…but I’ve never seen any and the notion that it never, ever works is stupid and delusional.
45 thoughts on “There May Be Good Arguments Against Enhanced Interrogation”
Comments are closed.
…but I’ve never seen any and the notion that it never, ever works is stupid and delusional.
Comments are closed.
I read the althouse article and the NYT article. There is no mention of enhanced interrogation mentioned in either article. You don’t define enhanced interrogation so one can’t argue about it either way. You don’t cite a single case, after defining it, where such has brought a terrorist to justice.
…but I’ve never seen any . . .
So does this mean that the Gestapo, Kempei Tai and NKVD et al were doing the right thing? Does the ethics of war change depending on who won and who gets to write the history?
Regarding your link: Ann asked the question “How was this information extracted from the detainees?” She presumably does not know the answer, and neither do you. As far as I know, the answer has not been reported. We don’t know if the captives gave their captor’s the information because the captives were tortured or tricked or bribed or befriended or converted or drugged or just normally interrogated or something else. Meanwhile, by saying refuting the “never ever”, you’re arguing with men made out of straw. Here’s a list of sources you should be arguing against: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html
So does this mean that the Gestapo, Kempei Tai and NKVD et al were doing the right thing?
No.
Meanwhile, by saying refuting the “never ever”, you’re arguing with men made out of straw.
No, I’m arguing with actual commenters at Althouse’s post.
Bob, your link, and the many, many references they point to boil down to this sentence:
“You can torture a confession out of anyone, but (grudgingly) if you’re looking for specific information sometimes it works.”
They also switch back and forth between considering -actual torture- (well beyond waterboarding) and “enhanced interrogation.” Some of the perfectly ordinary crap police pull (like lying to the perp) are -enhanced- interrogation aka “torture” in a military POW setting.
The thing I’m curious about is: Under Bush, we reportedly waterboarded three people. I wonder what the number is now.
“Enhanced interrogation” doesn’t always get results, and what it does get isn’t always accurate. Which is more an argument for diversity in intelligence sources and cross checking.
But keep in mind that “enhanced interrogation” includes far more than physical pain or threats of pain. Getting the subject to question the morality or viability of their cause is a major element.
“You don’t cite a single case, after defining it, where such has brought a terrorist to justice.”
Way to knock down that strawman.
Rep Peter King (R-NY) says, on Fox, that key info for finding OBL was obtained by waterboarding.
peterh Says:
““Enhanced interrogation” doesn’t always get results, and what it does get isn’t always accurate. Which is more an argument for diversity in intelligence sources and cross checking.”
The same could be said for regular interrogations.
This story says;
“Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.”
I wonder if overtly threatening him with waterboarding again if he didn’t tell them something useful, would be considered enhanced interrogation.
Anyone here against waterboarding and also against the killing of Osama Bin Laden?
…and anyone here against waterboarding but FOR the killing of Bin Laden?
1. The term “enhanced interrogation” should not be used as a substitute for the term “torture”. If we are talking about torture, let’s say “torture”, and leave the weasel words to the business-school grads and high-school guidance counselors.
2. Moral ends do not justify immoral means. However, applied violence is not an intrinsically immoral means of obtaining a desired end. Torture is just another form of applied violence. Just as killing is not an intrinsically evil act, torture is not an intrinsically evil act. The torture of an innocent person for the purpose of furthering unjust aggression or some other other evil is immoral and must not be permitted. The torture of an aggressor for the purpose of obtaining information for the purpose of protecting innocent people against unjust aggression can be a morally licit act.
3. Methods short of torture should be used if possible to obtain such information. If torture is required for just purposes, it should be carried out quickly, efficiently, and without malice by disinterested professionals.
4. The United States government should openly admit that it is willing to use any means necessary to protect the citizens of the United States,l including torture.
B Lewis, I thought you had an excellent argument unit you got to “The torture of an innocent …” when you then turned it all into a them and us thing. What’s “unjust aggression”? Does the US invasion of Iraq count? How to you objectively define “an innocent”? Do you have to torture them first to find out if they’re innocent or not?
What’s “unjust aggression”?
