A moral question on torture

[Farnan]

Here is the situation: a combat unit is operating in country x. On an almost daily basis the unit is attacked by enemy roadside bombs. One day they manage to capture one of the enemy that is planting the bombs, and bring them in front of their commander. While there the commander tries to question the enemy about who else is planting the bombs but goes no where. Knowing that everyday spent questioning this guy puts more and more of his soldiers in danger he orders his troops to rough up the enemy, and after that fails to work, fires a pistol next to the enemy's head to scare him. This works and he reveals the names of the compatriots who are quickly apprehended. Due to this action the unit lost no more soldiers to roadside bombs.

Was the commander justified?

(This action happened in real life, and the commander was LTC Allen West: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/)

[Thanatos]

Of course he was.

Nobody willingly gives up information, give me a break.

[Irishman]

No he was not justified. (First I must point out that I believe the modern occupation of "soldier" is an immoral job in the first place).

First, the issue with torture is it is not reliable, and one can never be sure he or she is not torturing an innocent person.

Second, it is easy to view the opposition in Iraq as "terrorist (what war isn't)" or to view the fighters fighting the Americans as evil, but the truth is, they are not. They cannot use traditional weapons to fight a foreign invader, so they use guerilla tactics. It has been used by underdogs in wars (including America) for as long as war has been around. Because of this, these men deserve the same respect you would expect of a US POW. Thus, anything you would find atrocious to be done to one of your soldiers, should not be done to them, even by non-pacifist standards.

Honestly I don’t think anyone of them are justified as they are using violence and terrorism to obtain a goal. Every military party in Iraq right now is terroristic to some degree.

I find it interesting that you talk about the "enemy" in very biased and inhuman terms. The "enemy" rather than the prisoner.

The American soldiers are no better than the other combatants in Iraq, and have a higher body count on their side. It doesn't matter whether you set a bomb in a metal tube on the side of the road, or you launch one from a thousand miles away, the action is just as cowardly, just as immoral.

[Sleeper]

First, the issue with torture is it is not reliable, and one can never be sure he or she is not torturing an innocent person.

What if the person admits to their guilt, you have more than one videotape in different formats which clearly show the person committing the "guilty" act, and 200,000 witnesses who all identified the person entirely independently of one another and the videotapes.

Also, you saw the person commit the guilty act yourself.

In that case, or just in the case of the last sentence, how can you not be sure the person is not innocent?

[Thanatos]

Wait, Irishman, so... what do we do then?

[Farnan]

I'm not talking about Iraq here, I'm talking in general which is why I said country x.

[Irishman]

I'm not talking about Iraq here, I'm talking in general which is why I said country x.

Sorry, didn't see that. Though, everything I said in the context in Iraq stands for other situations.

Wait, Irishman, so... what do we do then?

What do you mean? I think not killing people is a good start!

In that case, or just in the case of the last sentence, how can you not be sure the person is not innocent?

Even then, you still have the fact that torture is inhumane and utterly barbaraic practice which is not justifiable in the modern world. Not to mention it is the LEAST reliable form of interrogation.

[Thanatos]

What do you mean? I think not killing people is a good start!

No, no, what I'm trying to say is that you are in a war zone. It really is kill or be killed.

For the purpose of this discussion, let's just say that withdrawal is not an option for whatever reason.

If you were there, and were stuck there, and you needed information, how would you get it from a person that you know is against your side?

And quickly?

[Scar Face]

What the OP needs to define is what exactly "roughing up" is. That really is an important variable...

[Farnan]

What the OP needs to define is what exactly "roughing up" is. That really is an important variable...

Roughing up - Beat up using fists with damage equivalent to a normal fist fight.

[Sleeper]

Even then, you still have the fact that torture is inhumane and utterly barbaraic practice which is not justifiable in the modern world. Not to mention it is the LEAST reliable form of interrogation.

It is not the LEAST reliable, setting someone free and hoping they tell you out of good will is less reliable off the top of my head.

Inhumane is like the word unnatural. They both are based on the premise that something that exists somehow shouldn't.

Barbarism is always justifiable, which is why I spend money on things for myself that I don't need, which is barbarous considering I know children are starving in my very own community.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Completely justified. The bomber was acting immorally by trying to kill the soldiers, the commander wanted to protect the lives of his troops (and possibly innocents) that could be killed.

[Irishman]

If you were there, and were stuck there, and you needed information, how would you get it from a person that you know is against your side?

First of all, lets point out that this is not a situation of kill or be killed. This is a situation of commit atrocities to lessen your chance of dying.

