|
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 45
We are pleased to announce a new listserv exclusively for communitarian events held in the D.C. area. If you'd like to
be informed about these events, please sign up at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dcsubscrib.html
FEEDBACK FROM COMMUNITARIAN UPDATE #44
We asked:
A terrorist has been convicted in an American court. The court authorized review of his email and calls suggests that
he is likely to be an organizer and know of other planned attacks. He refuses to talk despite various incentives offered.
Should he be tortured? His mother and daughter be arrested? Be turned over to an ally known for their harsh methods?
Or--let him be, although the consequences to American lives might well be very dear.
Here are all the responses we received.
We all take risks to preserve democratic and humane ideals. Some (mostly younger) citizens serve in the armed forces
and are exposed to risks on the battlefield. Others of us take risks by refusing to torture, even when we know that we
might lose some lives. This is a sad but inevitable cost of remaining true to ourselves and our ideals.
Ron Wright
Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
This is, of course, a scenario that is not hypothetical but real in the State of Israel and a number of other modern
states where the threat of terrorism has become a way of life. One of the most pious and gentle men I have ever known,
a rabbi and a lawyer, was very troubled by this dilemma, and his uncertainty haunts me always when this question comes up.
Anyone who comes from a religious or secular tradition in which saving human life is a paramount, if not ultimate, value
must consider the possibility of coercing the violent to save lives. Anyone who comes from a religious or secular tradition
that accepts that human beings will construct reality to suit their own purposes and thereby justify harm to others must
consider the possible necessity of an absolute prohibition against physical and mental coercion by torture, even if it
means that some innocent lives will be taken, in order that a society does not become corrupt through the use of violence.
In the end, it seems to me that there are so many ways to get the necessary information to prevent the loss of life--including
thorough investigation and perhaps ultimately the use of truth drugs, etc. that are still invasive but not torture--that we
should resist any effort to legitimize physical or mental torture as a means of extracting information from people who are held
(by our police or other countries', threats against the terrorist or his family). In the very few cases where it might be
warranted--e.g., to prevent a nuclear explosion that might kill millions, where there is no time to use other methods--the
judgment of history will, I think, exonerate the decision of people of good will who believe that they must violate absolute
norms against torture. But absent such an emergency situation, the (extremely high) burden of proof should always be on those
who propose to use physical or mental coercion on others, they should be required to demonstrate to the world why they have
no other alternatives, and they should be able to state to the satisfaction of at least a majority of the world's public leaders
why the good to be achieved far outweighs the harm they will do to the terrorists they harm, as well as to the principle of
respect for human dignity. And the United States should live by no different rule.
Marie A. Failinger
Hamline University School of Law
Why stop with the defendant? Surely his lawyer knows something. Violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights is surely
less barbaric than torture. How about his cell-mate. Certainly he heard something. Let's torture him, too. And the jailers.
Who knows what they are holding back. And arrest every person who has ever come into contact with this guy. That'll surely
get their attention.
And don't forget. Torture is such an effective means of getting the truth. As John Lilburn said, when pressed by the
Ecclesiastical Commission to identify his co-religionists, "Perhaps I will identify you."
Jeffrey Renz
School of Law
University of Montana
A gradual response, assuming some time available. Place the defendant, and his family, near or at a target area.
Consider what bargains might be offered - escalate gradually - will drugs induce talking? I have no compunctions
about using historically proven coercion (see President Lowell's article on the "judicial use of torture in the
middle ages" in Harvard Law Review in late 1890's. However, I'm dubious of such tactics, but one never knows.
Gordon Baldwin
Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Apart form the moral issues, I see little utilitarian value in compelling him to speak. He is unlikely to give
truthful information. And, since it is information as to future events, there isn't even a way to test if it
was true at the time. Even if the terrorist were to give truthful information, the other terrorists would likely
change their plans and target something else. Thus, little is to be gained by use of the morally questionable means
posited.
Arnold H. Loewy
Graham Kenan Professor of Law
Torturing the terrorist will only help him to achieve his goal of destroying America. If we sanctioned torture,
this country will immediately cease to be the land of liberty our founders envisioned. It is easy to torture, kill
and maim, any terrorist or dictator knows how. The price of freedom is much greater. It demands that we be willing
to die for our belief in the inalienable rights of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The
decision not to torture the terrorist may well result in the loss of American lives, but it is no different that
any other struggle in which this great nation has risked the loss of life in order to protect the values we cherish.
