Two posts ago, I wrote about torture a little and some of you responded. I think that the issue is important. Also, Im not sure how many of you go back to check comments on old posts. Anyway, I want to keep this thing fresh in our minds because I am not entirely convinced one way or the other. I know that I would like to hate even the mildest of torture in all its forms, but Im not entirely convinced that it doesnt have its uses.
One thing that Jon wrote was that torture in Gitmo doesnt do any good. I am pretty sure that I completely agree. I havent heard of any intelligence comming from Gitmo that did any good. However, this does not mean that interogation meathods dont work as a whole. The front page article of the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly talks about how interrogation techniques brought down Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Interrogation does work sometimes. It is not completely barren of usefulness. In terms of human rights, I also mostly agree with Jon. I believe that humans have been given certain rights by our creator. However, for millenia, it has been argued that a person sacrifices claim to those rights if he or she threatens the rights of others. An example of this in an extreme form would be where a terrorist who has planted a bomb in a city (threatening the right to life of those civilians who would be killed) may forfeit his right to good treatment. Im not sure. I want to disagree with it. However, people for centuries and centuries have agreed that torture is ok in certain circumstances. Im not comfortable simply brushing this asside because "we highminded-sophisticated people" are more "enlightened" than our ancestors. By the way, I am not saying that any of you said this. I am just afraid that it may be in all of our minds. I know it is in mine.
I think that David makes a really strong case. The fact that our own troops may in turn be tortured is something that makes me very uncomfortable. But, someone who supports torture may claim that the enemy will use torture anyway and our "high-mindedness" will only hurt us in the end.
Very interesting stuff. Any more thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Torture A Turksih perspective....I have a good friend who after becoming a Christian was looked in a room with about 12 men for..I honestly don't remember how long...with only enough room to stand and no food or water. Then we was moved to a cell with not enought room to stand up, but not enough room to sti or lay down. Again, he had no food or water, but he also had a little drip of water falling on his head (supposed to make him go crazy or what not). In this cell he stayed for five days. This might be considered a mild form of torture, but I think we can all agree that it was wrong.
If we accept torture in one situation, then in what situation do we not accept torture? Where do we draw that line? Already we can see that whatever line we might conventionally have in our mind has been broken at Gitmo. It has also been broken in with the Palestinians. Where do you place the line? (Problem number one).
Also, another problem is the Geneva convition. I will post a link to it when I get home. If you really want to find it go to the UN's website. Check it out. According to that coutnries are not even allowed to use techniques that cause humilition of the person (aka flushing a Qur'an down the toilet or some of the more crude things that we know have happened). (Problem 2).
If we do use torture we are not allowed to prosecute those who use torture against our soldiers. Might the enemy use it against our soldiers even if we don't? Let's be honest...YES. Once we use it, we loose our credibility and ability to prosecute those who use it against our soldiers. (AKA We are taking the soldiers out and taking away one of the most important things that protects them....the Geneva Convention...b/c as long as we have that even if the enemy doesn't abide by it we can hold those people accountable for that). (Problem 3).
Also, when using torture people will say whatever we wnat them to say. Therefore we will get a lot of false confessions. (Problem 4).
As to torture saving so many people at the expense of one life. Ture Maybe, but usually that only works whe you know you ahve the right person. Some of the people we torture, we torture them just to see IF they have info! IF they have a connection...we think there MIGHT be a connection. (Problem 5).
Also, it creates more animosity among the people that we are trying to "liberate." They then become pushed towards more extreme ideology...and I don't think any of us want that. (Problem 6).
As to the argument about hsitorical stuff. Yeah, sure, but they also WIPED OUT the people group when they invaded on most occasions. Besides, while we are supposed to learn from our ancestors are we not also learn what NOT to do? (Ex. you'd think that America would learn from past colonial excursions in the Mid East. We didn't, and we are paying a high price for it now). Are we not supposed to also try to improve ourselves with every generation? Is that not what we hope for our children?
What I take issue with more than is it good/bad is should we lie about it or legalize it? Is it being legalized worse or better than when we would lie about using it? To me that's an issue I cannot fully understand.
I'm not willing to deny that torture is useful, but the ends don't justify the means. America claims to hold itself to a higher moral threshold (not that it always succeeds) and if we are going to step in on humanitarian issues and morally judge others then we have a moral imperative to take the plank from our own eye before we move the speck from our brother's.
Torture is the the one of the best ways to get information from someone, but by that same reckoning killing someone is the best way to end an argument... *bang* I guess I win.
Also Becka makes great points too, it's a very slippery slope to allow any sort of torture. If we can use torture for "national security" then how do we define "national security" that is an immensely vague term that could easily be broadened until the point that it covers most crimes.
But my main point is the first point, the ends don't justify the means and what's easy isn't always right and what's right isn't always easy (in fact is most often not). Frankly I would rather die in a terrorist attack then live safe and sound in a country that thinks torture is ever ok.
Here are various websites on the issue of how to treat fellow human beings.
Here's wikipedia's view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_arguments_regarding_torture
Here's different religious views:
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme144.htm
Here's a Bible lesson with mazes, crossword puzzles, and word searches about it:
http://www.higherpraise.com/pdf/New/Curr183.pdf
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
ya Bryan! that was awesome. Anyway, its true. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack then live in a society that condones torture. And I'm serious.
National security is really more helped by world security than anything, and world security does not involve torture. Torture just hurts our own national security as well even if our own nation is all we care about. Torture is wrong and breeds more hate and more violence. It can't be excused.
While I agree with both Bryan and Kristen, I would like to ask a different question. Would you rather live in a society that lies about its affairs in which it tortures people, but lies to its own citizens about its actions, or would you rather live in a society that openly confesses all that it does?
At least when the government is honest about its actions we can fight them.
Post a Comment