Aggression other than that initiated for a morally licit purpose; e.g. to deprive others unjustly of life, liberty, dignity, or property.
Does the US invasion of Iraq count?
Men of good will disagree on the morality of the Iraq conflict. My personal opinion is that it was a justifiable — if perhaps unwise — strategem in the context of the larger war of self-defense against Islam.
How to you objectively define “an innocent”?
A person who seeks to live in peace with all men and who is not aiding or abetting the actions of unjust aggressors.
Do you have to torture them first to find out if they’re innocent or not?
The purpose of torture is not to determine the guilt or innocence of a given person. The purpose of torture is to obtain information from a given person who is unwilling to offer it up freely.
You, as an educated person, are certainly familiar with the Western jus ad bellum tradition. These are old questions, answered long ago.
“Men of good will disagree on the morality of the Iraq conflict. My personal opinion…”
Whereupon it all falls down. If you’re going to attempt to argue that these matters can be defined in objective terms, as soon as you concede that there is room for personal opinion you’re admitting they’re subjective, rather than objective matters. So someone fighting against US occupation in Iraq can argue that torturing US servicemen, for the purpose of extracting intelligence, is justified.
Taking an extreme example, in history Christians (and no doubt people of other religions) have believed that some of their wars were justified on the grounds that by converting the conquered people to Christianity they were saving their souls.
Invaders always rationalize that their aggression is justified.
@Andrew W: Thank you for your response.
as soon as you concede that there is room for personal opinion you’re admitting they’re subjective, rather than objective matters.
Not at all. A given act is either objectively moral or immoral. The fact that men of good will can differ in judgment on the morality of a given act does not mean it has no objective moral quality. It merely means that some men have an imperfectly formed moral sense.
Take the Iraq War as an example. As an act, it was either objectively moral or objectively immoral. Some people identified it as being a moral act; others did not. Only one group of people is correct. The war was either just (a part of a larger war of self-defense), or it was not (an act of aggression in pursuit of some unjust gain).
Another example: a criminal breaks into a home. The homeowner shoots and kills him. An inquest is held. One party asserts the killing constitutes murder; another, justifiable homicide. Only one side is correct. The killing was either immoral (murder) or morally licit (self-defense).
A third example: a man is on trial for murder. Evidence and testimony are offered by the prosecution to demonstrate his guilt. Some jurors decide that the prosecution has proved his guilt beyond a shadow of doubt; others disagree. Nevertheless, it remains an objective fact that he either did or did not commit the murder in question.
“What is Truth?” asked Pontius Pilate, even as Truth personified stood before him. Let us not repeat his error. God sets the standard for morality in any circumstance. This standard is objective and invariant. Certain acts (e.g. fornication, usury) are immoral under any circumstances. Other acts (e.g. killing, torture) may or may not be moral depending upon the intention with which they are performed. The fact that imperfect men can in good faith make errors in a given moral judgment does not mean that objective morality does not exist. It means that men are imperfect.
Christians… have believed that some of their wars were justified on the grounds that by converting the conquered people to Christianity they were saving their souls.
Could you please cite a specific example of such a war?
Individual Christians may believe any number of things. Some of these things correspond with the deposit of faith left to us by Christ and His apostles, and are therefore in accord with truth. Others are not. While it is true that some wars of conquest waged by Europeans had the aim of evangelizing a conquered people, not one was waged in order to convert anyone to Christianity by force of arms. The reason why this is so is simple: in the orthodox Christian tradition, forced conversions are not conversions at all. The acceptance of the Christian faith is and can only be a free and voluntary* act of individual cooperation with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Forced baptisms, etc., may have occurred, but the Church does not and has never taught that any person can be converted to Christianity by force.
*Calvinists will disagree, and in this disagreement they go beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Well, we’ve gotten to where these discussions always get. You see morality as an objective fact and defined by your God. I see it as subjective and bound only by human instinct (with hypothetical aliens having their moral codes that are bound by their evolution), a product of evolution, and something the details of which are determined by each society. So to me the morality of any given society evolves and changes as that society changes.
But cheers B Lewis and thank you for the civil discussion.
