RoR: Forum

The Root of this Poll is the Ethos of The people of the United States as seen by the world. One could also ask if one has the right to torture another. If one cannot learn "what is" from a person one can often confirm "what is not" .Thereby leaving the logical alternative of "what is",exposed. Obviously water boarding or hosing down the prisoner will only leave him feeling every bit of your emotional impact. The same message said prisoner was giving you prior to capture. Possibly even in captivity. If one values ones own intellect it would serve well to obtain an evaluation of the prisoners intellect.
After having learned the prisoners concept of 'what is". He may be able to help clue us in to where we are on this space ship earth. Skepticism exists here as to the definition of water boarding being torture. I will be heading for the hills when my authorities employ harsher tactics like chopping off fingers or lopping off ones head. aside from the latter The former is no worse than a typical agricultural/industrial mishap. Gruesome and far more prevalent than realized. Not to fear the hills have had their taxes paid on them though.

Post 21

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 9:18am

Michael:

The argument made by Steve Wolfer, myself and others is that the affect on the terrorist is secondary at best, perhaps entirely inconsequential. It is the affect on you. What kind of person are you, what kind of person do you become, when you purposely inflict pain on another person? Would you be willing to use the whip, apply the voltage, hold them underwater, yourself?

Would I waterboard a terrorist for information that he was withholding? Hmm....yes, I definitely would.

But what kind of person would YOU be if you didn't waterboard a terrorist who withheld information about future planned attacks and information on co-conspirators, and then innocent people were blown to bits from that terrorist group? What kind of person would YOU become knowing you elevated the worth of a terrorist's comfort over that of innocent lives? Since we're making this personal, could YOU live with your conscious knowing innocent blood stains your hands?

Post 22

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 11:16am

Re this: "But basically you are implying by your arguments above that;

1) There is no way to objectively determine who is a terrorist

2) That if you torture terrorists, you must therefore torture civilians and for any kind of crime

3) By granting a terrorist the right to be free from torture, you elevate their right to life above that of an innocent person.

Sounds anti-life to me."

John, these are your interpretations of what I said. These interpretations do not reflect my POV. Perhaps I need to clarify:

1) We have an existing judicial process involving due process that is meant to determine whether someone has committed a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same as "objectively establishing without any ambiguity that someone did commit a crime". My point was that if we assume without proof that the government is correct in their assessment that someone committed terrorist acts, without giving that person the opportunity to use their constitutional rights to due process to force the government to prove their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, then the assertion that the person is a terrorist is highly questionable and certainly not an objective fact. I was questioning your use of the phrase "some due process", since that implies that you are OK with an alternate, lesser form of due process.

Some people are objectively terrorists beyond any doubt whatsoever, of course -- flying a plane into the Twin Towers is objectively an indisputable act of terrorism.

2) Our existing judicial process does not allow us to torture domestic criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes. The worst scumbags among us -- child-molesting serial murders who drown puppies for fun, to give an extreme example -- are not allowed to be tortured. Given that fact, I was questioning your apparent implication that anyone accused (not convicted) by the government of any complicity in what the government labels a terrorist act, can and should be tortured if the government says they might have relevant information. It does not make logical sense that these horrendous human beings enjoy complete constitutional immunity from torture, but by the government slapping a label on someone, suddenly the gloves are off and torture is allowable under that same constitution.

So, my point was that we can't torture convicted criminals who are not accused of being terrorists, and we shouldn't torture them, and that further we shouldn't create a loophole to this rule that would, in time, likely wind up expanding and de facto becoming the rule. I was saying we should not torture, at all, under any circumstances -- which is the exact opposite of what you implied I said in your point #2.

3) By granting even convicted terrorists their constitutional right to not be tortured by the government, we uphold the constitution and prevent the sort of mission creep that has been chipping away at that document. The constitution, as written (rather than how it has been creatively interpreted over the years) is a minarchist document that, if actually followed, severely limits the powers of government and prevents tyranny. Upholding that principle seems to me to be one of the most life-affirming acts one can make.

No matter what system of governance you have, bad things will happen and people will die. If you uphold the constitution, some people will die because scumbag terrorists will not divulge information that might have been extracted under duress. But, if you suspend the constitution whenever it seems inconvenient, pretty soon you will gut that document and, in my estimation, far more people will die.

I am asserting that the least-bad alternative available is to fully uphold the constitution and to not torture under any circumstances. You seem to be asserting that the least-bad alternative is to give governmental agents the right to assume powers, at their discretion, at odds with the wording of the constitution, if in their minds such action is necessary.

Post 23

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 2:55pm

JA: Would I waterboard a terrorist for information that he was withholding? Hmm....yes, I definitely would.
... Since we're making this personal, could YOU live with your conscious knowing innocent blood stains your hands?

