Today is Blog Against Torture Day

[xiphias]

Why I'm Against Torture, By Ian Osmond, Age 34.

The truth is, there are some things that are so simple that they're hard to explain.

So, let me try.

Torture is bad. Kind of definitionally. Torture is what the bad guys do. People who torture are bad guys. Countries that torture are bad guys. I'm not an evil villain, so therefore I am against torture.

It's really that simple. Anyone who makes it more complex that that is lying to themselves.

Sometimes, being evil is easier than being good. That doesn't make it right.

The fact that torture doesn't actually help anything is totally secondary.

Comments

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

Is intimidation torture?

My view, they're the same in kind (in principal), but different in degree.

Which means the definition of torture is always changing - and that's where the complexities come in.

Kiralee

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

The fact that torture doesn't actually help anything is totally secondary.

Well, I reckon it does highlight exactly *how* bad these bad people are, as this isn't news.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything except the last sentence. The fact that torture doesn't actually help anything is very significant IMO. Look at it this way:

Killing people is bad. It has been considered morally reprehensible by virtually every society that has ever existed in the history of the world. And yet it is sometimes necessary: in war, in self-defense, in defense of one's family, and voluntary euthanasia. Those don't make it a good thing, but they do make it acceptable in specific circumstances.

Torture, OTOH, is never under any circumstances acceptable.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

You just said it much better than I could. And I entirely agree.

To the point where I'd like to link to this post from my own journal, if you don't object.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Sure, go ahead.

[dandelion-diva.livejournal.com]

Well said. I agree with every single word.

I agree with you...But...

[(Anonymous)]

DISCLAIMER: Long winded introspective philosophical rambling to follow:

I was polishing up my advocates Horns and pitchfork while I was reading your Statement, and I asked myself: "Is there a hypothetical situation where I could torture someone?"

And I was a bit disturbed to hear a very faint yes for an answer.

Let me explain the hypothetical situation and my thought process: I have two daughters. They mean the world to me. So this seemed like a good place to start. Could I torture someone who had hurt them? No. Could I torture someone who had killed one of them in cold blood? No. Could I torture someone who had tortured and then killed one of them? No. So what about if some evil James Bond-esqe villain had them in some ridiculously contrived "Death Machine" and the clock is ticking and the only way to save them in time is to get the disarming code, and hey look! here's Mr. Villain tied up in front of me next to a suspiciously full toolbox... Yes I think I would do it in that case.

This discovery didn't bother me that much. The odds that my kids will find themselves held prisoner by Dr. No are slim at best. But what shocked the hell out of me is that this is the same situation the current administration uses to push for legalizing torture in the CIA, if you substitute ridiculously contrived "Death Machine" with WMD, my kids with a generic American city, and James Bond-esqe villain with terrorist flavor of the week.

This blew my mind. I am basically in agreement with a torture policy that I do not support. It took me until today to reason my way around to the following epiphany:

The community that condones evil, even to save lives is not someplace I want to live. It's too easy to to say "Whoops! Sorry Mr. Smith. We were actually looking for Mr. Jones. But we had everyone's best interest at heart and I'm sure those fingernails will grow back." If (G_d forbid) I ever find my self in the position to do something so horrible to save something important to me, I don't expect to be let off the hook. If I reach that point where I am willing to torture someone, I am at the point where I am willing to sacrifice my own life, or soul, or whatever as the case may be. This is the exact reason why torture should not be legalized.

If you are in a position where peoples lives are in danger and you desperately need that information, and you are still concerned about your job, and your future... then maybe you don't need that information that badly.

Anyway, sorry for the rant... Just had to share that bit. I look forward to being called a half wit.

Re: I agree with you...But...

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I like what my wife said about this:

Okay, so you have come up with a contrived situation in which you hypothetically could see where someone might be able to use torture.

When given a choice between a hypothetical evil, and a real one, choose the hypothetical one.

Torture is a real, live evil that exists in the world today. The James Bond Deathtrap scenario is a hypothetical one that people are trying to come up with. One exists, one doesn't. If you have to choose, choose the evil that DOESN'T exist.

So, what is the point of even HAVING that hypothetical Ticking Time Bomb scenario under discussion, since we pretty much all agree that the scenario doesn't exist?

"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

"Um, I guess so."

"How about for a twenty five cents?"

"WHAT? How dare you? What do you think I am?"

"We already established that -- now we're haggling about price."

The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario is the "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" bit. We get that on the table to get everyone agree that torture is worth talking about.

And that makes us all into the whores that will go along with whatever the government wants us to do -- because, once we accept that scenario, we're just haggling about price.

Re: I agree with you...But...

[(Anonymous)]

I would sleep with you for a quarter... If I needed that quarter badly enough.

Heck, you seem an interesting enough guy, I'll sleep with you for the post coital conversation.

The point of having a hypothetical conversation about hypothetical scenarios is that sometimes hypothetical scenarios become actual scenarios. Whether it's famine, war, alien invasion, the levies breaking, a zombie plague, or an economic collapse. I find that if you have a idea or a plan for what may happen it takes out some of the mindless fear and may prevent some really stupid and regretful actions (eg. OMG! The Japanese empire has attacked Pearl Harbor! Lets round up all the Japanese Americans and put them into camps!)

My point in the post above was not the typical internet "Neener-neener Here's a whole in your argument and now you must agree with me... Mu-Ha-ha!" claptrap, but just an interesting thought exercise I had while reading your post. I just wanted to share 1) my feelings about whether I could ever torture someone 2) The dismay that my hypothetical was the same that is being used to justify legalizing it. and 3)My thoughts on how I am different from the goverment.

Granted, it doesn't boil down to much. I'm not even sure if it's right... but it's what I would do.

If the government said "Kill person X! He is a bad man!" I'd say no.
If I had to kill person X to save my wife and family or friends... I'd probably do it.
There are people who are so at peace with themselves and the universe and strong in their, that they will not harm anyone for what ever reason. I'm not one of them.

I tip my hat to you sir, for you must be a much more enlightened man than I.

Re: I agree with you...But...

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Hell, no. I'll kill a person who's a threat to me.

Um. I think. I've never been in that situation, and I hope I never am, so I don't know for sure.

But, here's the thing: a situation like that is SO far outside the realm of normalcy that you OUGHTN'T have a policy for it. If there comes a situation where someone ends up torturing someone, and they claim to have a good reason to have done so, well, let them be arrested for it, and explain to the judge why they did it. If the judge thinks their reason was good, that torturer can be given a lighter sentence.