Eddie, “it has always been deftly condemned by everyone”
Dan: True, much like deception. That is why Machiavelli advices the reader to always appear honorable, while using dishonorable tactics as they happen to be wise. “

In Reply: Again, when has the use of torture in the past 5 years been wise for America? If you don’t use it wisely, its not worth using it at all.

Eddie: Torture has yet to be proven in any way shape or fashionable to be useful to investigators or interrogators.”
Dan: Be careful about universalistic arguments from utility. If you are saying something is wrong because it has never, ever, ever, been at all useful, your entire argument collapses from one anecdote of some marginal utility. So much of this fashionable criticism comes from conflating utility and morality

In Reply: Well, I offer the challenge (as numerous people have in the past): show me a reasonable example where the use of torture was a net positive for a democratic country. A second note to this would be to find me a majority of soldiers or police officers who would not feel excessively bothered or troubled by the use of torture. Except for a rogue state like the old Serbian regime or Myanmar, I don't see democracies willfully engaging in such activity. So perhaps that's a good qualifier here; democracies don't “torture”, or should not.

In America's case, the use of torture has tarnished America's image abroad, devastated confidence among the general public and allowed (and this is most important to me) REAL rogue regimes to engage in moral equivalency when we criticize their actions. (An interesting point made by Phil at the Mountainrunner blog about using private sector resources rather than the government to help repair America's standing in the world is certainly worth exploring in this vein).

Eddie: “The threat of torture on the other hand could be considered quite useful, as the article suggests with the specter of Abu Gharib hanging over the heads of the captive insurgents and terrorists.”
Dan: This seems to contradict your earlier assertion. If the threat of torture is useful, then torture is useful, because without torture the threat would lessen. (We may as well say to captives that we will transfer them to the alien base on Epsilon V!)”

In Reply: Well, it may contradict my earlier assertion, but this is recognizing that the cat is out of the bag about torture by the American government and military, and among various segments of the population they will view us as willing and ready to use torture because of the torture scandals of the past year. We can't deny what has happened in the past, and considerable elements of hostile or occupied populations will believe we will use it. So we might as well accept the evil of the current situation and try to make some good out of it.

I commented at your site. Your blog is a “schelling point” for blog readers, I think.

Jay,

Brilliant point.

Ry,

Good comment, but beware of a false application of platonic mind-body dualism. The idea that the mind is somehow seperate from the body, and therefore mental harm or cannot cause physical harm or pain, or the reverse, is false.

Eddie,

“it has always been deftly condemned by everyone”

True, much like deception. That is why Machiavelli advices the reader to always appear honorable, while using dishonorable tactics as they happen to be wise.

“Torture has yet to be proven in any way shape or fashionable to be useful to investigators or interrogators.”

Be careful about universalistic arguments from utility. If you are saying something is wrong because it has never, ever, ever, been at all useful, your entire argument collapses from one anecdote of some marginal utility. So much of this fashionable criticism comes from conflating utility and morality.

“(not to say I would cry if a child molester or kidnapper was roughed up by an overzealous cop…)”

I believe this view is both wicked and immoral. One may have to use evil measures in order to build some good. But is revenge a good?

“The threat of torture on the other hand could be considered quite useful, as the article suggests with the specter of Abu Gharib hanging over the heads of the captive insurgents and terrorists.”

This seems to contradict your earlier assertion. If the threat of torture is useful, then torture is useful, because without torture the threat would lessen. (We may as well say to captives that we will transfer them to the alien base on Epsilon V!)

Threaten an interogatee about killing his family? Si.
Threaten to kill him? Si.
Have a dog bark at him? Si.
Take out a pistol loaded with blanks? Si.
Anything not life threatening to bring psychological pressure on him? Si.
Insult his culture/religion/family? Si.
Drugs? no.
His point is this: get the goods, you know that you've still got him, physically, so any lies he tells can have a direct impact on how he's treated. His lying to you will land him in a bigger world of shit. He knows this. Push and push and push. You have the resources to find out if he's spinning stories because he doesn't know anything. It's war. Mistakes will be made. Get used to it and get over it and don't agonize overly much about it. It's war and mistakes will always get made. Go with the averages and the averages say that mental and emotional pressures always get someone to talk.

