that torture is more likely than other techniques which you will have the capacity to perform if you have the capacity (e.g., control of the target, access to trained interrogators) to perform torture.
Its not that torture lacks a guarantee of success, it is that there is no way to identify (and, thus, limit) torture to any set of circumstances where torture is even most likely to be the most effective approach.
And, therefore, any policy which ever chooses torture will be suboptimally effective in preventing the harms it seeks to prevent.
That's the problem with torture, even within the framework of a relatively myopic utilitarianism.
And torture gets worse from the perspective of a more holistic utilitarianism, once you consider the effects of actually performing torture on the broader society and, including on those who actually perform it.