A lot is being said about torture recently—but not enough.
It is terrifying that so many are unconcerned about arrests without Habeas Corpus, military prisons, and torture. These activities don’t bring anyone more security. In fact, they bring about a false sense of security while simultaneously making life more systematically dangerous for all.
Arrest without Habeas Corpus is arrest without charge, without reasonable evidence for being detained, without having a definite, reasonable time set for a trial, without being able to confront the witnesses and evidence held against you, and without the principle that we should be treated as innocent until we are proven guilty. Without the principle of Habeas Corpus, innocent people can be detained indefinitely. Anyone can be locked away forever, for any reason without anyone else ever knowing about it. Should this give us comfort?
Men are not angels. They are neither unconditionally kind nor omniscient. When we are treated as guilty before we are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we are all at risk from the suspicion, paranoia, prejudice or even malice of those in control of the coercive apparatus of government.
The purpose of legal procedure is to protect the innocent from omnipotent government and to discover, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, what the truth of the matter is at hand.
In the modern world, military personnel are purposefully trained to have no sympathetic sentiments for the “enemy” and to follow the orders of authority uncritically. In military prisons, where there aren’t strict procedures to determine guilt or innocence, and where everyone is presumed guilty, what mercy is there for anyone? Human beings are objectified. People are no longer seen as individuals but as objects, part of a collective—“the enemy”. You don’t have to treat objects like people.
It is not surprising what has happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo Bay.
Torture is complete nonsense. Torture is defended as a way of obtaining information to make us safe. But the information gained from torture is worse than unreliable. People will say what they need to say to stop the pain and fear of torture. I say that information gained from torture is worse than unreliable because, not only is the information gained suspect, but leading questions of interrogators either through prejudice (pre-judgment), or malice will determine the content of the responses of the victims. Torture does not tend to reveal truth, it tends to confirm the preconceptions of interrogators, interrogators who already think they know you’re guilty.
Imagine if police officers could compel testimony from suspects. We call them suspects because they are not yet convicts! Police suspect many more people than actually commit crimes. Sometimes they probably have strong hunches about who is guilty. But if they weren’t constrained by tough rules of gathering evidence and making a case against someone to an impartial judge, they would stop at their hunches. They could compel those they suspected of crimes to plead guilty to avoid pain.
This reasoning is embodied in our constitution in the protection in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United which states: “[no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The law could not be clearer than that.
We need to understand the principles of liberty and the principles of respectful communication in order to have security and in order for truth and justice to be served.
This video of Jesse Ventura illustrates these ideas very well:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QR1S1bV3w0&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
I think that, by saying “the information gained from torture is worse than unreliable,” you too quickly gloss over the possibility of self-confirming information, e.g. where the body is buried, or other information revealing objective evidence. Arguments against torture are too easy if torture can’t produce useful information; good arguments against torture should grapple with the possibility that some torture _can_ be useful in this sense. See, e.g., I think, Alan M. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works (2002), ch. 4.
I state that fear and pain are not great in the face of truth.
This statement, if taken to be true, can allow one to see that the fear of being wrong deminishes into -risk taking- rather than destructive behavior. When one knows that anything they ‘know’ could be proven wrong, yet they persist in their current understanding until proven otherwise, they are taking a risk. This very risk allows them to act and learn.
When this process- of the development of an understanding- is not recognized, then being wrong or right develops negatively into an environment that allows for polorazied communication, where neither party feels able/willing to assume (an awareness of) the (inherent) risk in knowing. This lack of awareness of the nature of “understanding” makes way for destructive behavior, seemingly excusing all violent acts in the name of truth. _when conflct is seen as violence, then violence is justified in “solving” conflict._ (paraphrasing Arnett).
When the goal of interaction is to procure some higher understanding, presumably truth – one can, see that communication must be a process of genuine listening, with the intention of understanding, not with the intention of deriving some predetermined type of information.
Primateively, one can see how another could be viewed as merely a means to an end, yet this definition of the purpose of the other doesn’t seem to be sufficient.
I see conflict as an indicator of something to be discovered, allowing this “other” to not only help discover something to be explored, but to see them as useful in the discovery.
Inherent in seeing another as a means, you are expressing that they have something needed, and thus that _they_ are needed. (Though, I can see how this feels slightly empty. Is there something… beyond the fact that we have the ability to evolve constantly, making us communicators/learners… that could make us intrinsically valuable?)