Garth Meintjes
Associate Director
Center for Civil and Human Rights
Notre Dame Law School
No, he should not be tortured. To torture somebody would be a violation of that person's human dignity, which is
inalienable and not forfeited by even the terrorist's own best efforts to behave as a beast. Moreover, to do so
would be to make a torturer out of another human being: a violation of his or her dignity that no authority can j
ustify.
Neither can the terrorist's mother or daughter be legitimately arrested. Presumably, they are not themselves
threats, but rather merely related and dear to someone who is. People are punished for their own crimes, not
others. Assuming adulthood, the mother is no longer legally responsible for the acts of her child; Assuming
innocence, the daughter is not legally responsible for the acts of her parent.
Nobody should be turned over to goons, whether allies or not.
Finally, you certainly should not "let him be." He must be continually probed and questioned for clues,
inconsistencies and maybe even a confession.
Nobody has a moral responsibility to let others take his life. On the other hand, nobody has a moral
right to do absolutely anything in order to prevent others from attempting to do so. This does not
appear to be a clear-cut case of self-defense, but rather one of questioning how low one can go in
order to achieve the end of effectiveness (in Barnard's terms).
Prof. Max Torres
IESE Business School--University of Navarra
Barcelona, Spain
He should be treated as his country would treat an American under the same circumstances.
C. Andrews
I do not support and eye for an eye concept. I think the only way to peace is through forgiveness
and compassion. People on both sides of the middle east fence, so to speak, cannot forgive and
cannot get beyond grudges, resentments and revenge. Until there can be some way for each side to
see the other as human, and yes, as brother and sister, there will be no way that peace can settle
in.
Christina M. Puchalski, M.D.
Director, George Washington Institute of Spirituality and Health
Assistant Prof of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences
All of the proposed remedies are contrary to a civilized society. We are smart enough to cut off
the convicted terrorist from communicating with his partners, while we take on his role in the
dialog, thereby intercepting critical intelligence.
Rick Molz
Hold him in a spartan cell, with no contact from other prisoners. Let him know his mother and
daughter are being arrested and questioned. They may or may not be of any use. If they are suspects
in the conspiracy, hold them in similar conditions and let him know that. (If they are co-conspirators,
they may be able to provide helpful information.) Let him know that everyone who received one of his
telephone calls and emails is being questioned. And, let him know that one of our allies whose methods
are cruder may be seeking extradition, unless we have a reason to hold him. As the investigation turns
up more information, keep returning and applying greater amounts of psychological pressure. If a period
of time passes and no further information is provided, extradite him to the ally.
Jack McCarthy
Washington, D.C.
The terrorist should be interrogated by means of "truth serum," or hypnosis, or even sensory deprivation,
but not by traditional means of torture. A better solution would be for our government to stop treating
only the symptoms (terrorist attacks) and begin dealing with the root problems: these Muslim terrorists
have legitimate complaints against American policy (we should all have such complaints!) and we need to
negotiate some sort of honest resolution with them, rather than continuing to smack them down every time
they raise their concerns. However, the legitimacy of their complaints does not justify terrorist activities
against America, and America is fully within its rights to retaliate and to use severe means, short of
absolute torture, to deal with the immediate situation. But we need to prepare for a long, long siege if
we fail to engage in discourse with the Muslim extremists. Teddy Roosevelt was right: speak softly but
carry a big stick.
Jim Flechtner
Findlay, Ohio
To start, the key question would be is the individual convicted of this crime a US national? If the person
is a US national he or she should be treated according to the rule of law within our country. This would
include the rights accorded under treaties that the US is a party to like the Geneva Convention.
If the person tried and convicted in a US court is a foreign national, he or she should be accorded the
legal rights of their home nation. We might even extradite the individual to their home nation if that
would be seen to be within our national self-interest. In terms of involving family members in this
situation, I would only do so if there were legal grounds to do so, such as evidence that family members
aided or abetted in the committing of a crime.
