Another Torture Debate

[Bubba_Switzler]

Absolutely immoral. Torturing an informant in the hopes of gaining information that could save a life is not analagous to shooting someone that is shooting at you.

It seems to me that the comparison is much better than the one to the explicitly prohibited definition of torture cited in the OP. In other words, the traditional torture scenario I describe is more like self defense than “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.”

If torturing an informant is licit, what is not? Could you put a gun to the head of a terrorist’s wife? Beat his children? Evil cannot be defeated with stronger evil. If you make yourself evil than no matter which side prevails - good has lost.

But this contradicts one of the essential elements of the definition I provided in the OP: that the target of the torture is not an innocent but a party to the threat to innocents.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t see a difference. The justification for torturing the hypothetical informant is not that he deserves to be tortured as punishment. Its that torturing him will save many, many others. If that is justifiable, why not torture his wife, or his children, or random citizens of his country, if that will save many, many others. The moral calculus is the same – torturing this person may be wrong, but the benefit outweighs the wrong. That kind of end justifies the means morality is a race to the bottom.

I think it’s a very fair concern. If the wife of a terrorist were witholding information that could save lives she would hardly be a sympathetic figure. But she is not guilty by most legal standards and, hence, does not fit the defintion in the OP. It would be reasonable to prohibit the torture of innocents if only to stop that slippery slope.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Do you have a documented example of such a situation?

The evil American regime has bragged about having prevented terrorist attacks by “aggressive interrogation” techniques that many reasonable people have described as torture. I don’t know if they’ve published the specific incidents, though.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is a good question. I haven’t given it much deep thought, but it would seem to me that extracting information (such as in the ticking bomb scenario) would fall under “extracting confessions.”

confess: To admit or acknowledge something damaging or inconvenient to oneself: The suspect confessed to the crime.

It’s close but not the same. One key difference is that the purpose of extracting confessions is usually to facilitate a conviction after the harm has been done and for the purpose of justice. By contrast, the definition I gave in the OP is for the purpose of preventing future harm and, indeed, most advocates of such torture rule out the use of such information in a court of law. It is thus limited to the prevention of future harm.

 

[Feste_1242]

confess: To admit or acknowledge something damaging or inconvenient to oneself: The suspect confessed to the crime.It’s close but not the same. One key difference is that the purpose of extracting confessions is usually to facilitate a conviction after the harm has been done and for the purpose of justice. By contrast, the definition I gave in the OP is for the purpose of preventing future harm and, indeed, most advocates of such torture rule out the use of such information in a court of law. It is thus limited to the prevention of future harm.

Hmm, that does not sound unreasonable, but I’m not convinced. I wish we could get some clarification on the Catechism’s exact meaning.

 

[Caesar517]

This is a good question. I haven’t given it much deep thought, but it would seem to me that extracting information (such as in the ticking bomb scenario) would fall under “extracting confessions.”

I think extracting information and extracting confessions are different. Two immediate thoughts:

A “confession” is something that person would be directly responsible for, whereas information could include someone who knew but did not say.

A confession is about a past event, whereas the goal of extracting information is to protect innocents in the future.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hmm, that does not sound unreasonable, but I’m not convinced. I wish we could get some clarification on the Catechism’s exact meaning.

See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=302320

I could be wrong but judging from the “official” reply in “Ask and Apologist” this may be an area where the Church has not made an official ruling on. The current catechism is focused on the obvioulsy heinous forms of torture that have been practiced throuought history. And until recently, torture for the purpose of obtaining information, while not unknown in the intelligence world, was very exceptional. It may be that the rise of non-state entities (not abiding by the rules of warfare but too dangerous to be treated as mere organized crime) has created a need for a new look at this subject.

If terrorists gain access to nuclear weapons then the stakes could get very big indeed.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I don’t think it takes a great deal of intellect to see the difference.

It would take little to close the mind, isn’t that the objective?

Actually, I defined it explicitly to the contrary.

Yes all torturers do. Again the omniscient problem

I have no idea what “partial omnicience” is. Is that anything like partial omnipotence? Yes, there is plenty of room for error…in both directions. That’s life.

closer to onmiscient (all knowing) , and again here it is. If you allow error you allow torture of the innocent a clearly immoral action

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s a very fair question. But note that there are criminal conspiracies and it is possible to capture one member of the conspiracy. That is not a “false” scenario…

Did you consider if those conspirators invaded your country? In most countries any invasion would be illegal.

( please think about it )

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If you allow error you allow torture of the innocent a clearly immoral action

Are you claiming that mistakes are never made in just war or self defense?

Did you consider if those conspirators invaded your country? In most countries any invasion would be illegal. ( please think about it )

Huh?! Invasion is generally regarded as an act of war. If the invaders are abiding by the rules of war then the soldiers are not held to be acting illegally but the leaders who launched the invasion could be so treated.

 

[Ender]

I think extracting information and extracting confessions are different.

There is a difference and the section of the Catechism cited in the OP forbids the latter but not the former. The UN Declaration on Torture, by comparison, forbids both forms.