P.S.
While I see the religion based belief in objective morality vs the atheistic belief in subjective morality as incommensurable, and therefore a waste of time debating, atheists who believe in objective morality I think are fair game. 🙂
@AndrewW: Subjective morality devolves to “might makes right” in the final analysis. Nein danke.
In any case, I appreciate your civility and have enjoyed reading and considering your thoughtful comments.
“might makes right”
“The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes”. Stanley Kubrick
Andrew W Says:
“I see it [morality] as subjective and bound only by human instinct (with hypothetical aliens having their moral codes that are bound by their evolution), a product of evolution, and something the details of which are determined by each society. So to me the morality of any given society evolves and changes as that society changes.”
Ok so then, by your definitions above, is there no act which you would claim is wrong/immoral regardless of what society you live in?
Secondly, is it your position that all morality is defined by society?
No, it “all falls down” when Mr. Lewis’s citation of Just War Theory sails right over your head.
This is a misunderstanding of the subjectivity vs. objectivity in the context of ethics. Subjective would be something like, “Murder, boo!” OTOH, if I can make catagorical statements whose truth values can be determeined, it’s objective. Example: accessories to an act share responsibility, murder is wrong, therefore being an accessory to murder is also wrong.
This conflates two different issues. The first is that ethics, like mathematics is half invention, half discovery: barbarians may simply be ignorant of morality, and even those at the peak of civilization don’t know everything. The second is that much of morality is arbitrary: the social contract. (e.g.: which side of the road to drive on, tax rates…) JWT is just another form of moral calculus. There’s nothing “subjective” about that, either, since it all comes back to the axiom of natural rights, whether you believe in a god or not.
There are moral arguments and there are pragmatic arguments. Rand said there may be good arguments against “enhanced interrogation.” When he refers to other arguments he means moral arguments, which everyone has proceeded to argue.
No one has addressed his actual argument which is a pragmatic argument. He states without proof that the notion that “enhanced interrogation” never works is not correct. In the English language you really shouldn’t say “never… is not”; but, for that statement to be true, one need only a single case to prove it so. No one has yet provided one. I await.
Pragmatic arguments rest on the costs and benefits. Assuming anybody provides a single case, there is still a burden on those who make the pragmatic argument that “enhanced interrogation” works to weigh the costs against the benefits. If the costs exceed the benefits, then, pragmatically, one still does not have a sound case for “enhanced interrogation”. Assuming the pragmatic case can be shown to be true then let the moral arguments begin. The moral arguments are only relevant when the pragmatic case is sound.
Jar, I think you mean practical, not pragmatic. Practical is a way of addressing an issue economically (cost/benefit). Pragmatism is an ethical theory which makes no distinction between facts and values, means or ends. (i.e.: pragmatism is a moral argument).
Gregg, you continue to have this basic comprehension problem, as I said “bound only by human instinct”, with “the details of which are determined by each society.”
Titus, when scientists talk about the subjective vs objective nature of morality, what we’re asking is whether morality originates externally to humans, that is, is it a universal constant, something with the universality and consistency of a law of nature, or whether it is something that exists only within thinking social beings, and which can change as those beings and their societies change.
Just War Theory is simply a social construct, like the Geneva Convention and international rules of war, it has no scientific basis.
Right, pragmatism is a moral argument but unique in that pragmatic arguments are concerned with effects of action. Now, I leave it to the reader to respond to my second and third paragraphs above.
Andrew W Says:
“Gregg, you continue to have this basic comprehension problem, as I said “bound only by human instinct”, with “the details of which are determined by each society.” ”
Andrew save your ad hims for kindergarden.
“I said “bound only by human instinct”, with “the details of which are determined by each society.” ”
Just asking to be sure I understand what you are saying. I don’t want to reply to your comments unless I understand them. So I’ll try again. If you are scared of answering just say so:
so then, by your definitions above, is there no act which you would claim is wrong/immoral regardless of what society you live in?
Secondly, is it your position that all morality is defined by society?
It SEEMS as though that’s what you are saying…but I want to be sure.