In no instance would I want to see torture sanctioned by our government. To do so would only give
other nations the logical sanction to torture US nationals in their nations when those nations felt
it might be in their self-interest torture US nationals. Utilizing the harsher laws in other nations
for the treatment of their own citizens would be a more logical approach to get the same results without
causing a broader international problem.
Thank you for asking my opinion.
John P. Rider
He should not be tortured, directly or indirectly (through his family). Anyone with doubts about
this should see the ground-breaking French film,"Battle of Algiers."
Ellen Frost
(Former US Government official and now an adjunct professor of international relations)
This may sound like a gut-level reaction, and it is--but it's also something I've thought about some.
I would NEVER want to be complicit, even indirectly, in the torture of anyone, even if it were likely
that it is I myself who would die. This includes turning the potential terrorist over to someone else,
washing my hands of the situation, so to speak; I would like to think I am no Pontius Pilate. I don't
think I need to say anything else.
Emily R. Gill
Dept. of Political Science
Bradley University
I would let him be. If we are really concerned about saving lives, let us begin by changing our own policies.
There is much we can do at home to reduce our own kinds of terrorism-- failure to provide living wages to people
who work hard at poverty wages; encouraging the people to believe that gun ownership is a right protected by the
Constitution; rethinking our drug policies and their impact on countries like Colombia, Peru, Bolivia; rethinking
our oil policies, which currently involve us in ever-closer relations with Saudi Arabia, and other repressive
regimes that feature their own forms of terrorism; lifting the embargo against Cuba-- after all, how does Castro
differ from leaders in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc? And finally, if we want to reduce the threats of terror attacks,
we really need to rethink our foreign policy, with its contradictory three prongs: preaching democracy, using the
military to control more And more areas of the world, And enabling corporations to run roughshod over our own
government. Look at our policies toward Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti. For shame!
Bill D'Antonio
In my view one rarely if ever says ever or never. Circumstances vary too much. Hans Jonas in his "The Principle
of Responsibility" suggests that as a version more adapt to our current world (he wrote in the late 50's) Kant's
Categorical Imperative might well be changed to "act so as to maintain the capacity to act tomorrow" (not a direct
quote but it gets the substance). To touch his mother And daughter seems entirely out -- they, as far as what is
written above, know nothing about it. We are then confronted with the question "torture one person or let a number
of lives ("innocent" if you want) perish". In ethics one usually does not have the choice between good option And
bad option but between various degrees of bad options. So it is here. Torture is an extreme measure unbecoming a
civilized being; standing buy when one could do something about it And letting "innocent" parties come to harm is
no great honor either. Arresting his mother And daughter inflicts no physical damage on anyone -- unless they were
to be mishandled. Even though they are innocent it night be a lesser evil than effective torture--And I doubt that
any short of extreme would extract much from a terrorist.
I suppose when all is said And done I would arrest the relatives -- long enough to see if this causes him to give in.
However there is the writ of habeas corpus and that one cannot deny. If such an arrest does not work quickly--and I
suspect it wouldn't: these people are crazy--I would with a heavy heart resort to torture--knowing that this is wrong
and that I deserve and should be punished for it. But the thought of letting people quietly shopping or sitting in a
coffee house be blown up and having had a chance to prevent it sits rather badly. By not acting when I could have
acted I become inextricably linked into the causal chain which injures/kills such people. And when all is said and
done I would take that guilt rather than the other upon myself. Albeit and again: I would be culpable and should be
appropriately punished.
Dr. Erich H. Loewy
Professor and Endowed Alumni Association Chair of Bioethics
Associate in Philosophy
University of California, Davis
Because this is not a well-stated question it will not provide useful information. For example, is there reason
to believe that torture will extract useful information from this man? Under the inquisition, torture never
extracted useful information because it was performed before the first question was asked; at that point, victims
were delusional or worse. And about the mother and daughter: Do they have information? Were they participants?
How old is the daughter? Are they citizens of the United States? And about the ally: Is there some legal basis
to extradite the prisoner to another country? Is there reason to believe that the ally could obtain useful
information? Is the public knowledge of the ally's harshness (or leniency, for that matter) accurate? Finally,
what do you mean by "torture."
If you can't do better than this, I'll be grateful to have my name removed from your list.