*For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, …

*It is legitimate to ask whether the wording of the Catechism was merely an oversight. There are other sections of the Catechism that, while not as explicit, seem to forbid torture. Having said that, I’m not sure there is a particularly good definition of just what it is. The UN says it is *severe *pain, which is something, but, for example, I’m not sure how painful waterboarding is. The definition clearly would seem to allow a lot of other aggressive practices, however much some people would cavil at using them.

The argument that no useful information can be obtained by torture is simply wrong, as even a cursory review of its use against American prisoners shows. That it works is no justification for its use but there is no reasonable case that can be made that it is not effective.

Ender

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Having said that, I’m not sure there is a particularly good definition of just what it is. The UN says it is *severe *pain, which is something, but, for example, I’m not sure how painful waterboarding is. The definition clearly would seem to allow a lot of other aggressive practices, however much some people would cavil at using them.

I think this is a legitimate point but it is orthogonal to the definition of purpose. One can imagine a four way matrix along the two axis: harshness and purpose.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Are you claiming that mistakes are never made in just war or self defense?

that issue is intent

Huh?! Invasion is generally regarded as an act of war. If the invaders are abiding by the rules of war then the soldiers are not held to be acting illegally but the leaders who launched the invasion could be so treated.

Which US Law allows legal invasion of foreign troops?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

that issue is intent

Then why introduce the red herring of “partial omnicience”?

Which US Law allows legal invasion of foreign troops?

That would be the Geneva Convention (when treaties are signed they become law). Provided that the invading troops are abiding by the Geneva Convention (e.g. wearing uniforms, not commiting attrocities) then individual soliders cannot be tried as criminals. They can only held as POWs until the end of the war.

So there is no need to ban torture in order to protect soldiers. Soldiers are already protected from torture by the Geneva Convention.

 

[apromisemade]

So there is no need to ban torture in order to protect soldiers. Soldiers are already protected from torture by the Geneva Convention.

Which is why international lawyers in Europe petitioned to try Donald Rumsfeld as a war criminal. He blatantly ignored the Gevenva Convention by aggressively promoting torture of prisoners and insisting that the Geneva Convention did not not apply to them as they were not techniqually soldier or “prisoners of war,” but rather “enemy detainees.”
Disgusting.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Then why introduce the red herring of “partial omnicience”?

Yes, the core of all torture. One defines right vs wrong thus he cannot error. You and all ticking time bomb people need “partial omnicience” which they simply do not have.

That would be the Geneva Convention (when treaties are signed they become law). Provided that the invading troops are abiding by the Geneva Convention (e.g. wearing uniforms, not commiting attrocities) then individual soliders cannot be tried as criminals. They can only held as POWs until the end of the war.

So there is no need to ban torture in order to protect soldiers. Soldiers are already protected from torture by the Geneva Convention.

Where does the Geneva Convention allow the invasion of the US?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, the core of all torture. One defines right vs wrong thus he cannot error. You and all ticking time bomb people need “partial omnicience” which they simply do not have.

In its simplest form, torture translates knowledge about a person’s relationship to a criminal enterprise to information that can be used to prevent the harm. In the ticking time bomb example, you may know that a person planted a bomb without knowing where the bomb was planted.

Where does the Geneva Convention allow the invasion of the US?

It is silent on the subject. But it protects solidiers who are abiding by the rules of war even in wars of invasion. The Nuremburg trials, for example, were directed at those who violated the rules of war, not at individual soliders of the German army.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In its simplest form, torture translates knowledge about a person’s relationship to a criminal enterprise to information that can be used to prevent the harm.

No one can only HOPE the torture will translate knowledge. That knowledge: (1) may not exist (as WMDs), (2) maybe useless, (3) maybe misunderstood, or confused.

In the ticking time bomb example, you may know that a person planted a bomb without knowing where the bomb was planted.

that is omnisciences, as opposed to you think this person knows…

It is silent on the subject. But it protects solidiers who are abiding by the rules of war even in wars of invasion. The Nuremburg trials, for example, were directed at those who violated the rules of war, not at individual soliders of the German army.

So does it apply to terrorists(?) or are you aspousing they can legally torture?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No one can only HOPE the torture will translate knowledge. That knowledge: (1) may not exist (as WMDs), (2) maybe useless, (3) maybe misunderstood, or confused. that is omnisciences, as opposed to you think this person knows…

This is a form of knowledge that is comparable to that employed in self defense or just war, which involves not merely harm but death and even “collateral damange”, meaning the deaths of innocents.

So does it apply to terrorists(?) or are you aspousing they can legally torture?

Terrorists don’t follow the rules anyway; by definition they are already violating the rules of war. People who fly airplanes into buildings don’t much care what the Geneva Convention says.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is a form of knowledge that is comparable to that employed in self defense or just war, which involves not merely harm but death and even “collateral damange”, meaning the deaths of innocents.

This was already discussed self defense has a different intent. Self defense is force to subdue an eminent danger

Terrorists don’t follow the rules anyway; by definition they are already violating the rules of war. People who fly airplanes into buildings don’t much care what the Geneva Convention says.

And when we torture we to become rule violators who do not care; or terrorists if you would like.