We, as humans, seem to desire confirmation from others- whether this desire is logical or not I do not know. In the desire for the confirmation of our person as needed/valued we, likely, must feel the confirmation logically and emotionally. We desire to be understood.
I can see that -torture- can be “useful” in getting facts from someone through force, facts such as, a date that someone was shot, etcetera. But not only does torture deny the other any confirmation, the torture is imposed with the intention of deriving specific types of information. So even the “facts” discovered may be uncovered under incorrect pretenses, the context may be completely skewed, leaving the confessor in a position where they have given truths amidst falsity. This isn’t communication.
(Why should facts have to be derived from someone by force? The need for the force itself implies a larger communication issue.)
Torture sees the other as a means to an end, the end being information, but does not allow for the other to develop a new understanding. Communication does not ensue through torture, rather it seems to instill an even stronger sense of objectification in both parties participating.
I’m inclined to say that force is never justified. (Though I think I am also willing, somewhat confusidely, to say that if my brothers life were in danger I would likely use force, and many different means I found necessary to remove him from the danger.)
I feel that all of these issues that would seem to preclude the “need” for torture,for the justification of violence, there lays a deep issue relating to the way we view truth, and thus the way we view others.
I see that facts and “truths” that are derived from someone forcibly, are subpar to true communication where both are in a position to –peacefully– gain a new understanding.
The example of the man who recieved cookies, demonstrates all of this perfectly.
Yeah maybe it is rediculous that we feel, or maybe that is what makes all of this life worth living.
But we as humans, we do feel, and we care, and we are imperfect, living in a world of knowledge scarcirty.
Because of this, I see torture as only mans sick excuse to procure information that could be achieved in another fashion, another fashion that would have allowed both parties the potential for a new understanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3vp8Q18bfw
Sasha, thanks for the response. You’re right, I was too “glossy”. (This is part of the value of dialogue, poor articulations when challenged can lead to learning.) I’m open to learning about the conditions in which torture can provide information, which it surely can, and I would like to read Dershowitz. Thanks for the reference.
It seems clear to me that torture has a tendency in the long run to obscure the truth, even if in the short term it might give some valuable information.
In “Why the Worst Get on Top” Hayek explains that when individuals are given power to do things that are against conventional values, specifically values that respect the individual, the people who fill positions capable of exercise such powers tend to be unscrupulous and unethical as those unwilling to do the dirty work step out and those who are willing replace them.
Those doing the interrogation most likely have incentives to get information that provides results. But political incentives and personal interests of those in power don’t necessarily correspond to actually discovering the truth or protecting citizens. Appearing “tough” and appearing as if something is being done may bring in the votes or get funding.
I am also thinking of the story relayed by Paul Craig Roberts in his Tyranny of Good Intentions of Nikolai Bukharin who was put through a kangaroo court by Stalin to get him out of the way. Politicians given power will use it to further their ends.
These are definitely long run tendencies. Lack of Habeas Corpus and torture clearly lead to tyranny. But it’s also clear to me that innocent people will be put at risk of mistreatment even in the short term if those in charge of gaining information for national defense aren’t checked by established liberal legal principles.
I’m interested in having some dialogue about this. Also, what do you think of these ideas and Dershowitz’ arguments?
Fjour, thanks for your responses too. You wrote:
“I can see that torture can be “useful” in getting facts from someone through force, facts such as a date that someone was shot, etcetera. But not only does torture deny the other any confirmation, the torture is imposed with the intention of deriving specific types of information. So even the “facts” discovered may be uncovered under incorrect pretenses, the context may be completely skewed, leaving the confessor in a position where they have given truths amidst falsity. This isn’t communication.”
If I understand you correctly, given the context of our conversation, the following would be an example of what you mean.
One could in fact find a body from information gathered from torture. This is self-confirming in Sasha’s sense. But the fact itself may be used to confirm a theory that is incorrect. So if an interrogator says, “where is the body that such and such a person murdered?” he may be able to derive the location of the body through torture, but he may see that information as confirming his false premises about the events.
This reminds me of something I was reading of Sir Karl Popper recently on his idea of falsifiability in science. Popper points out that certain theories can use any fact to confirm themselves. He gives the example of Marxism, which sees every fact as confirmation of the theory of class conflict and material historical development toward socialism. Once someone has accepted this paradigm, no information will change their conclusions about the nature of the world. The theory is self-confirming.
Are those who use torture willing to have their whole paradigm changed? Can they only see information that confirms their current beliefs? If so, they will only find confirmation through their investigations. You on the other hand, with Arnett, believe that we need to be profoundly open to the other, no matter how unreasonable they may seem to us, because a real understanding of the other might introduce something into our own understanding which will help us transcend our current understandings and theories.
