Godwin'[s torture

Memnoch

I read some interesting articles about 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and the similarities with the methodology of a certain infamous regime a while back, and meant to mention then at some stage, then forgot about it. I haven't found both of them, but ran across this one again today and thought it would make for an interesting topic of discussion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/

The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court.

My own opinion of this issue is reflected in the ending of the article:

The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes.

With the recent killing of OBL there were claims made that part or some of the information that led to this even was obtained through these 'techniques,' which justifies their continued use. I think this claim was later retracted (though not as vociferously as it was pronounced on the likes of Fox News when they first announced it.) Regardless, even if it was true, I still think it is a wrong and despicable practice that should result in the war crimes prosecution of those that designed and implemented it, i.e. Bush, Rumsfield et all.

Einhard

TBH, I think it's stretching it somewhat to equate the actions of Bush et al with the Nazis, on the basis that their euphemisms were similar.

On the wider point of torture, I'm not entirely sure that I'm against it. I find it interesting that many of those who are against it on a moral basis, argue from practical concerns about its reliability etc. Surely if something is utterly wrong, it shouldn't matter how reliable it is or isn't?

Also, I'm of the opinion that these techniques can garner valuable information. Whether that justifies their use or not is a different matter, but I've seen precious little evidence to support their inefficacy. Indeed, the BBC aired a two part documentary a while back on America's "War on Terror", in which the presenter was vehemently opposed to such techniques. It was pretty clear that he hoped to be able to prove that torture doesn't work, but in the end he had to conclude that, yes, it did- in some cases. He was still against it on moral grounds though. It was interesting though, to see him acknowledge the point.

Memnoch

Einhard wrote: »

TBH, I think it's stretching it somewhat to equate the actions of Bush et al with the Nazis, on the basis that their euphemisms were similar.

The fact that their euphemisms are similar is very telling, as is their willingness to try and obfuscate the nature of their actions, which suggests that there is some embarrassment/contrition about them.

On the wider point of torture, I'm not entirely sure that I'm against it. I find it interesting that many of those who are against it on a moral basis, argue from practical concerns about its reliability etc. Surely if something is utterly wrong, it shouldn't matter how reliable it is or isn't?

I agree, reliability shouldn't come into a question of morality. And using this argument is somewhat a disingenious tactic. However, it seems to be that the 'right,' when justifying things like torture, invasion, discrimination and all other manner of things that might be considered immoral often resort to the practical 'necessity.' I suppose in that context I understand why people feel the need to refute the basis for the justification of something they consider morally wrong. Not a great way to hold a debate on the issue though, granted. The problem lies equally with the proletariat that seem to be easily swayed/influenced by these arguments.

Also, I'm of the opinion that these techniques can garner valuable information. Whether that justifies their use or not is a different matter, but I've seen precious little evidence to support their inefficacy.

The question of inefficacy is an interesting one. Firstly, to truly study this we would need to look at statistics of the number of people tortured and what results were yielded. In my view, if you want to make the claim that an action like torture is justifiable in any way, shape or form then the onus should be on you to show this to be the case. Isolated, anecdotal examples do not provide sufficient weight of evidence to condone such a policy on even practical grounds as far as I'm concerned.

I accept that in some situations torture MAY yield valuable information. The assumption being that the person being tortured HAS useful information to provide. The problem is with false positives as people will do whatever it takes to stop torture. And theoretically you might be wasting valuable resources tracing such false leads. Again, it's impossible to have a proper cost-benefit analysis without extensive data.

Personally, I consider it a morally reprehensible action and not justifiable in any circumstances.

I'm against torture for the same reason I'm against the death penalty. The possibility of doing irreparable damage to people who may be innocent. This is something I cannot accept.

I know the argument you are going to make. 'What about the lives saved by the information obtained from torture? Does that not justify the suffering a few innocents to potentially save many?' I consider it to not be a strong enough argument and will be happy to elaborate should you desire.