Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
cyn--how about we make this into a bit more formal a game for a minute? just play along. it's fun at least for the duration of this post. maybe.
only if you restrict the argument to the fact that you can say it. ethically condoning torture seems pretty close to reprehensible. and this is an area wherein ethical and political considerations intertwine in a wholesale fashion.
so let's assume that is the case--your arguments, cyn, are essentially of two types: expediency and utility. expediency doesn't hold up real well in a space where ethical and poltical arguments are tangled, so i assume that in order to make that argument you presuppose that you can hold the two apart. see what i mean? so you'd ave to move on to argue that torture can be understood as a problem that does NOT involve an ethical dimension. but if you make that move, you repeat something of the position of the bush administration--which is a problematic position to find yourself backed into i would think given that i don't have the sense you were heading in that direction.
the utility argument can be made on ethical grounds--it's a classic ends justify the means statement, really. the main counter to that is that torture practices are not and cannot be justified on utility grounds because of the nature of the information they tend to elicit. you'd have to be in a position to argue that's not the case in respose. there'd be no ducking the question either--and if you can't make that argument work, your position collapses. because the counter-argument really is that not only can torture not be justified as a legitimate practice, and not only can it not be justified as an interrogation procedure, but that its use is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE on utilitarian grounds because it's consequences call into question the legitimacy of the political order that employs torture.
want an example? think about the political turmoil that surrounded the end of the 4th republic and setting up of the 5th republic in france.
de gaulle found himself entirely boxed in by the political shit-storm that followed from books like henri alleg's that outlined the french military's systematic use of torture on the algerian population. his solution was basically to concede the conflict to the fln---that in turn triggered a radical rightwing counter-revolution from the oas. the political damage done by the fact that the french state used torture--and that it got out--was extraorindary. and later, in books like gangrene, the fact that for some prisoners the torture would happen in paris, in the same building that the gestapo had used to torture suspected resistance members---it's not good.
so there's a history that militates pretty strongly against any utility arguments, and without a utility argument, i think you're position is in serious trouble.
i run this stuff out because i really don't see a way to justify the use of torture at all, anywhere, ever.
this is why i am as irritated as i am that the decision about whether to prosecute rests with the obama administration and not with an international tribunal, frankly.
i already ran out the arguments for such a tribunal...
anyway--your move.
|
My apologies, but this has taken me quite some time to write to make sure I articulate exactly how and why I believe I am okay with torture.
The rubric you're holding is very different than the one that I'm holding.
I'm not even on that court rb, that's where everyone else's logic falls apart and cannot follow mine. You're all looking at this from the morality aspects, I'm looking at it from a more anthropological or sociological aspect. I'm not talking about the morality or the attempt at getting reliable information and the rest of the talking points you or willravel are setting up.
Simple logic example:
We agree that murder is bad.
We agree that killing is bad.
War involves killing and murdering, but killing and murder in that sense is okay since it's "the enemy."
In my mind there is disconnect where it's bad in one example, and "excusable" or "acceptable" in another. I cannot understand or process that easily, thus I believe that in its basic form, it has to be acceptable. It is the circumstances and other factors that change it from acceptable to not acceptable.
Torture happens to be part of the ability of the range that humans can and will lower themselves to in some fashion in given conditions just like with war. I find that acceptable as part of the range that humans can and will become given conditions and circumstances. Murder and torture happened before I was on the planet, and will continue to happen when I'm no longer walking the planet.
There is a utility. The human being wants to feel better about themselves in some fashion.
- Party A wishes to instill fear into party B.
- Party A wants to get information from party B.
- Party A wishes to be cruel to party B.
- Party A wished to exact revenge upon party B.
- Party A wishes to control party B.
- Party A tries to coerce allegiance from party B.
While the utility to you and I may be conceived incorrectly by Party A. It still is going to be a mode and methodology used by Party A. It has happened in the past, and will again happen in the future.
Following this same vein of thought, I am not surprised when any American politician is accused or is caught in some sort of corruption scandal. I again, accept that corruption is part of the range of behaviors that politicians can be caught within. I'm not surprised by this one bit, yet it seems that the American populace doesn't know it's own history. Yet somehow it's more abhorrent when it's an American politician.
Thus while you are correct with the idea that it's problematic for the administration or government that does such things, as people will attribute some sort of moral or ethics in their decision making. But I also submit that they themselves carry this on a daily basis until they can make a choice. People hold onto it and feel responsible or even to blame for such choices made by another individual.
Since we're allowed to elect, re-elect, or elect other individuals on a regular basis, and there is no "lifers" for any single position, I get the opportunity to apply what force I can within the mechanisms available to me at the appropriate times. I don't need to internalize, own any of their behaviors, or be responsible for them.
It is exactly what you say, it calls into "into question the legitimacy of the political order that employs torture." It speaks tomes to me about the people that support, the government that employs, and the individuals that ask or require of it's citizens to carry such things out. This is not just he actions themselves, but the manufactured products to support such things. This spider webs the discussion but people/companies aren't simple machines that just do one single action. There are many other things that they do. In essence one fail isn't complete fail, but most people attribute it as wholesale fail in their book. This is as you say that it doesn’t just happen within a vacuum.
People will parse it into digestible words and ideas, and it will continue. Governments will rationalize it and utilize it.
Other peoples in the world don't get such luxuries; government seems to be established and set, not changing within a lifetime or possibly several lifetimes. Again, as you stated it brings in question the legitimacy of the government, but that still doesn't change or alter it. We can call the Baath party or Taliban government illegitimate because it condoned and used torture, but it still didn't change much until someone came in with force and actually changed it. In order to do so, killed and maimed a few people along the way, all in the name of ending whatever illegitimate regime.
It doesn’t stop at the government level for me. It happens locally with police departments, with adults, and with children. There are numerous reports of torture from solid citizens in the police force and criminals, to children and other children. It’s hazing by fraternities, sororities, and gangs. It's bullying on the playground.
Here's why I believe it in this fashion. I will not allow someone to guilt me or make me feel bad because of someone else's actions. I'm not responsible for their actions, thus I am not responsible for the guilt and other feelings a third party is trying to foist upon me. The path your logic and will's is to try and express a manner in which I should feel bad for someone else's actions. I say, "No thank you. I'm fine with the way that it is." Traveling around the world to hear someone say, “That George Bush...” You know, I'm not responsible for his actions. I wasn't then and am still not.
This kind of human action is the kind that evokes some sort of emotional response from the reader/outsider. I reject that wholesale and do not accept any responsibility for it. Just like I don’t accept any responsibility for their achievements, I do not accept responsibility for their fails.
I came to this understanding after spending an evening in the Torture Museum in Prague, Czech Republic. There's more ways to torture people than what is listed in that declassified paper, and there's more that goes on than we see in the newspaper. It opened my eyes to just how horrific the human being can truly be. Reading about it doesn't come close to seeing the machines, and seeing woodcuts, drawings, or cut outs where your hands, arms, etc. all fit. It was a very sobering experience. Of course after that I had copious amounts of the Green Fairy with sugar and a spoon.
Further along I read the book
, I understand that prosecution and removal of power of those that have committed such acts are next to impossible to prosecute in any meaningful way to inhibit future torture. Unlike other kinds of justice where there really is a sense of justice to the offended, this rarely happens in torture cases. Torture is around us all the time. It isn't just relegated to war, it is part and parcel sitting around us.
This is how I understand it and it doesn't pose a problem for me.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.