Ross M. Stolzenberg
Professor of Sociology
The University of Chicago
No, he ought not to be tortured. No, his mother and daughter ought not to be arrested. And no, he ought
not to be turned over to a harsh ally.
The thought of doing any of these things is repugnant. It violates our laws. To do such things, puts all
of us at risk of being abused by the state. It also turns us into the immoral monsters we are fighting against. Absolutely not!
Rather, try kindness and understanding. Treat the prisoner according to decent standards. Yes, do try to
persuade him to tell the truth. But not with mistreatment.
Also, the harsh methods can backfire in other ways. Tortured people are often willing to say
anything--including blatant lies--in order to stop the torture. It is not clear that torture
works in getting the truth.
But whether it works or not. It is not ethical or lawful to mistreat a prisoner, no matter what he
or she has done.
Wendell Bell
Department of Sociology
Yale University
In response to the scenario of the convicted terrorist: 1) My, and I suspect most persons', initial image was
of someone like the perpetrators of 9-11. But a generic response should be something you would be comfortable
doing to anyone, e.g., an Irish member of the IRA. 2) I'd suggest another option, moral and mental pressure,
applied by a team that might include a member of the clergy from the terrorist's religion. Fanaticism is based
in large part on ignorance and misinformation. We should be willing to compete by providing facts and stressing
the values by which we live, in an aggressive and nonstop way. The situation is somewhat comparable to hostage
negotiations.
Stephen E. Baldwin, Bethesda, MD.
He should not be tortured. His mother and daughter should not be arrested though if they are in this country
illegally they might well be deported. He should not be turned over to an ally who is liable to torture him
either. The costs of legitimizing torture or using the punishment of relatives to extort information from
suspects/convicts are unknown but it is reasonable to argue that they are likely to put us on a slippery
slope that we do not want to be on.
That is my general response. If, however, the anticipated terrorist attack was overwhelming - a massive
nuclear weapon or a biological attack that could kill very large numbers of people, I think I would be
willing to risk the slippery slope. Even then, it might be wise not to altogether legitimize what had to
be done. The harsh ally might be called on, or if Americans were involved, they might have to understand
that they should resign their offices - something of that sort - to emphasize our great reluctance to
associate the State with such actions.
Barry Castro
Professor of Management at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids.
In response to your question regarding the techniques to be used in gaining potentially valuable information
from a detainee, I suggest that our society maintain its moral ground despite the consequences. This is
but another case of the 'slippery slope' of incremental action.
Douglas Jones, Philadelphia
I must state this reply briefly due to other requirements. The man is called a "terrorist" and we are
told he has been convicted in an American court, but we are not told of what he has been convicted. I find
this significant and would like to know. I do not think such a person should be tortured. Nor do I think
his mother, daughter, or other relatives should be taken in, unless there is evidence linking them with
conspiracy to attack. Such a person should be held in prison in accordance with his conviction, and the
evidence from his email and so on, giving an indication of a portending attack should be energetically pursued.
Trudy Govier, Calgary, Canada.
I believe a serious attempt should be made to dialogue with this person. Violence only begets more violence
and serves to further entrench the oppressed in their positions. A court appointed attorney working on behalf
of the government should be allowed to listen to this person, their beliefs, what they hope for, their complaints,
etc. I believe that this method would offer us the greatest hope of actually learning something helpful. Our
country has worked long and hard to build up a system that honors the basic rights of all people. Why would we
try to undermine all that hard work by stooping to methods we have long criticized?
Lucy Abu-Absi, Director
Family Life/Respect Life Office
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Toledo
The law by itself never settles moral questions, but sometimes the law provides important clues about "the
opinion of mankind" to which the Declaration of Independence says one owes "a decent respect." Since the end
of World War II, torture has been condemned by nations representing all the world's cultural traditions (which
is not to say that they practice what they preach). The U.S., which has been more reluctant than any other
country in the world to join human rights treaties, nevertheless ratified the Convention Against Torture in
1994, and Article 2(2) of CAT cautions that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war
or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification
of torture." Ratified treaties, of course, have constitutional status under Article 6 as "supreme law of the land,"
and Congress has adopted conforming legislation to implement CAT. To torture the hypothetical terrorist would be
to back down from legal obligations, voluntarily assumed by the U.S. for essentially moral reasons, simply because
doing so seems expedient. But if expediency-ueber-alles is supposed to represent an important moral principle,
then it should apply to other countries as well, and in other circumstances that resemble the hypothetical. In
other words, everyone, the world over, should abandon the CAT, and humanity should resume the practice of guilt-free
interrogation under torture for national security reasons, as it has existed from time immemorial.