“ad hims” = ad homs
Those “scientists” (and their Canadian girlfriends) need to stop using the wrong tool for the job, or perhaps leave the matter to ethicists.
So is a differential equation.
Hairdressing has no automotive basis.
or perhaps leave the matter to ethicists.
And while we’re at it, perhaps you think we should leave natural history to the theologians?
so then, by your definitions above, is there no act which you would claim is wrong/immoral regardless of what society you live in?
Well obviously I’m bound by human instincts and the moral customs of my own society, so all those human societies with people in them that don’t have human instincts no doubt have customs I wouldn’t agree with, like societies in which women are required to eat their children.
As for societies with social customs different to the ones I’ve been brought up with, I may not agree with the custom, but I’m probably not in a position to judge what moral customs are better for other societies, whether or not Texas executes some of its criminals is for the Texans to decide.
No. Have you any relevant questions to ask?
Yoo hoo… when exactly has torture saved any lives or brought the bad guys in? Still waiting for the answer. Still waiting. Still waiting.
So why do you think science shouldn’t tackle ethics? The ethics that we live by are certainly, in part at least, built into our evolutionary instincts. And the nature of social interactions can also be studied using scientific methods.
It’s one thing to study the biological roots of reciprocal altruism, but taking those data points and saying “therefore, this is ethical…” would be a bridge too far.
“therefore, this is ethical…”
Well, that’s what the church tends to do, interpret some moral view as being the “correct” moral view. Morality derived from human instinct would, I think, be more a case of “humans have an instinct to take this moral position because it’s evolutionarily advantageous”.
Is it? I don’t know — the only theologian I’m familiar with is Thomas Aquinas, and even he clearly demarked between that which can be derived from reason (“is file-sharing wrong? let’s figure it out…”) and that which can only be known through divine revelation (“Jesus = god”). I wasn’t under the impression that fundamental position had changed since then. That is, any moral calculus, so long as it’s derived from the ethical axioms symmetrical to those of Christianity, should therefore be valid in their eyes. I haven’t seen them picking shit at random and calling it holy and good (I think that would be a good litmus test for what constitutes a cult.)
Pardon the verbal swiss cheese, that should read: “Any moral calculus, so long as its ethical axioms are symmetrical to those of Christianity, should be valid in their eyes.”
To stress the point, not all philosophies in the West agree. That is not because each has its own special brand of logical rules, it’s because they differ on premises.
So, to come back around and answer your final statement: knowing the biological/physical roots of behavior is wonderful. Do they radically alter, say, the premises of personhood? Nnnnnooooope…
Anyways, that concludes my broadcast day, Andrew. It’s been fun.
@Titus Quinn: “Any moral calculus, so long as its ethical axioms are symmetrical to those of Christianity, should be valid in their eyes
You are correct. We call this the Natural Law.
Interrogation always works, you just have zero confidence whether what they tell you is the truth, or what they think you want to hear to stop torturing them, and due to the torture, you can’t do lie detection on them at the same time. There is even a chapter in bin Laden’s al qaeda manual on how to feed disinformation to the enemy by letting them torture you. Any info you get by torture you have to cross check against a lot of other evidence to validate whats real and what isn’t.
Andrew W Says:
>so then, by your definitions above, is there no act >which you would claim is wrong/immoral >regardless of what society you live in?
“Well obviously I’m bound by human instincts and the moral customs of my own society, so all those human societies with people in them that don’t have human instincts no doubt have customs I wouldn’t agree with, like societies in which women are required to eat their children.”
“As for societies with social customs different to the ones I’ve been brought up with, I may not agree with the custom, but I’m probably not in a position to judge what moral customs are better for other societies, whether or not Texas executes some of its criminals is for the Texans to decide.”
Andrew, the key word here is *regardless*.
In other words I’m asking you if you think there is an act that is universally wrong. Wrong NO MATTER WHAT society one lives in. I’m not asking you to test your society against others.
I’m asking you if you think there is an act that is wrong for all humans.
I’m asking you if you think there are Natural Laws (and not necessarily connected to religion).
Gregg, why do you keep asking me questions that I’ve already answered?