Is rape and torture of a terrorist's family ever justified?

[Count of Montesano]

There's an interesting op-ed that ran in the Independent last week defending the use of torture to prevent terrorist attacks. This is a viewpoint shared by many Americans, and while I disagree with the use of torture I have very little sympathy for terrorists trying to kill my countrymen.

But the writer - Bruce Anderson - takes the argument one step further. He argues that it would be entirely justifiable for the American or British governments to rape a suspected terrorist's wife or torture and kill his children if it would mean breaking the terrorist's will to resist interrogation. That's where I think modern society must draw the line. I can't think of any scenario - even the ticking time bomb scenario - that would make it morally acceptable to torture and kill innocents. It's the equivalent of soldiers using civilians as shields or going on a raping and murder spree like what happened during the May Lai massacre in Vietnam. Such things should never be permitted.

Yet Anderson is able to point to history to show how that such tactics worked for the Nazis, the Romans, and the Mongols.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Up sprang Sydney Kentridge, one of the great liberals of our age and a fearless defender of unpopular causes, from Nelson Mandela in the old South Africa to fox-hunting in modern Britain. I prepared to receive incoming fire. It came, in the form of a devilish intellectual challenge. "Let's take your hypothesis a bit further. We have captured a terrorist, but he is a hardened character. We cannot be certain that he will crack in time. We have also captured his wife and children".

After much agonising, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one answer to Sydney's question. Torture the wife and children. It is a disgusting idea. It is almost a tragedy that we even have to discuss it, let alone think of acting upon it. But there is nothing to be gained from refusing to face facts, in the way that the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuburger, did last week. His Lordship wrapped himself in a cloak of self-righteousness, traduced an entire security service, showed no understanding of the courage which its officers routinely display: no understanding, indeed, of anything beyond courtroom niceties.

There is a threat not only to individual lives, which is of minor importance, but to our way of life and our civilisation. Torture is revolting, but we cannot substitute aesthetics for thought.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...y-1899555.html

[Gauvin]

Torture works, unfortunately, whenever someone says it doesn't work, they are thinking of torture when it's used to extract a confession, but there's no doubt torture works as a means to extract information from people who have it and are uncooperative. Although, just because it works doesn't necessarily mean that it should be allowed.

I don't see where he says rape would be justified in the article, I can't imagine this ever being used as a method of torture, but what about waterboarding? Since everyone seems to consider this torture, would it be justified, considering the minimal risks associated with it, to extract information which could potentially save thousands of lives? We seem to forget that in all the bruhaha about Khalid Sheik Mohammed being waterboarded, that he proudly boasts about committing 9\11; the crushing and burning to death; and asphyxiation of around 3000 people. There's no doubt, many of those people had slow and painful deaths, and that they paled in comparaison to anything inflicted on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. If attacks like those on 9\11 could be prevented again by pouring water up a terrorist's nose, would you do it? Remember, you risk nothing by saying no, but really imagine you are the one responsible, and that it's your job to protect the people, and save their lives.

I see he's taking a utilitarian approach, in his thinking if you could ease the suffering of the many through the suffering of one, than you've done a good overall. The other position which is easy, is the sort of Kantian one, that we won't torture no matter what, because it is wrong, even if it would save the lives of 50 000 000 people, torturing someone is wrong and cannot be done. It's similar in logic to believing, as some Christians do, that lying is a sin, no matter what...

What surprises me is that most people who make that argument understand and usually agree with shooting down airliners who have been hijacked and pose a risk to a city or town. They recognize that 100 people will be killed in order to save perhaps a thousand, and that in my mind, seems much worse than waterboarding for reasons that should be obvious. But, by opposing waterboarding they are taking the most popular, or at least fashionable position, and risk nothing, since they bear no responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

[Fiyenyaa]

Torture works, unfortunately, whenever someone says it doesn't work, they are thinking of torture when it's used to extract a confession, but there's no doubt torture works as a means to extract information from people who have it and are uncooperative. Although, just because it works doesn't necessarily mean that it should be allowed.

Torture may extract information out of people - whether it is in any way accurate or relevant is another matter.

[kesa82]

I don't see where he says rape would be justified in the article, I can't imagine this ever being used as a method of torture,

just a note. Yes it was used by the NKVD. How it works ? Well, some people just won't break if you torture them. They won't even break if you torture their grandma.
But threaten to throw their daughter in the rapist cell block, and they will sign a confession that they tried to kill Santa Klaus.

[Captain Jin]

No, I don't think there's any excusable reason to torture wife and family of a captured terrorist. Certainly not rape, under ANY circumstances. While I'm not so idealistic as to think that doing something like waterboarding particular personnel under very strict circumstances I don't necessarily think it's a good thing and I really don't find any reason to allow that to family members of said person.

[Nimthill]

Why is rape so much worse than torture? I can imagine many things worse than rape done to me to be honest.

The point of the matter remains that it is uncertain whether torture is effective or not. If there is a slight chance that it might yield the information that is pivotal to save many lives, there are some justifications for using torture. Whether or not it is completely acceptable strongly depends on the circumstances.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

Why is rape so much worse than torture? I can imagine many things worse than rape done to me to be honest.

