The Case for Enhanced Interrogation

[_Kishkumen]

On another question, does God cause famines to occur? Is he not therefore a "torturer"? Isn't starving someone to death torture?

OMG. Unbelievable. Please, keep sharing thoughts like these with all of the lurkers out there. One hardly needs to criticize the LDS Church with people like you condemning it by your manifest stupidity. God the torturer. Brilliant.

[_truth dancer]

I think you answered your own question of certainty with your simplest answer, that of simple revenge or in other words, justice.

Justice = revenge?

Wow!

You are talking about known and dedicated jihad warriors (some of whom have caved to "torture" and provided answers) who by definition, deserve such treatment simply because it's part of their own philosophy on how to treat others.

Didn't we sort of let go of the whole eye for an eye thing?

On another question, does God cause famines to occur? Is he not therefore a "torturer"? Isn't starving someone to death torture?

BC, are you saying God is a torturer? That God starves people to death?



In terms of the OP question, I suppose a LDS believer has the answer... better that one may die than a nation dwindle in unbelief. Maybe terrorists hold a similar view? Better that innocent people die than infidels take over the world? Or, if we go with BC's ideas, better to starve 10,000,000 children to death each year than, ummm, hmm, not sure why God would want to torture children.


~td~

[_beastie]

Before this topic can be discussed meaningful, it must be irrefutably demonstrated that torture actually works in producing reliable information, AND it must be shown that information could not have been obtained without said torture.

If these two conditions cannot be met, it should be obvious why torture is immoral.

[_Kishkumen]

Before this topic can be discussed meaningful, it must be irrefutably demonstrated that torture actually works in producing reliable information, AND it must be shown that information could not have been obtained without said torture.

It is not clear to me that either Drippy or headcase really care whether torture is effective. They are simply waiting for the green-light situation so they can indulge themselves, like the people who fantasize about fornication or adultery in a certain, imminent death scenario. Except, in this case, the fantasy is far more disturbing. More of a Saw film scenario.

[_Uncle Dale]

I think you answered your own question of certainty with your simplest answer, that of simple revenge or in other words, justice.

Perhaps you are correct -- up to that point, at least.

You call my mother a nasty name, so I crush your gonads in a
controlled manner -- inflicting the greatest pain possible. Since
my only motive is revenge, all I need to accomplish is the torture
itself, in order to arrive at the desired end.

What might "go wrong" in such a procedure? Perhaps it wasn't
you who made the bad remark -- so I might mistakenly torture
an innocent person. Or -- if I am not am expertly trained torturer,
I may accidentally kill you, in the process of inflicting the pain.

But -- all of that is "small potatoes" compared to the two more
"enhanced" reasons for torture -- we must both admit.

You are talking about known and dedicated jihad warriors (some of whom have caved to "torture" and provided answers) who by definition, deserve such treatment simply because it's part of their own philosophy on how to treat others.

Now we are getting on the proper ground to discuss "level two" --
torturing opponents (or suspected opponents) whom we really do
not want to kill. We just want to dissuade them from future activity
we do not approve of. So, if you and I, as Latter Day Saints, pull
out the fingernails and rupture spinal disks in a Jihadi whom we
oppose -- will that inflicting of great pain and bodily injury truly
dissuade him from future terrorist acts against "our people?"

Perhaps so -- but I fear that we'll just create a greater problem among
his associates and relatives, who will begin plotting revenge against
us and "our people."

On another question, does God cause famines to occur? Is he not therefore a "torturer"? Isn't starving someone to death torture?

Now we are ready to discuss "level three" -- inflicting great pain,
bodily injury and horrible death upon a person, in order to gain some
information from him/her.

Perhaps your torturing me to death, by roasting me over a fire, will
indeed induce me to tell you the secret combination to my hidden
wall safe. But, perhaps not.

You may try the combination I provide you with, and it may not work.
Or, you may simply administer a polygraph test, while you are roasting
me over the fire -- to try and determine whether I am giving you true
information. In any case, you will have destroyed any incentive on my
part to willingly cooperate with you.

My relatives may still hunt you down and execute you gangland style.

Anybody who previously admired you, for being a righteous member of
God's kingdom, living out the Gospel of Jesus, may turn away from you.

I think that in order to properly torture me -- to get reliable information,
I must know you are willing to "go all the way." Show that you have no
moral restraints whatsoever.

I think you must also be an expert at your work. In other words, before
you are hired to torture suspected terrorists and other enemies, I
think you should demonstrate your credentials -- provide documentation
of your high level of training, abilities and results as a torturer.

Would the topmost leaders of the LDS Church approve your receiving
such training and experience? If so, where would that tenet of religion
fit in, among the First Principles of the Gospel?

UD

[_Droopy]

So far, as per usual, Scratch, Kishkumen, Merc, and Uncle Dale have recused themselves from serious intellectual discourse at the outset.

All well and good...and expected. I will only respond to one point Scratch made here:

First of all, Kishkumen (as far as I know) did not ask you to provide a philosophical justification for torture. He asked you if you had one specifically for waterboarding.

A quick cursory perusal of attitudes expressed both here and at MAD, including the recent thread from which Mola Ram, bc, and myself weer excused, will show that the claim has explicitly been made be a number of people, including our own Nehor, that water boarding is torture. This has also been the position of virtually the entire political and cultural Left since this knowledge became public. My questions speak to both it and the broader question of using whatever means necessary to extract information given certain consequences of not extracting it.

