One of the more provocative moments of the Lumet/Fontana Forum came when I asked them whether they believed that torture was ever morally permissible. For instance, what if you knew that torturing someone for an hour, as despicable and grotesque as that experience might be, would save the 3,000 lives that were lost on 9/11?
Both of our guests rejected the premise. Tom Fontana argued that all the evidence seems to suggest that information obtained by way of torture is nearly always unreliable and untrustworthy. Sidney Lumet found torture, under any circumstances, equally odious. He concluded that while he can’t imagine ever supporting torture on any grounds, if it had to be done, he would have to be pretty well certain that the hour of inhumanity would, in fact, most assuredly save lives.
I think if we knew that Moussaoui had all the details of 9/11 and he was in our custody two days before hand then go ahead an torture him. The problem is that it quickly becomes a very slippery slope and when you fall it hurts. There are no definitions in this area and there never will be so in terms of consistency you have to avoid torturing people.
This question is a reworking of the film’s opening proposition: Would you give up your rights for 1 hour/1 day/1 year to eradicate terrorism?
It can be framed as another “what would you give up” question: Would you torture someone, giving up *something* of yourself, to save 3,000 lives? The critical question is, what is it you’d be giving up? Your sense of justice? Your humanity? Decency? Innocence?
Whatever it is, it is something profound and irretrievable. Perhaps this is why Fontana said, among other things, that he hoped that he wouldn’t torture that person–suggesting that his inclination would be the opposite. That doesn’t sound like a flat out rejection of the proposition.
And, who would reject this premise “knowing” that the 1-hour torture session would save lives? If you have the certainty that your torture will lead to these sanguine results, it seems a small price to pay. In fact, don’t we each have a responsiblity to our fellow citizens to save their lives, whatever the costs to ourselves (setting aside for a moment the costs to the tortured terrorist)?
While it seemed everyone in the room agreed that they couldn’t conscience torturing someone, none of the nontorturers spoke about how they would feel watching those 3,000 people line up in pairs, holding hands, to jump out of the high floors of the twin towers–knowing that they could have been the instrument that saved those people.
Another question: if your answer to the original question was no, would you torture fi instead of 3,000 lives there were 10,000 to be saved? A building full of people–people who know people you know? What about a city full of people? What if the results were not certain but the torture you inflict could possibly save a nation?
Some headlines from news reports about the Moussaoui Trial:
Moussaoui testifies he’s ‘glad’ to have caused pain, USATODAY.com Apr 14, 2006
Moussaoui Tells Court 9/11’s Toll Was Too Low, The Washington Post (reg. req’d) Apr 14, 2006
Moussaoui, Testifying Again, Voices Glee Over Witnesses’ Accounts of Sept. 11 Grief, New York Times (reg. req’d) Apr 14, 2006
No regrets-I wish there was pain for US every day, says Moussaoui, The Independent (UK) Apr 14, 2006
It’s hard to hear these sentiments and not think twice about so quickly rejecting the idea of torturing such a terrorist to save the lives lost on 9/11.
Updated reports on the Moussaoui trial: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/terrorism
In a human rights perspective, I don’t think torture should ever be permissible. The Geneva Conventions banned all torture, with no exceptions (even in war and states of public emergency), and as a large and influential country, I think we should set an example and follow those international laws. It also goes against the Constitution which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”
Furthermore, experts say that torture is:
“ineffective, unreliable, and counterpoductive…. It has been shown that torture as a means of interrogation may result in false statements, for a person is liable to say anything to diminish the pain…. Information extracted under torture has been inadmissible as evidence in U.S. courts for about 70 years.”
(http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/pdf/teach_in_guide.pdf)
Torture that would lead to saving 3,000 lives, however, is a difficult case. Maybe there are some exceptions to the no torture rule, but I would only agree to that if I could be gauranteed of such a result, i.e., lives would be saved.
It’s hard to stand my ground in my last post with those thoughts. I guess I hadn’t really thought about my “responsibility” to fellow citizens to save lives, especially if the lives saved were guaranteed. Torture is such an unwieldy subject. There are costs and benefits to allowing that kind of punishment, and i guess in the end it’s about doing that cost/benefit analysis and making the better choice.
I feel like if I condoned torturing I would be giving up my moral obligation to not afflict such deliberate pain and suffering upon another human. So I guess another factor is what kind of torturing is involved. Haruki Murakami in “The Wind Up Bird Chronicle” writes this graphic scene in which someone is being skinned for information during war. It was disgusting.
This is in response Roz Myers post. At first, the thought of torturing seems atrocious and inhumane. But when you balance it with the lives being saved, our sense of humanity must push us to the side of wanting to save those other lives. I would feel I had some sort of duty to save the 3,000 lives. Although it would go against my initial perceptions about torture and is a difficult question to answer, I could not flat out reject the possibility of torture.
Another question of interest – should those who are risking their lives to defend us have special privilege when it comes to a decision about torture? It is one thing to have an academic discussion on the topic and reference the Geneva Conventions, International Law, and a host of self-righteous condemnations from pundits. But I was struck by the comment of a Vietnam soldier at an earlier forum on torture conducted by Prof. Rosenbaum at Fordham.
The commenter arrived in Vietnam as an inexperienced officer and found his squad torturing local inhabitants during a field mission, in order to determine what danger lay ahead. He reprimanded them the first time he saw it occurring. They reluctantly stopped the torturing but, then, further up the road two of them were killed in an ambush. His squad threatened to kill him if he again interfered with their methods of gaining information that they felt would preserve their lives. On multiple subsequent occasions, he said, warnings elicited through torture did avert ambushes.
To what extent might we be less principled if the threat to ourselves or our family was more imminent? Many of the laws surrounding the use of torture derive from agreements among nations meant to secure the safety of one’s own prisoners of war. When the enemy is unconstrained in its treatment of both captured soldiers and kidnapped civilians, do we have a right to dictate a proscription on torture to those who are risking their lives in our name and who see that proscription as increasing the danger to their survival?
Post-script: the wife of the Vietnam vet said that her father had been tortured by Mussolini during World War II. She abhorred it.
Peter Irwin
May 12, 2006
Another question of interest – should those who are risking their lives to defend us have special privilege when it comes to a decision about torture? It is one thing to have an academic discussion on the topic and reference the Geneva Conventions, International Law, and a host of self-righteous condemnations from pundits. But I was struck by the comment of a Vietnam soldier at an earlier forum on torture conducted by Prof. Rosenbaum at Fordham.
The commenter arrived in Vietnam as an inexperienced officer and found his squad torturing local inhabitants during a field mission, in order to determine what danger lay ahead. He reprimanded them the first time he saw it occurring. They reluctantly stopped the torturing but, then, further up the road two of them were killed in an ambush. His squad threatened to kill him if he again interfered with their methods of gaining information that they felt would preserve their lives. On multiple subsequent occasions, he said, warnings elicited through torture did avert ambushes.
To what extent might we be less principled if the threat to ourselves or our family was more imminent? Many of the laws surrounding the use of torture derive from agreements among nations meant to secure the safety of one’s own prisoners of war. When the enemy is unconstrained in its treatment of both captured soldiers and kidnapped civilians, do we have a right to dictate a proscription on torture to those who are risking their lives in our name and who see that proscription as increasing the danger to their survival?
Post-script: the wife of the Vietnam vet said that her father had been tortured by Mussolini during World War II. She abhorred it.
Peter Irwin
May 12, 2006