This also reminds me of Ron Paul’s admonition that we ought to understand the reasons for terrorism, which does not imply that terrorism is in any sense acceptable, or that terrorists aren’t individually responsible for their atrocious acts, but merely that we have something to learn from understanding the other that could help us reduce the causes of violent conflict and terrorism.
Andrew — I think your last comment (to me, not to Fjour) is much closer to right: If there should be a rule against torture, it’s not because torture is inherently wrong but because we don’t trust the people who would have to administer such a system to administer it correctly.
If we lived in a world of perfect torturers, I think we _might_ occasionally torture. I say “might” because:
First, we all recognize that people will say anything under torture, so you can’t just shout “Confess!”, nor should you ask leading questions, but rather should limit yourself to, for instance, self-confirming information, or information where it’s unlikely they could give a specific answer unless they knew and where the information will only support further investigation, or something like that.
Second, you have to take the interests of the tortured party into account; once you weigh that against (a) the probability of getting useful information and (b) the usefulness of the information, you might not want to do the torture anymore.
Third, for good or bad reasons, torture gives us bad PR abroad if it gets discovered, and that may be worth taking into account.
So these are the main reasons why I say that in a world of perfect torturers, we _might_ want to occasionally torture.
So the main reasons to pull back from that are that we don’t live in a world of perfect torturers:
(1) We’re afraid that people will ask leading questions, questions that don’t generate self-confirming information, etc., so the information gained from torture will be incorrect.
(2) We’re afraid that the torturers, because of wishful thinking and similar cognitive biases, will overestimate the probability that they’ll get information and will overestimate the value of the information.
(3) We’re afraid that the political benefits of torture include merely conveying the image of toughness, apart from any actual benefit.
(4) We’re afraid that the torturers will underestimate the value of non-torture to the tortured person, particularly when the tortured person belongs to an enemy group or a racial or ethnic minority, is a criminal, etc.
(5) We’re afraid that the government will use torture not for the good reasons of protecting other people’s rights but for the bad reasons of oppressing its own citizens, and that the availability of torture will make a turn for the worse all the easier (this is where the concerns you alluded to from Hayek and others come in primarily).
And I’m sure I could list other reasons. But the bottom line, for me, is not that torture is bad in itself (which makes me differ from many people who comment on torture), but that it’s too likely to be misused.
But having said all that, it’s not clear that these reasons lead inexorably to a blanket prohibition against torture, even if we were placed in a ticking time-bomb situation. Hayekian and similar concerns against government power usually work well as arguments to be skeptical, not so well as arguments to avoid entirely. (This tends to be true of Hayekian arguments generally.) And while Hayek is good at identifying costs of government power, he never gives a satisfactory framework for weighing those (newly recognized as large) costs against possible benefits.
Dershowitz’s answer is to make the process transparent: Given that we know that torture will happen (basically it’s unrealistic to think that governments will avoid torture in a ticking time-bomb scenario), we should make it as open as possible, and require “torture warrants” like we require search warrants for property.
One argument against the Dershowitzian solution is that “regularizing” it will also normalize it in people’s minds; the magistrates who issue the warrants may be rubber-stamps, and once there’s a warrant, people may no longer see it as objectionable.
Another argument is to recognize that people will do it anyway — and to recognize that they’ll be right to do it in some circumstances — but still insist on a bright-line rule against it. Because, on this view, a bright line isn’t meant to be followed in all circumstances, but it’s meant to mark conduct as illegal so the person who does it is ready to take responsibility afterwards if necessary, and thus won’t do it unless, in his judgment, the situation is serious enough that he’s ready to accept the consequences. (This is like the difference between a “fine for speeding in all cases” rule and a “fine for unreasonable speeding” rule. Under both rules, it’s O.K. to speed if it’s really necessary, but the second rule requires the cop to judge reasonableness, while the first rule allows you to judge reasonableness based on whether you’re willing to pay the fine.)
For instance, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional authorization, but then he was ready to take responsibility and had Congress ratify it as soon as he could. (I might be getting some facts wrong, but that’s approximately right.)
Anyway, those are a couple of ways of dealing with it. I don’t know the right answer, but I just like to get the framework right.
I have decided to be a police officer but, after reading this kind of some posting from some blogs I have decided to quit my education to be a police officer
What do you say about it “Have I take a right decision ?”