Spraying with cold water(images of the shower scene from First Blood come to mind) might straddle the line of dangerous to health. But nakedness? Being forced to listen to Micheal Bolton on endless loop or Metallica? Sleep deprivation? Flashing lights? Lying to him? Threatening to kill him or rat him out to his comrades? not going to kill anyone, don't cause long lasting physical problems, and so aren't, IMO, torture. THey're interrogation techniques. They're mean and nasty. But war isn't an antiseptic condition with the niceties we expect from from everyday jurisprudence.

It's war. Human dignity of the participants is an odd straw to grasp at in such a state of affairs. If human dignity were trully such a big deal we wouldn't be at war in the first place.

Yet, there's limits, and for good reason.

which brings me to Stever F asking why(at his site) we make such a big deal about using and not using torture. There's lots of reasons for it. I'll point to Boyd for one: it isn't the message we want to present about ourselves so we shouldn't do it as it weakens us in the moral sphere of conflict. I'll point to von Clauswitz for another: nobody wants to fight 'total war' where you're 'all in'—-which leads to a situation of run-away, uncontrolled destruction and retaliation(control and destruction being a balance always tested in military conflicts). You don't use poisoned arrows as it pushes your enemy to feel justified in using something nasty in his arsenal. There's got to be some limit placed on it or war gets out of control or becomes a situation where destruction of his forces, now defined as everyone on his side, is the only possible road to success. So we try not to go down that route. That's why we have the GCs, LoLW, and other unwritten rules about the conduct of war going back to antiquity to prevent reaching that point. We want to fight 'Actual War' as opposed to 'Real War' most of the time.

Nobody wants genocide as being the only way to end a war. So you don't use torture as it's a step that pushes the equilibrium of Control and Destruction toward the Destruction side.

She surmised for her coffin, which she guessed they were building nearby.

Good luck selling Jack Bauer in that griping scene on 24.

Furthermore, while condemnation of torture may seem to be at an all-time high, it has always been deftly condemned by everyone from Soviet dissidents to human rights supporters protesting rogue regimes in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, Sudan, etc. Catching the US military doing it just exploded the issue in the West like never before, as has the continued presence of Gitmo and all that went on there (I am going to believe the testimony of an NCIS or FBI agent over a navy master at arms or admiral any day).

Torture has yet to be proven in any way shape or fashionable to be useful to investigators or interrogators. (not to say I would cry if a child molester or kidnapper was roughed up by an overzealous cop…)

The threat of torture on the other hand could be considered quite useful, as the article suggests with the specter of Abu Gharib hanging over the heads of the captive insurgents and terrorists.

I don't understand. Could you rephrase your question?

Adam,

“While both are evil, one is a little more evil.”

This is the right approach to take: the question of torture involves weighing evils Two quotes from Machiavelli on evil are appropriate here:

“Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. “
“Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised.”

The “public diplomacy” nonsense (with kind apologies to Matt [1] ) that is often trotted out against torture as such is bizarre because any disruptive action, good or bad, will cause public diplomacy problems. (Not that it will necessary cause any /real/ problems). Further, one can cause evil through intending to do good, and disarming yourself of torture can bring all manner of evils through your newly acquired weakness.

PurpleSlog,

I agree that the fear of torture may be effective, as situations vary. I wonder if those who oppose torture completely & outright would likewise support the eradication of the threat of torture — or the fear of maltreatment — as a tool.

[1] http://mountainrunner.us/2007/04/who_should_manage_us_public_di.html#comment-2352

One thing the article makes clear, the fear of possible torture by others, aided the task force interrogators in their work.

That said, I agree there is a degree of hypocrisy in light of many who decry torture. An more cogent example can be found in John McCain who (understandably at first) is very much against torture and yet asserts in his book (Faith of My Fathers) that American bombing of Hanoi was having the desired effect of weakening the NV resolve and contrary to the Tet Offensive the tide was turning in favor of America.

In short, coercion through means of physical or emotional pain (or any other definition of torture) is unacceptable but the obliteration of human lives through either Operation Linebackers B-52's or a huge troop surge in Iraq is acceptable. Maybe I'm a bit too much the “realist” but that's a tad ponderous to me.