This is the problem of the innocent bystander. Guilt rests with the perpetrator. I would not resort to torture for many reasons, beginning with the affects on myself and my self.

Beyond that, if we are to discuss the wherefores and whys, we need a real example, not a metaphysical impossibilty. I say that because one of the factors is time. If the perpetrator can hold out while you torture him, you are prevented from any other action. So, we have to be real here. Can you site a case in point where enough of the details are known? For instance, I just now read about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Building. In neither case would torture have prevented the atrocities.

I assert that such lack of practicality only underscores the lack of morality. However, if you have a real world counter-example, please provide it.

Post 24

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 4:43pm

Jim I never specified what kind of due process to be used because I am discussing philosophical principles, not the specifics of what legal processes should be, that's something that requires a background in jurisprudence, something that I nor you have, so I'm not interested in discussing the law, especially with someone such as yourself who has no qualifications in legal studies.

Now, I have no idea what would be an adequate process for determining whether someone is a terrorist or not, but clearly we can know whether someone is or not, that is something you can't rationally deny unless you deny it is possible to arrive at any kind of objective truth.

As far as when it is appropriate to use torture, it is appropriate when a terrorist is withholding information about his co-conspirators and future plans for terrorist attacks, because this is in service to protecting innocent life. You are implying this must be extended to any kind of criminal whatsoever because we can't trust the government, yet oddly, we trust them well enough to use due process to convict criminals and deny their freedom of movement, and in some cases execute murderers, yet somehow, you won't extend that trust for a similar or equal legal system of due process for determining innocence or guilt for a terrorist. This is nothing more than a double standard on your part.

The rest of your argument is nothing more than a slippery-slope. Bascially it's:

If we torture terrorists, we must therefore torture all criminals and eventually innocent civilians.

But this slippery-slope can be established at any point in the slope, I can argue with the same logic:

If we start throwing criminals in jail for crimes, we must therefore throw any citizen for any reason into jails.

If you got something better Jim let me know, otherwise I'm not interested in hearing anymore regurgitated arguments. Offer something new.
(Edited by John Armaos on 5/10, 5:41pm)

Post 25

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 5:03pm

If we start throwing criminals in jail for crimes, we must therefore throw any citizen for any reason into jails.
...............

They have...

Post 26

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 5:06pm

Michael:

Can you site a case in point where enough of the details are known?

What would be your standard of proof? The problem here is I could cite cases, but you can quip back each time that there isn't enough details provided to say it is true. How many details do you want? Video recordings? Eye witness accounts? I will give examples, but first I need to know if you have a rational evaluation for determining what is enough details before saying we've arrived at the truth. Now certainly what has been revealed in the media has been sparse, and what I advocate are the philosophical principles of protecting innocent life, that shouldn't be construed to mean I support concretely anything and everything previous administrations have done with regard to terrorism and whatever lack of transparency there has been from them. I advocate more transparency. I do not advocate torture of terrorists in secret.

Post 27

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 5:07pm

Robert:

If we start throwing criminals in jail for crimes, we must therefore throw any citizen for any reason into jails.
...............

They have...

No, they haven't.

Post 28

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 8:10pm

I really do not think criminals = terrorists. There is a distinct difference. Criminal = someone who lives in your country and commits a crime. The criminal justice system is set up for this.

A Terrorist is an agent of a group or government that seeks to create havoc for political reasons, and is in effect an agent of the enemy in a war. They don't have to be given the same level of proof, nor do hearings need to be public. For instance, by using normal criminal justice, critical information on our ongoing operations against the enemy has to be revealed to that enemy. Plus, they can use it as a stage for propoganda. It simply is not the same as domestic criminal acts.

Post 29

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 8:23pm

KE: A Terrorist is an agent of a group or government that seeks to create havoc for political reasons, and is in effect an agent of the enemy in a war.

Kurt, what about domestic terrorists such as the Weathermen or the Michigan Militia?
You might say that the Weathermen were communist agents of North Vietnam and Cuba, but what of the militias? They are homegrown and as American as apple pie.

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as �...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.� (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism:
l Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. � 2331(5)]
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

According to this, though, realize that any common crime becomes "terrorism" as soon as a poltical element is attached to it. Rob a bank for yourself and it is bank robbery. Rob it because of US contributions to the IMF, and it is terrorism. So, for this crime, motive is somehow specially considered.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/10, 9:09pm)

Post 30

Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 8:59pm

Robert:

If we start throwing criminals in jail for crimes, we must therefore throw any citizen for any reason into jails.
They have...
No, they haven't.

Actually, they have. Two criminologists -- University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross and Michigan State University law professor Barbara O'Brien -- recently estimated 87,000 wrongful convictions since 1989. They based that on the number of overturned homicide and rape convictions and then used that percentage for all convictions.