The point of the matter remains that it is uncertain whether torture is effective or not. If there is a slight chance that it might yield the information that is pivotal to save many lives, there are some justifications for using torture. Whether or not it is completely acceptable strongly depends on the circumstances.

rape doesit do anything. a bit like the mongols in china, there just getting there sick kick.

[Poet]

There is no lawful reason to torture a terrorist even, it is evil ab initio. And raping his wife? wow only terrorists can give such ideas, what is the fault of his wife or his family?

[removeduser_487563287433]

No!

[Manco]

Torture works, unfortunately, whenever someone says it doesn't work, they are thinking of torture when it's used to extract a confession, but there's no doubt torture works as a means to extract information from people who have it and are uncooperative. Although, just because it works doesn't necessarily mean that it should be allowed.

And what guarantee do you have the information he gives is anywhere near correct?

The often used example of ' a bomb is set to explode within the hour and that terrorist knows where it is. Would you torture him to find the location of the bomb?' forgets a very important detail. If you were a truly committed terrorist you'd simply give false information, that way they'll waste time acting on that false information and the bomb will explode regardless.

As for raping a terrorist's family members, people who consider that a viable tactic should never be allowed to come in a position where they could make such decisions.

[Gauvin]

And what guarantee do you have the information he gives is anywhere near correct?

The often used example of ' a bomb is set to explode within the hour and that terrorist knows where it is. Would you torture him to find the location of the bomb?' forgets a very important detail. If you were a truly committed terrorist you'd simply give false information, that way they'll waste time acting on that false information and the bomb will explode regardless.

And pampering him, and giving him time to consult a lawyer would increase your chances of finding it? I mean, I think I share the idealism many of you have, but we have the luxury of not having the responsbility, and not being in this situation.

There is no incentive to give false information under torture, because when it's found out you gave false information you know you'll continue being tortured. Now, neither I nor you, have ever been tortured, but Khalid Sheik Mohammed was a pretty hardcore terrorist, and he cracked. It took a while because waterboarding isn't a severe, or painful form of torture, but it worked. They may give false information at first, but torture provides every incentive to tell true information, because all you want is to make your torture stop, at a point you're no longer thinking of tricking your torturers, your mind can't concentrate on anything but making torture stop. It's designed to make you talk, not think. It's because torture is so effective that it's so ethically troubling to use it.

I would respect, understand and sympathize with the arguments of opponents of torture if they were framed on principles and not on the absurd notion that it doesn't work which seems to be the most popular reason they give for opposing it.

It's true that the bomb may go off in the end, there's no guarantee, but torture, unfortunately, is the quickest means of getting information.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind n_n

This is true, really, we wateboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we didn't burn him alive, or crush him to death, or cause him to choke to death on smoke, like he deliberately did to thousands of people.

Although your quote is fine, I think it's from Gandhi, who btw, used non-violent resistance against the British Empire, how do you think he would've fared if he used it against the mongol horde, the Nazis, or the Red Army?

I wish some people would've responded to the airliner analogy I gave. Is it justified to shoot down an airliner if it poses a risk to thousands of people? Is it ok to torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed if it would hypothetically save 50 000 000 lives, or is torture wrong no matter what good may result from it? These are important ethical questions and it's disappointing to see people simply answer "no", or "no, no, no". This is the ethics section, don't come here if you're going to be monosyllabic.

[Elfdude]

And pampering him, and giving him time to consult a lawyer would increase your chances of finding it? I mean, I think I share the idealism many of you have, but we have the luxury of not having the responsbility, and not being in this situation.

This is a fallacy, the only other option is not to pamper him and give him a lawyer. People respond to deals in their best interest much better than torture, negotiating information has always produced much more reliable intel than torture ever has. It's not too difficult of a matter to flip a terrorist just like you flip a spy of a different country; torture never has been and never will be effective at producing information both reliable and useful.

There is no incentive to give false information under torture, because when it's found out you gave false information you know you'll continue being tortured. Now, neither I nor you, have ever been tortured, but Khalid Sheik Mohammed was a pretty hardcore terrorist, and he cracked. It took a while because waterboarding isn't a severe, or painful form of torture, but it worked. They may give false information at first, but torture provides every incentive to tell true information, because all you want is to make your torture stop, at a point you're no longer thinking of tricking your torturers, your mind can't concentrate on anything but making torture stop. It's designed to make you talk, not think. It's because torture is so effective that it's so ethically troubling to use it.

This is not true. Your goal is to stop the torture there is no rationality. Fear does not produce reliable useful information as effectively or as efficiently as simple negotiation.

I would respect, understand and sympathize with the arguments of opponents of torture if they were framed on principles and not on the absurd notion that it doesn't work which seems to be the most popular reason they give for opposing it.

It is based on principles however the standard argument for it is based on pragmatism which is refuted empirically. While it seems logical to you now so did the scared straight, abstinence and dare programs. Except they all were based on conjecture and opinion rather than empirical science. Your claims of effectiveness simply do not hold up.