Again, this is one of the reasons I am strictly against the use of military force and members of the modern western military.

Even if I were drafted, (and denied objector status) I would refuse to use or train with my weapon, because I believe that soldiers are responsible for putting themselves into kill or be killed situations.

I am not saying that voilence is never necessary, but modern militaries do not allow for it to be a last resort.

The bomber was acting immorally by trying to kill the soldiers, the commander wanted to protect the lives of his troops (and possibly innocents) that could be killed.

That is the most biased crap Ive heared in a while! How is this different than what the bombers could say. They are simply soldiers trying to kill invaders. Both sides are combatants, and your argument works equally well for both sides.

[Sleeper]

Even if I were drafted, (and denied objector status) I would refuse to use or train with my weapon, because I believe that soldiers are responsible for putting themselves into kill or be killed situations.

Even if you were drafted into a national defense force, or a community defense force to fight an occupying army absolutely intent on committing genocide against your people.

I would love to live in a world where violence is not the most likely answer, but I don't, and pretending something will never make it so. You can thank humanity and nature for that.

[Pontifex Maximus]

First of all, lets point out that this is not a situation of kill or be killed. This is a situation of commit atrocities to lessen your chance of dying.

Again, this is one of the reasons I am strictly against the use of military force and members of the modern western military.

Even if I were drafted, (and denied objector status) I would refuse to use or train with my weapon, because I believe that soldiers are responsible for putting themselves into kill or be killed situations.

I am not saying that voilence is never necessary, but modern militaries do not allow for it to be a last resort.


That is the most biased crap Ive heared in a while! How is this different than what the bombers could say. They are simply soldiers trying to kill invaders. Both sides are combatants, and your argument works equally well for both sides.

Assuming the bomber is an insurgent/terrorist, in which case you are defending a terrorist...(thats gonna be popular)

[Burnum]

It makes America look like hypocrites. Imagine the outrage if this happened too an American soldiers.

[Farnan]

It makes America look like hypocrites. Imagine the outrage if this happened too an American soldiers.

Huh?

Worse has already happened, American soldiers have been taken and then there mutilated bodies found later.

[Burnum]

Huh?

Worse has already happened, American soldiers have been taken and then there mutilated bodies found later.

Yes, and by torturing they're hypocrites. I find disgusting that America preaches liberty, but then goes and torture people.

[HopliteElite]

The whole topic requires only a very simple exercise of role reversal. Imagine Iraq is the world power and invades America because a terrorist organization based out of Canada was reponsible for the bombing of a large mosque in Iraq. Of course, Iraq invaded Canada first but the crafty Canadian who masterminded the attack escaped to Mexico (presumably) which happens to be an ally of Iraq, which precludes an attack there. So, naturally, Iraq decides to attack America, which, for the sake of imagination, is loaded with oil and run by a man that once supposedly tried to kill the father of the current leader of Iraq. Ok, so now we have a scenario to work with.

Now imagine that Iraq nearly completely destroyed New York City then launched a land invasion. They are technologically superior in every way shape and form. So, naturally, being proud Americans, we (if you are an American) try to defend our homes and flag in the only ways we can; essentially by laying traps and ambushes, much like we did to the British in the American Revolution. Of course, our fighting men are going to be captured, as happens in war, and the Iraqis decide to waterboard them for information, "rough them up" and even put them in humiliating situations, amongst other torture tactics.

As an American, under such circumstances, I'd be disgusted and want to murder as many Iraqis as possible if my countrymen were being treated as such just because they dared to oppose an invading force. For this reason, I do not believe in torturing, in any way, Iraqi pows, because they are just men trying to defend their homes, their families and whats left of their country. This does not mean, in any way, that I somehow support Iraq, but I do support their rights as men because I would hope an invading force would support our rights as men if the scenario were turned around in the way I write about above.

[Irishman]

Assuming the bomber is an insurgent/terrorist, in which case you are defending a terrorist...(thats gonna be popular)

Both sides are terrorists, they are combatants.

Remember, (In the case of Iraq) who has the higher body count? Who invaded in the first place?

Both the US and Iraqi freedom fighters (jk- thought I would show some bias too) are terrorist, and I condemn both.

I would love to live in a world where violence is not the most likely answer, but I don't, and pretending something will never make it so. You can thank humanity and nature for that.

Perhaps someday you will realize that violence is not an answer, perhaps not. It takes a rather far sighted approach to realize the ramifications of war.

Even if you were drafted into a national defense force, or a community defense force to fight an occupying army absolutely intent on committing genocide against your people.

I did not say I would not resist.