Should Our Society Endorse Torture?

I hope not. But Getmo had no torture in any case.

Published on June 15, 2005 By greywar In Politics

(Update Version 2.0 : Wanderer's take on this can be found here and I think I finally got that last pesky misspelled instance of "toture" out of this article)

(Update : Torture is insanely difficult to type correctly. I think I got them all now but if not, tough.)

There is going to be a lot of political hay made about the torture occuring at Getmo for months to come and rightly so as the nation has a need to decide on what our torture policy really is. I for one oppose torture under any circumstances. Period. That being said let me finish with this : What happened at Getmo is not torture. It isn't even close to torture. I do not exaggerate when I say that my Boy Scout Initiation Hazing was more rigorous than the treatment TIME outlines here.

I would love to write a pithy commentary on this but I don't have the time or money for the net right now (AAFES can kiss my ass) so I will simply link to Lileks incredible excoriative Fisking of the wretchedly written TIME "piece" here.

Go read them both and then let me know if you think that the treatment in the TIME article constitutes "torture" and also whether you favor torture use in intelligence gathering and if so under what circumstances.

My answers would be :

No. (not even close to torture... go read some real Gulag stories for context)

No. Sinking to torture is unamerican (IMHO) and is an even more slippery slope than censorship.

and None. Ever. Not as a governmentally sponsored activity.

Personally? If I as JoeCitizen had the opportunity to torture a pedofile or rapist in order to save a life (or simply for revenge) I would happily show them just how useful a vivid imagination can be for the creative application of pain. Doing so would make me a criminal of course but Society can not afford to start condoning institutionalized torture (down that path lies madness) so I accept that criminalization.

P.S. Apparently Wanderer is on The Hard Road tour of America's Seediest Truckstops once more. If he makes it three posts in a row I might even re-blogroll him

Comments (Page 1)

zinkadoodle

on Jun 15, 2005

Greywar, I agree with you completely. In fighting this "war on terror", we've developed somewhat of a reputation as terrorists ourselves (I know, we're not like the insurgents, etc.), and only given more strength of conviction to those who wish to kill Americans. We've fed into the war on terror in a way, by what happened at Abu Graib and what is happening at Gitmo. They look for excuses, and we give it to them, only compounding the problem.

Besides, if we sink to their levels, even if only a little bit, how can we claim any kind of moral superiority? It's rather audacious and arrogant, I think. And, it's inhumane, which is the overriding factor. We just should not ever, ever, ever resort to torture. Never. Period.

MasonM

on Jun 15, 2005

We can win and still maintain moral integrity.

ericseba

on Jun 15, 2005

We can win and still maintain moral integrity

At what cost? I would rather sacrifice a little of my morality than ANY of my children. How bout you? Is your morality more precious than your family? Your friends? Your fellow citizens?

A lot of people talk about the high ground, but I would be willing to bet that if they were in a room with a terrorist that had information that could prevent the deaths of loved ones, not just stuff you watch on the news, but loved ones, then I bet their morality would go on a downward spiral very quickly.

MasonM

on Jun 15, 2005

I never said we couldnt, I just feel that our victory could be achieved more expeditiously (and with less loss of American life) if we quit trying to convince the rest of the world that "we mean well."

Thanks LW. That's the first time (unless I missed it somewhere) that you've acknowledged the fact that would could actually win without sacrificng our moral integrity. I'll stop beating the hell out of that dead horse now. :LOL

I wonder though. Are we really trying to convince "the rest of the world"? Or ourselves? I personally believe that we, as a nation, take the higher moral road in these situations more for ourselves than for others. If our elected leaders began operating in a manner than caused an upswelling of moral outrage among the majority in this country, the repercussions for them would be pretty severe and they know it.

drmiler

on Jun 15, 2005

#6 by ericseba
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

We can win and still maintain moral integrity

At what cost? I would rather sacrifice a little of my morality than ANY of my children. How bout you? Is your morality more precious than your family? Your friends? Your fellow citizens?

A lot of people talk about the high ground, but I would be willing to bet that if they were in a room with a terrorist that had information that could prevent the deaths of loved ones, not just stuff you watch on the news, but loved ones, then I bet their morality would go on a downward spiral very quickly.

I'm sorry but I have to go along with eric on this. If it was me in that room with John Q Terrorist and my kids lives were on the line....morality would go into a black hole REAL quick like!

drmiler

on Jun 15, 2005

Moral high ground? PHOOEY!

MasonM

on Jun 15, 2005

There is a difference when speaking of the individual and the nation. We are talking about the actions of a nation here. If, as a nation, we wanted to take the complete and total "high road" we wouldn't be at war at all. But there are rules of war and as a nation we are obligated to follow them. If we really wanted to, we could just nuke the entire Middle East and be done with it. We have the power to do so. But it would be wrong to do so. Believe it or not there are some people in the country and in the world at large that still believe in antiquated ideas like honor and principle.

As someone who is both former military and has close relatives in combat, yes I hope and pray that they return home safely. I also hope that as a nation we can defeat our enemy without becoming the enemy we want to defeat.

As for the so-called torture, well that's a load of garbage. Making someone stand up can hardly be equated with real torture which quite often involves copious amounts of blood, extreme pain, etc.

Brian

on Jun 15, 2005

If you are going to discuss torture, don’t you think first you need to define what torture is and what interrogation is? Is placing woman’s panties on someone’s head torture or is the hacking of one’s neck with a sword until decapitation occurs?
Try getting below the surface.