Torture to Prevent Terrorism?

Politics International Politics
1

I have been a participant in an onging discussion of this topic with several former colleagues.
One of these is Frenchman. As such, and as a former professional Soldier, some of his references have been to the French methodology in their various war/terrorist involvements. He sent me a link to this article as background for our discussion. This article, while a bit long, provides interesting insight into several aspects of this question.
Why use torture? Who does the torture? What are the results of the torture? What makes a person justify the use of torture?
Keep in mind that, in this scenario, we are not speaking of sadism and random brutality. This article referrs to the use of torture in a clearly defined military application. There is no hiding behind balaclavas, no scream of ‘religious exhaltations’ while severing the head of a civilian with a dull knife.
I post this to examine some of the historical aspects of this part of war. And in particular a war against terrorists who target civilians - men, women & children - in their attacks.

[quote]Torture to Prevent Terrorism? Interview with a French Master Torturer
By Martin Brass
Note: This article was first published in late 2001. International Law, and French and U.S. law have changed since the Algerian-French conflict. Updates will follow in future articles.

"he United States is being forced to face one of the most difficult decisions of its relatively brief history: how to deal with terrorists that have infiltrated not only the United States, but dozens of other industrialized nations. Time is of the essence. Americans anxiously wait in trepidation, hoping for the best, but expecting the worst. That is terror. But the alternatives are equally shocking. The effectiveness of massive military retaliation is uncertain, and civilian deaths are inevitable. There is resistance to the United States suffering the casualties involved in another foreign ground war. "

" In Morocco in 1942, an air force officer, Captain Delmas, had warned Paul Aussaresses: “Do you know what you risk in entering the special services?”

“Yes, my captain, I risk being killed.”

“My poor sir, when you are killed, you are relieved, because you may be tortured before you are blown away. Torture, you see, is less merciful than death.”

Captain Paul Aussaresses subsequently was briefed by the Chief of Police of Algiers, in 1955.

“Imagine for an instant that you are opposed to the concept of torture and you arrest someone who is clearly implicated in the preparation of a terrorist attack. The suspect refuses to talk. You do not insist. A particularly murderous attack is launched. What will you say to the parents of the victims, to the parents of an infant, for example, mutilated by the bomb to justify the fact that you did not utilize all means to make the suspect talk?”

"I would not like to find myself in such a situation,

2

When I have a chance, TC, I’ll try to dig up an article I came across in which a French general defended (in the late '90’s, I think) the use of torture in Algeria. It’s relevant and possibly enlightening.

Let me adapt a quotation from your post and ask for your own considered response.

[quote]“Imagine for an instant that you are opposed to the concept of torture and you arrest someone who is clearly implicated in the preparation of a terrorist attack. The suspect refuses to talk. You do not insist. A particularly murderous attack is launched. What will you say to the parents of the victims, to the parents of an infant, for example, mutilated by the bomb to justify the fact that you did not utilize all means to make the suspect talk?”

"I would not like to find myself in such a situation,

3

There is a time for torture and that is when there is absolutely no question that the person you are torturing is guilty as sin AND has the information you seek. The method of torture however should not be one that gives the torturers a chance to act out their perverse fantasies, sexual or otherwise.

Saddam Husein would be a good candidate for torture. IMHO they should put methadone in his water or food and when he is sufficiently addicted start charging him for it until he has no more useful information to give.

4

Do you want to be the one to do it, bob? To be the one who stands over him, watching the withdrawal agony, for hours on end, day after day? What do you think will happen, will you first develop a degree of sympathy for the now miserable wretch on the floor, or a taste for the music of his screams? Let me know, and leave me out of it.

5

[quote=“Jaboney”]Let me adapt a quotation from your post and ask for your own considered response. [quote]“Imagine for an instant that you are opposed to the concept of torture and you arrest someone who is clearly implicated in the preparation of a terrorist attack. The suspect refuses to talk. You do not insist. A particularly murderous attack is launched. What will you say to the parents of the victims, to the parents of an infant, for example, mutilated by the bomb to justify the fact that you did not utilize all means to make the suspect talk?”
"I would not like to find myself in such a situation,

6

“Terrorism” – or the wanton slaughter of enemy non-combatants to demoralize and weaken an enemy – is nothing new except in the fevered minds of the historically illiterate. It’s as old as humanity.

Only the advent of civilization with its moral philosophy and scientific rationalism caused terrorism to wane as an accepted tool of warfare because it eventually became clear to the just and wise that the price to be paid for the undeniable utilitarianism of bestiality in all its forms – torture, terror, genocide, wanton killing – was to inevitably become a beast oneself completely indistinguishable from one’s worst enemy and completely devoid of any substantial moral arguments against its use.

Those who argue that we should revert to medieval codes as if they’ve discovered some new principle of self-defense will just condemn us to repeat the worst and darkest chapters of human history.

7

If the end result was that we got back the money he stole and it was used to educate and feed people, no problemo.

I’d do it in a heartbeat.

What I said originally was that it be used in cases where it is ABSOLUTELY certain that a person has the information you need. I would add that the torture should also be carried out in the open, not in some dungeon where the public has no access.