As to Scratch's other concerns, applying philosophical questions to practical and personal life is, ultimately, the only thing that legitimizes the practice and discipline of philosophy itself. Let's take a look again at the only three people (little darlings that they are) actually waterboarded and their background, from the NY Post article I linked to:

One was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, "the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks" according to the 9/11 Commission report, and the head of al Qaeda's "military committee." Linked to numerous terror plots, he is believed to have financed the first World Trade Center bombing, helped set up the courier system that resulted in the infamous Bali bombing, and cut off Danny Pearl's head.

A second was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the head of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf. He allegedly played a role in the 2000 millennium terror plots and was the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack, which killed 17 Americans.

The third was Abu Zubaydah, said to be Osama bin Laden's top man after Ayman al Zawahri and al Qaeda's chief logistics operative. It is believed that Zubaydah essentially ran al Qaeda's terror camps and recruitment operations.

After he was waterboarded, Zubaydah reportedly offered intelligence officers a treasure trove of critical information. He was waterboarded just six months after the 9/11 attacks and while the anthrax scare was still ongoing.

Now, what chance would there be that people this well placed would not have significant information? And, if we know that further attacks are or, I think legitimately, may be underway, the moral conflict and trade off then presents itself. Do we waterboard (or go even further than this if waterboarding (although, given the effectiveness of the technique, this seems unlikely) does not avail), and ignore the moral implications of this, or do we not waterboard, and ignore the moral implications of not doing so and missing the chance to stop atrocities from happening?

Thanks to all so far who have posted serious, thoughtful responses.

[_Droopy]

OMG. Unbelievable. Please, keep sharing thoughts like these with all of the lurkers out there. One hardly needs to criticize the LDS Church with people like you condemning it by your manifest stupidity. God the torturer. Brilliant.

Please, please, will you and Scratch just recuse youselves from the discussion, and let those interested in serious, intellectually substantive exploration of the subject do so in peace?

Just sit on the sidelines in you dunce caps and observe.

[_Droopy]

Loran, so how would you as a member of the LDS Church reply to the questions and issues you have proposed? Would moral relativism tend to be the deciding factor?

There is no moral relativism involved. I am not implying that morality is relative, but only that it is hierarchal.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
There is no moral relativism involved. I am not implying that morality is relative, but only that it is hierarchal.

OK then -- let's skip all the philosophizing and go to the very top of
"the hierarchy" of human morality, to obtain our answers.

It's 1857 and Brigham Young has captured an officer of the approaching
Johnston's Army of federal troops, sent to subdue Utah Territory. It is
widely feared that these troops will soon be raping Mormon women and
killing Mormon men. Preliminary intelligence warns of a surprise attack
coming through the unguarded canyons of Iron County.

Under what circumstances would Brigham Young righteously authorize
the application of torture to the captured Gentile enemy?

Or....

It's 1838 and Joseph Smith has captured a scout of the approaching
Missouri militia, sent to subdue Far West. It is widely feared that these
troops will soon be raping Mormon women and killing Mormon men.
Preliminary intelligence warns of an incendiary cannon attack imminent
upon the largely unprotected northern barricades of the town.

Under what circumstances would Joseph Smith righteously authorize
the application of torture to the captured Gentile enemy?

UD

[_Doctor Scratch]

As to Scratch's other concerns, applying philosophical questions to practical and personal life is, ultimately, the only thing that legitimizes the practice and discipline of philosophy itself.

For actual, real, professional philosphers, I'm sure that's (largely) the case, Loran. But you are none of those things. Maybe you took Intro to Basic Philosophy as an undergrad, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in, since your logic is virtually always seriously flawed, as if you perpetually want to treat complex, real-world problems as if they are episodes of 24, or if they are mind-numbingly simplistic little thought experiments.

Let's take a look again at the only three people (little darlings that they are) actually waterboarded and their background, from the NY Post article I linked to:

One was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, "the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks" according to the 9/11 Commission report, and the head of al Qaeda's "military committee." Linked to numerous terror plots, he is believed to have financed the first World Trade Center bombing, helped set up the courier system that resulted in the infamous Bali bombing, and cut off Danny Pearl's head.

A second was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the head of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf. He allegedly played a role in the 2000 millennium terror plots and was the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack, which killed 17 Americans.

The third was Abu Zubaydah, said to be Osama bin Laden's top man after Ayman al Zawahri and al Qaeda's chief logistics operative. It is believed that Zubaydah essentially ran al Qaeda's terror camps and recruitment operations.

After he was waterboarded, Zubaydah reportedly offered intelligence officers a treasure trove of critical information. He was waterboarded just six months after the 9/11 attacks and while the anthrax scare was still ongoing.

Now, what chance would there be that people this well placed would not have significant information? And, if we know that further attacks are or, I think legitimately, may be underway, the moral conflict and trade off then presents itself. Do we waterboard (or go even further than this if waterboarding (although, given the effectiveness of the technique, this seems unlikely) does not avail), and ignore the moral implications of this, or do we not waterboard, and ignore the moral implications of not doing so and missing the chance to stop atrocities from happening?

Before you can even get to that question, you need to establish that waterboarding and/or other forms of "enhanced interrogation" are necessary to procure the information. You haven't done that yet, and so your argument is still dead in the water.

Thanks to all so far who have posted serious, thoughtful responses.

The other people who responded were Gadianton, Moksha, BC, TD, and Beastie, and you didn't address any of the points they raised, and even if you did, you would still need to deal with the basic problems raised by myself, Rev. Kishkumen, and UD. You got *two* substantive replies from UD, but just because you didn't get your butt kissed, you are crying about how it's not "serious intellectual discourse," or whatever else. Give me a break. Go read up on Logic 101 and come back when you actually have a well-though-out argument for once. Or, you can sit back and repeat your old mantra about how, since you believe in the Gospel, you don't need something so lame as logic.