The Huffington Post had an interesting opinion column on prosecutorial misconduct. You would not expect the Huffington Post to be speaking up for Jack Abramoff and other white collar criminals, but Gary S. Chafetz did just that here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-s-chafetz/prosecutorial-misconduct_b_183094.html

Post 31

Monday, May 11, 2009 - 9:44am

Yes Michael sometimes the definitions are not so easy. However, it depends for the most part on state sponsorship I think. So if they are financed by Communist regimes yes - weatherman - and if they are not, then no, unless they are large enough to constitute a civil war situation. The Islamic terrorists are sponsored by various Nation states and religious/political movements of significant size and resources in which we are engaged in active hostilities and the like - hence they qualify. Nor was it necessary to do much since the small group like Tim McVeigh was pretty much done in when they were caught and it ended there.

Post 32

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 7:12pm

John said: "As far as when it is appropriate to use torture, it is appropriate when a terrorist is withholding information about his co-conspirators and future plans for terrorist attacks, because this is in service to protecting innocent life."

So, by this logic, are you saying is appropriate to use torture whenever it is in service to protecting innocent life?

Doesn't it then logically follow that government officials should use torture on non-terrorists if by doing so it would be in service to protecting innocent life? For instance, if a suspected serial killer who is in police custody is suspected of possessing information that would allow saving the life of an innocent person, say some kid he has allegedly abducted and left helpless without food or water in some undisclosed location that only he allegedly knows about, then government officials should torture that serial killer to extract the information?

Even though that is blatantly unconstitutional, and in fact would land the perpetrators of the torture in jail should they be caught doing that?

Is it your position that we should ignore the constitution, or the laws derived from it, anytime politicians or government security forces perceive that in the particular case before us, doing so will protect innocent life?

For example, if Obama feels that the Second Amendment is causing innocents to lose their lives, he would be morally justified in gutting it legislatively without actually amending it?

Can you name a single part of the Constitution that would survive this sort of gutting over time, as SCOTUS issued opinions time and again that, sure, the actual text of the document says THIS, but unfortunately in the case before us THAT is the expedient thing to do to save innocent lives?

Post 33

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 8:21pm

Jim:

John said: "As far as when it is appropriate to use torture, it is appropriate when a terrorist is withholding information about his co-conspirators and future plans for terrorist attacks, because this is in service to protecting innocent life."

So, by this logic, are you saying is appropriate to use torture whenever it is in service to protecting innocent life?

Doesn't it then logically follow that government officials should use torture on non-terrorists if by doing so it would be in service to protecting innocent life? For instance, if a suspected serial killer who is in police custody is suspected of possessing information that would allow saving the life of an innocent person, say some kid he has allegedly abducted and left helpless without food or water in some undisclosed location that only he allegedly knows about, then government officials should torture that serial killer to extract the information?

Good question. I had limited my view to terrorists only, but you make a good case. Perhaps we should torture serial killers who know the whereabouts of their still alive abductees that are on the brink of death from a serial killer's hands. I mean we already electrocute them to death for their crimes.

Even though that is blatantly unconstitutional

How so?

For example, if Obama feels that the Second Amendment is causing innocents to lose their lives, he would be morally justified in gutting it legislatively without actually amending it?

No that's a utilitarian argument for saving innocent lives, I'm making only a moral case for punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent from them. The same argument one makes for locking up criminals for their crimes, because we want to punish them for committing immoral acts. Banning guns does not serve that moral purpose. In fact banning guns would actually reward the guilty, by letting criminals prey on the innocent that would now be disarmed.

Post 34

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 8:24pm

Michael, I took Robert's comments as meaning literally anyone for any reason can be thrown into jail. You are speaking of false convictions, I don't regard that as meeting the meaning of "any reason". Unfortunately they happen. But the implication of your argument there is that we should probably not have any criminal justice system at all, because some of the innocent may fall through the cracks and be wrongly convicted? Is that your position?

Post 35

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 9:34am

"Debate Over 'Torture' Lacks Seriousness" by Thomas Sowell

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/13/talking_points_96453.html

Several interesting points in this article. I particularly like the "physical equivalence" == "moral equivalence" part.

Post 36

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 2:01pm

Re this exchange:

Me: "Doesn't it then logically follow that government officials should use torture on non-terrorists if by doing so it would be in service to protecting innocent life? For instance, if a suspected serial killer who is in police custody is suspected of possessing information that would allow saving the life of an innocent person, say some kid he has allegedly abducted and left helpless without food or water in some undisclosed location that only he allegedly knows about, then government officials should torture that serial killer to extract the information?"

John: "Good question. I had limited my view to terrorists only, but you make a good case. Perhaps we should torture serial killers who know the whereabouts of their still alive abductees that are on the brink of death from a serial killer's hands. I mean we already electrocute them to death for their crimes."

Me: "Even though that is blatantly unconstitutional"

John: "How so?"

