This entry was posted on
Tuesday, June 13th, 2006 at
8:36 am and is filed
under The War on Stupid.
I’m going to restrict today’s bloggage to the following comment, spotted here at Comment is free. See if you can spot the minor flaws in this all-too-common argument:
ClaudeMynott – June 12, 2006 05:55 PM:
When our nation faces terrorism, we have to bend the rules, change our methods and yes, sometimes take harsh measures to defend the innocent from those who have, by their terrorist loyalties and actions, LOST ANY CLAIM TO HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CHANCE OF FAIR PLAY.
Give me any day a terrorist suspect shot dead over the repetition of the July 7th terrorist attack.
(Predictably, later in this thread, ClaudeMynott falls back on the ticking time bomb scenario. Always fun to watch.)
By james_q June 13, 2006 - 12:27 pm
Oh dear. ClaudeMynott’s been watching too much 24.I notice Wikipedia attributes the ‘ticking time bomb scenario’ to Niklas Luhmann in the early 90s. The idea is much older (I might go and update Wikipedia later). It was first articulated by Bentham in 1776, but has actually hardly ever occurred in reality. Certainly none of the alleged instances of torture that have emerged since we have embarked on the “war on terror” have come close to the ticking bomb scenario. Despite this, every apologist for torture uses it to fall back on and at face value it can seem like an appealing argument. However, it is dangerously flawed in at least two important respects, as far as I can see:1) It presupposes that torture works: that is, that the use of torture facilitates the extraction of information from terror suspects that helps to save lives. This is a demonstratably false assumption. The likelihood is that if you torture someone they will tell you anything you want to hear just to make the ordeal stop. To take one example, three British suspects confessed under torture to having been trained at Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. British intelligence, however, produced conclusive evidence that the three were actually in Britain at the time that they were supposed to have been in Afghanistan.2) One of the key tests of any moral principle is whether its precepts are generalizable – so if we accept that it is okay for us to use torture then we must accept that is okay for other countries to use torture. If all states were permitted to legalize torture in order to extract information that might save lives, the citizens of western states could also legitimately be subjected to torture in places such as Iran, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, China, North Korea and so on. By legalising torture we have to accept that we lose the moral right to condemn the use of torture by other nations.
By Jherad June 14, 2006 - 9:51 am
All common sense has long since been flushed down the drain.Where before I was completely and utterly convinced that any vaguely civilised human being would agree that there is NEVER a good reason to use torture, now it is ok against terrorism suspects.Hang on – I said ‘suspects’… Doesn’t that mean…Nah – if the ‘good guys’ think they are terrorists, they MUST be terrorists. They always are in the films. And if they are terrorists, then they deserve whatever comes to them right? Who cares if the information they give as a result of torture is incorrect. String the bastards up by their balls. Right?Ok, enough with the bitter sarcasm – but I see thinly veiled versions of the above all too often now. Even government policy now seems to encourage this line of thought. Whatever it takes to ‘keep us safe’. On the recent police raid shooting? Well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.The world truly has gone mad. I give up.
By Jherad June 14, 2006 - 10:02 am
Sorry about the rant. James_q was so much more eloquent. Thoughtful, well constructed arguments are always needed, but I do just want to scream ‘Is it not enough to simply say that torture is wrong, and should be prevented at all costs? Whatever happened to it being better for one hundred guilty people walk free than for one innocent person to suffer?’When I was going to post this last night, my final comment was that I’d go have a drink. I had a few – so I’ll settle for some nice strong black coffee this morning!
By Manic June 14, 2006 - 10:37 am
Ah, but Tony Blair *does* say that torture is wrong and should be prevented at (almost) all costs… when the occasion calls for it (and when it doesn’t, he only needs to keep his mouth shut and allow useful idiots like this to excuse his crimes).Oh, and on the subject of giving up… I tried it once a couple of years ago and didn’t like it:http://www.b3ta.com/board/3360331https://www.bloggerheads.com/x-archive.asp?viewblog=20040621&date=21/06/04
By Jherad June 15, 2006 - 9:23 am
Well, I’ve not much to ‘give up’ on, as I just go through a mild case of frothy-mouthed exasperation when I bump into articles that raise the old blood pressure a little. Luckily the better half drags me away from the computer/tv before I hit complete meltdown.General stress caused by feeling that there is not much we can do about this whole mess, until the next general election. I often wonder if the protests etc. ever accomplish anything.