What happened in Graib and in Afganistan, and what is probably happening in half a dozen detention centers still, was wrong because of the way it was done and because a good percentage of the people it was done to were either innocent or had no useful information anyway.

It’s a class issue. The poor are rounded up like cattle and subjected to the most degrading, abusive, at times murderous behaviour at the hands of inept rookies and Saddam sits in a nice safe cell and is given a chance to argue his case before a court of law. They say that it important that he be given a fair trial so the Iraqis cab get a taste of the rule of law. If this is so true why is it that so many detainees are not given any legal recourse whatsoever?

8

Sorry, TC, I do make leaps sometimes. The observation is: terrible things sometimes need to be done in defense of finer things. The question is: at what point do the terrors done destroy the good which they are meant to preserve?

Rousseau, philosophe, believed that all men were good by nature but corrupted by society. More, he held that “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.” The only solution, for Rousseau, was to compel men to be free.

My first concern (the dangers posed by the guardians to the regime) belong to Plato. Rousseau’s dictum was popular with the more reprehensible communist regimes of the last century, and equally ill-applied by extreme rightwing and fascist regimes. The relevant thinkers are often lumped together in poli-sci texts with titles like “Totalitarianism from Plato to Arendt”. The real relevance is expressed by McCain’s assertion: “It’s not about them, it’s about us.” It’s about whether or not torture is permissable under any circumstances, and it’s about the dangerous slippery slope once you admit the use of such methods for any reason whatsoever.

Btw, what’s your anecdote about Renny Decarte and a stove in Phil 101? It rings a bell but it’s not coming to me.

And yes, Camus did write quite a lot about Algeira. He was, afterall, Algerian. Showed that ancient myths can still dance and sing, even while discussing politics. Great, great writer. Too bad he ended up being such a rightwing boob that the CIA went to work promoting his stuff as an acceptable alternative to Sartre’s. Personally, I prefer Camus anyways.

bob, I salute your honesty and call for openness, even though your solution makes my skin crawl. Torture to prevent, say, a nuclear attack is bad enough. Torture to recover stolen money? What’s the least serious crime for which you would allow torture?

9

Money might not seem like a very noble rational for torture to us but to a lot of people money is the difference between life and death. Anyway like I said it should be used very very seldom but when it is used it should be in situations where the truth of the information can be verified and where the person being tortured is guilty as illustrated by the public record. Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, Cheny…

10

[quote=“bob”]"… where the truth of the information can be verified and where the person being tortured is guilty as illustrated by the public record. Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, Cheny…[/quote]So much for credibility…got proof? :wanker:

…oh wait…now I get it…“Cheny”…its a convienent mis-spelling that allows it to be interpreted as some less-than-well-known Chechen warlord and not Dick Cheney if you get called to back up the allegation…uh…yeah…thats the ticket…

11

I thought that you wanted this to be a thread of serious discussion?

12

Actually Cheney was more in the way of a joke but whatever, with a bit of research he probably could be added to my list.

By the way TC the …uh…yeah…blah blah routine is getting stale. If you have actually read my posts so far, and still think I’m a moron, do me a favor and put me on ignore would you?

13

[quote=“bob”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]…“Cheny”…its a convienent mis-spelling that allows it to be interpreted as some less-than-well-known Chechen warlord and not Dick Cheney if you get called to back up the allegation…uh…yeah…thats the ticket…[/quote]Actually Cheney was more in the way of a joke but whatever, with a bit of research he probably could be added to my list.
By the way TC the …uh…yeah…blah blah routine is getting stale. If you have actually read my posts so far, and still think I’m a moron, do me a favor and put me on ignore would you?[/quote]tsk tsk bob…they are quite the opposite…those quips are fresh, ethusiastic encouragements to highlight the comments to which they are directed!
Its only right to encourage people to not slip into the dull, pedantic, self-absorbed rut of parroting the same mantra over and over.
Just tryin’ to help a brotha out… :slight_smile: :wink: :rainbow:

And btw, I am on the side of opposing torture of prisoners. Records have shown that any short-term gains are offset by the debilitating effect on morale of those who do the torturing. That and the fact that people being tortured will make up anything to stop the pain.
The caveat in this is the occasional need for immediate info dumps. Torture may elicit this info, but a well-established intel net can usually, and I say this with limits, provide the same information in a more detailed manner. A common limit to this is the presence of blind cells on the part of the terrs, i.e., one group having no knowledge of the actions, or even the existence, of another terr group. This, along with the multitude of basically non-co-operating terr groups, is more and more the norm.
So in cases like this there may simply not be any immediate intel available from the terr in custody.
Torture then becomes self-defeating.

14

History teaches that the ultimate weapon is moral authority. It emboldens, unites and converts where cruelty demoralizes, sows suspicions and repulses.

Its effects aren’t as immediate as those of cruelty but its innate superiority has been proven time and again.

15

I read the whole article and found Aussaresses to be exactly what the writer tried to deny: a monster. He assassinated his victims after torture. Were there no prisons they could be sent to?