***

The Constitution specifically limits the powers of the federal government to certain enumerated powers, and no more, and this has been incorporated to the states. Torturing people accused or suspected of crimes is not one of these enumerated powers, and in fact this practice is specifically forbidden, which is why no one, anywhere in the U.S., can legally do this.

For the actual text specifying all this, here's Phil's response from post #11:

"* Sixth Amendment � Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Eighth Amendment � Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment � Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

However, I do recognize that you have a consistent philosophy on torture -- that it should be used on both terrorists and non-terrorists if, in the judgment (some might say "rationalization", but that's another argument) of government agents, that might save innocent lives in that particular case, however much violence that might do to Constitutional principles. This is, at the very least, more intellectually honest than what the Bush (and arguably, the Obama) administrations have done, allowing torture for terrorist suspects while upholding the ban on equally heinous but non-terrorist citizens.

And, John, I do agree with you that the lives of innocents should be a much higher value than the lives or comfort of certain scumbags, terrorist or otherwise. Where we appear to disagree is upon the consequences that follow from allowing government agents to torture to extract information -- I hold that the highest value of all is adamantly refusing to give such fearsome power to government agents, who will inevitably twist and change and morph it over time into a means for the oppression of innocents. That is, the price for keeping the government in check is that some innocents will suffer or die -- the same price that must be paid for the Second Amendment.

Post 37

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 3:56pm

Jim, I still don't see how any of those amendments should legally preclude the use of coercive interrogations against terrorists. The 6th amendment says nothing about interrogating terrorists or what techniques can be used in that interrogation. The eighth amendment is ambiguous, denying someone their freedom by shoving them into solitary confinement can certainly be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment", including any kind of death penalty can be construed to be cruel. The ninth amendment doesn't protect the rights of the guilty, only of the innocent.

And your last paragraph is again, a slippery-slope argument. It is a logical fallacy because I can start at any point on that slippery slope, way way before the use of torture is used on terrorists to extract information. Again, I could just as easily say once we start throwing murderers into prison for their crimes, it's only a matter of time before government agents will inevitably twist and change and morph it over time into a means for the oppression of innocents, ergo we should stop locking up murderers into prisons. You can't pick and choose where you want this alleged slippery-slope to begin and end. If you are going to use that argument, the only logical conclusion from it is the complete and total abandonment of the entire justice system.

Also I am not against checks and balances for the government. If you recall I said the use of torture on terrorists to extract information should be decided through a system of due process, including into that decision a judge of the court authorizing a warrant to use coercive interrogation tactics.

But I'm also perplexed in the use of the Constitution as holy writ for our moral principles. Most libertarians don't like many parts of the Constitution including the clause that sets up a "Postal Service", and the clause that authorized Congress to post roads. The Constitution also authorizes taxation, including taxes on income. It also allows the government to coin money. Or what about that antiquated slavery clause that's since been amended? The argument you're putting forth seems to me that you want to pick and choose when the Constitution applies, and when it doesn't, and worse, elevate it as a moral ideal above moral ideals themselves!

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/13, 4:15pm)

Post 38

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 5:14pm

Re this: "But I'm also perplexed in the use of the Constitution as holy writ for our moral principles. Most libertarians don't like many parts of the Constitution including the clause that sets up a "Postal Service", and the clause that authorized Congress to post roads. The Constitution also authorizes taxation, including taxes on income. It also allows the government to coin money. Or what about that antiquated slavery clause that's since been amended? The argument you're putting forth seems to me that you want to pick and choose when the Constitution applies, and when it doesn't, and worse, elevate it as a moral ideal above moral ideals themselves!"

I never once said I wanted to pick and choose when the Constitution applies. If you can find any such statement on this site, please point it out, because I believe I have been entirely consistent on this matter.

I agree that the Constitution has and had some amoral or objectionable clauses, in particular the ones you mentioned. But, if we were actually following the document as written, we would have a much smaller, far more limited government more in line with Objectivist principles. And, even the amoral clauses you pointed out above I would object to legislatively nullifying instead of actually amending.

I'm against the slippery slope of ignoring an inconvenient clause in the Constitution for temporary partisan gain. The greater safety lies in defending this brilliant document that gets so much right, or did before it was gutted by creative interpretations posited by statists.

And, how exactly does "we should not torture, ever" go down a slippery slope? You saying I'm for a slippery slope, when I've been arguing against any such thing, does not wash. And saying that if you're against torture, you must logically also be against having any sort of law enforcement, makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm for law enforcement of laws that both comply with the Constitution as written (not as creatively interpreted by people trying to undermine that document) and aren't braindead or asinine or wrongheaded. I'm against torture. You may disagree with these assertions, but trying to label them as slippery slopes or illogical just doesn't fly.

Post 39

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 5:46pm