It's true that the bomb may go off in the end, there's no guarantee, but torture, unfortunately, is the quickest means of getting information.

Torture to get immediate information is not as effective as ultimatums and threats of torture.

Although your quote is fine, I think it's from Gandhi, who btw, used non-violent resistance against the British Empire, how do you think he would've fared if he used it against the mongol horde, the Nazis, or the Red Army?

Quite simply he wouldn't have; however had he given the british people (terrorist people) any impetus to see his freedoms further oppressed rather than making them empathetic the army never would have stood down. The terrorists are a minority that gain followers through manipulation to establish us as the bad guys. If there's no bad guys then there's most of the followers aren't followers. When there's sympathetic people informant develop which is far more effective at dealing with terrorists.

I wish some people would've responded to the airliner analogy I gave. Is it justified to shoot down an airliner if it poses a risk to thousands of people? Is it ok to torture Khalid Sheik Mohammed if it would hypothetically save 50 000 000 lives, or is torture wrong no matter what good may result from it? These are important ethical questions and it's disappointing to see people simply answer "no", or "no, no, no". This is the ethics section, don't come here if you're going to be monosyllabic.

Guilty until proven innocent results in witch burning bigotry and prejudice.

[Gauvin]

This is a fallacy, the only other option is not to pamper him and give him a lawyer. People respond to deals in their best interest much better than torture, negotiating information has always produced much more reliable intel than torture ever has. It's not too difficult of a matter to flip a terrorist just like you flip a spy of a different country; torture never has been and never will be effective at producing information both reliable and useful.

Well, actually, this is all I hear proposed as an alternative. What would you negotiate with? Offer a reduced sentence? Khalid says he wants to be executed. What if he asks for a comfy bed and prime rib as a negotiation? He's a dedicated terrorist, he'll waste your time, while making you give him all kinds of things in return.

Are you really arguing that torture has never produced reliable information?

This is not true. Your goal is to stop the torture there is no rationality. Fear does not produce reliable useful information as effectively or as efficiently as simple negotiation.

If you have information its in your interest to give it and not prolong your torture. If you don't have information than you will make something up hoping to end your torture. If you have information you know that giving reliable information is the best way of ending torture, you know that giving false information will lead to you to being tortured again, maybe even more severly.

While it seems logical to you now so did the scared straight, abstinence and dare programs. Except they all were based on conjecture and opinion rather than empirical science. Your claims of effectiveness simply do not hold up.

It's too bad you had to mention abstinence programs because I remembered this article from earlier this month:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02...udy/index.html

An abstinence-only education program is more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period, according to a study described by some as a landmark.

Torture to get immediate information is not as effective as ultimatums and threats of torture.

Threats of torture, rape or death, are considered torture under the anti-torture treaties, so is giving someone truth serum.

Guilty until proven innocent results in witch burning bigotry and prejudice.

That was unrelated to anything in the text you quoted.... I should mention Khalid Sheik Mohammed was an admitted Al-Qaeda member before he was waterboarded. He even asked that the courts waive his right of trial and go straight to executing him, as he said he would welcome it as martyrdom. He declared in court that the chages of terrorism against him are "badges of honour".

[Elfdude]

It's too bad you had to mention abstinence programs because I remembered this article from earlier this month:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02...udy/index.html

Good at making blanket statements with flimsy articles aren't you? It was shown to work with sixth and seventh graders, not high-schoolers; with high-schoolers you observe the opposite effect. The article doesn't refute the idea that abstinence only education is more effective than use protection approach.

[Monarchist]

Torture terrorists all you want, but... their families? That's disgusting.

[Hax]

Never torture, nobody never ever, never, ever.

I don't think this can be stressed enough. Punishing torture with torture is the deed of someone who is afraid. A punishment far worse is mercy.

[HansDuet]

Why the family? They've done nothing wrong.

[Monarchist]

When a man tortures another man, you torture him. When a man murders another man you, murder him. Retaliation and justice for the evil is always good. Torture is never merited to those who have never tortured, nor is murder right for those who have never murdered.

[removeduser_487563287433]

When a man tortures another man, you torture him. When a man murders another man you, murder him. Retaliation and justice for the evil is always good. Torture is never merited to those who have never tortured, nor is murder right for those who have never murdered.

Retaliation is not justice. This is the problem with semitic justice systems - they're just a vicious circle.

There's a great Hittite law commentary, regarding the punishment for a person that steals honey or damages bee hives - I can't remember which exactly. Anyway, the text refers to an older law code - "in the old times the guilty man would be exposed to bee sting, but this still left the farmer with his loss and an angry guy covered in bee stings. So now there is a fine of 5 silver."

It is a shame that Monarchist has not quite reached the standard of civilisation of a Hittite scribe, dead for 3000 years.

[dogukan]

HELL NO!

When a man tortures another man, you torture him. When a man murders another man you, murder him. Retaliation and justice for the evil is always good. Torture is never merited to those who have never tortured, nor is murder right for those who have never murdered.

I did not know your faith was built on revenge