Particularly galling was his claim that no innocents or children were tortured. Sure. And why would we believe that? In the first place, how would he know if someone was innocent as he relied simpy on his own judgment? This is one of the problems with accepting torture as a means of extracting information? How do you know that the person the CIA or the French secret service has caught is really quilty? People will say anything under torture and they may even be right sometimes by accident. Did Aussaresses keep careful records of his tortures and when they revealed positive info and when they did not? I doubt it.

The situation in Algeria could be described as similar to what is happening in Iraq. It can also be described as similar to what was happening in many poor neigborhoods in the US during the crack years. High murder rates, neighborhoods under seige. And yet, we did resort to torture to solve this. Why not?

Why don’t we kidnap and torture the children of Mafioso to reveal where their fathers are hiding or simpy to flush our their fathers so they can themselves be tortured to reveal their crimes? I see no reason to accept torture in war if we are not going to accept it at home to keep the peace and safety of society.

In recent weeks a number of editorials have come out in favor of torturing especially when there is a ticking time bomb scenario. Of course such scenarios are extremely rare and resorting to torture may in fact be counterproductive in the long run. You may save a hundred now but a further thousand may perish because your actions have prolonged the conflict and emboldened the enemy.

In any case, if you agree with torturing when large numbers are at risk, how far are you willing to go with this? Sure, most people can countenance toruring some foreigner in a cell far away but what if it was your sister or niece who needed to be tortured?

Imagine this: your sister marries a Muslim. He is suspected of being a terrorist involved with a plot to set off a bomb in a city. Your sister thinks this is nonsense and refuses to say where he is. The CIA decides to torture her. She refuses to say anything. So they decide to torture her daughter in front of her to get her to break down. It works, the mother talks, the father is caught, and the plot foiled.

Apologists for torture must be willing to accept the torture of their own family and friends (innocent as they may be) if they believe we have a duty to use torture to protect a large number of lives.

16

These are conditions under which I would accept the practice of torture:

  1. When the person being tortured is known beyond any doubt to be guilty. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are good examples.

  2. When it is known that they have information that could be used to save lives.

  3. When the torture is conducted not in secrecy but in full view of a regulating body who would report to the public.

  4. When the torture is not gratuitous but result oriented and when the results can be checked.

Societies take away people’s lives, they incarcerate people when necessary but the decision to do so is made openly and with full deliberation. In extreme circumstances societies might also be justified in torture.

17

[quote=“bob”]These are conditions under which I would accept the practice of torture:

  1. When the person being tortured is known beyond any doubt to be guilty. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are good examples.

  2. When it is known that they have information that could be used to save lives.

  3. When the torture is conducted not in secrecy but in full view of a regulating body who would report to the public.

  4. When the torture is not gratuitous but result oriented and when the results can be checked.

Societies take away people’s lives, they incarcerate people when necessary but the decision to do so is made openly and with full deliberation. In extreme circumstances societies might also be justified in torture.[/quote]

So would you accept the torturing of members of your own society, gang members, mafioso, serial murderers, etc, if it would save lives? Where does this end for you?

How many lives are enough to justify torture for you? And why stop or start at this arbritrary number?

In any situation where we know someone is quilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then we must have already tried them, and have been holding them in captivityfor some time. At which point they are unlikely to still have an actionable information to give that could save lives. Do you think Hussein has any evidence to give now that could save lives? Do you think OBL would after he had been in prison for months and tried in a court of law?

18
19

Yup.

I know there are gaps in my logic here. A person needs to go through a fair and honest trial before being judged “absolutely” guilty but someone like Osama Bin Laden has already proclaimed his guilt basically no? If they caught him tomorow I’ll bet he would have all kinds of useful info about where to find other Al Qaeda memebers. The same goes for Husein except from what I understand it’s the money they could get out of him. Why should anybody in Iraq be suffering any sort of want when that bastard has a mountain of money stored away somewhere? Why not get him addicted to methadone and then start charging him for it. Charging him A LOT. Saddam has certainly has certainly done worse things to people.

Lets take another case say for example of someone who happens to be the only person who knows the wherabouts of a child locked away somewhere. Somewhere she is likely to die. In a situation like that society should step up and take responsibility for doing what is necessary. Torture should be neither secretive nor gratuitous.

One.

20

Yup.

I know there are gaps in my logic here. A person needs to go through a fair and honest trial before being judged “absolutely” guilty but someone like Osama Bin Laden has already proclaimed his guilt basically no? If they caught him tomorow I’ll bet he would have all kinds of useful info about where to find other Al Qaeda memebers. The same goes for Husein except from what I understand it’s the money they could get out of him. Why should anybody in Iraq be suffering any sort of want when that bastard has a mountain of money stored away somewhere? Why not get him addicted to methadone and then start charging him for it. Charging him A LOT. Saddam has certainly has certainly done worse things to people.

Lets take another case say for example of someone who happens to be the only person who knows the wherabouts of a child locked away somewhere. Somewhere she is likely to die. In a situation like that society should step up and take responsibility for doing what is necessary. Torture should be neither secretive nor gratuitous.

One.[/quote]

So again, would you torture the person’s wife or child to extract that info, or to flush someone out? Would you accept this if the one to be tortured was your sister or you even?