For of course, it is a practice of torture we are talking about, not an isolated incident. Torturers will have to be
trained, because torture is a skilled craft. As part of their training, they will have to be desensitized.
(Interestingly enough, the usual first step in desensitizing torturers is to impress them with how many innocent
lives they are saving by torturing terrorists. Once desensitized, they will torture anyone.) Torture equipment
will have to be designed (now there's an engineering sub-specialty crying out to be established!), medical doctors
pressed into service to ensure that suspects don't die before they squeal, inconvenient laws modified, institutions
of secrecy created (for no government dares to torture its suspects any way other than secretly). In other words, to
answer "yes" to the hypothetical question of whether to torture is to answer "yes" to the question of whether to
establish a culture of torture. My answer is no.
The hypothetical stipulates that the terrorist has been convicted, presumably to remove one of the uncomfortable
thoughts that might give torture enthusiasts pause. That is the thought that perhaps we will end up torturing lots
of people by mistake -- torturing people who have no information to give, perhaps torturing them to death because
they never tell us what we hope to hear. But only a fool would believe that, once established, the practice of torture
will be confined only to those who are known to have information about future attacks. (For that matter, even in the
hypothetical it's only a surmise that the convicted terrorist knows of other planned attacks. How do you know in advance
that someone has information so vital that torture might be justified? Well, you don't -- so you wind up torturing based
on supposition. Some innocent people will die on the torture table, but hey -- you can't make an omelette without breaking
a few legs.)
Of course, one can always construct hypotheticals in which there are only hours left before a timed nuclear device
destroys New York City, and the police have in custody the only man who knows where it is, and he is known to know.
In that case, I might be brought to concede that torture is permissible on a one-time, exceptional basis. But even
here I'm not so sure. If the argument is that faced with such extreme dire consequences, anything is permissible,
let's try a different hypothetical to test the principle. Suppose the captive is too tough to talk under torture,
but we have his 9-year-old child in custody as well, and there's good reason to believe that he will talk if only
we roast the screaming 9-year-old slowly to death in the father's presence. Or, if that seems too disagreeable,
federal agents can gang-rape the suspect's mother in his presence while the nice cop tells him that the rape will
stop the moment he talks. Does the consequentialist principle really survive these hypotheticals? I think of David
Rousset's epigram, "Normal men do not know that anything is possible." They also don't know that anything is
permissible to avert sufficiently dire consequences. But perhaps consequentialists are not normal men.
As for the question about whether it's acceptable to send the terrorist to some other country for the torture interrogation,
I confess that it eludes me why this diminishes American moral responsibility. Of course, subcontracting the dirty work
allows us to avoid constructing a culture of torture here in the U.S., provided that we can find suitable subcontractors
abroad, whose own torture industry is up and running, perhaps with some American encouragement. But do we really want
that? After all, think about all the good American jobs in the fledgling domestic torture industry that would be lost
to our overseas competitors! How can that be good for the USA?
David Luban
Georgetown University Law Center
Torture has been shown to be an unreliable way to gain accurate information. Basically, the victim will say anything -
true or false - to stop the torture. Should his mother and daughter be arrested? Why bother? They may be opponents of
the terrorist.
Be turned over to an ally known for their harsh methods? You can't really be that stupid. It won't actually work.
Or--let him be, although the consequences to American lives might well be very dear. Considering that the proposed
methods don't actually work very well, this is silly. Obviously you try to make him talk, just use more effective
(and humane) methods.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
Civil Rights are the rock bottom foundation of America. Our Declaration on Independence calls for the rights of
ALL people. For 200 years out country has been a model of democracy and civil rights. There is no evil in the world
greater that denying any person humane treatment. If America denies this tenet there will be not safety for Americans
traveling anywhere in the world. The soul of America will be lost. Patriotism is more than defending our material
world. It is standing up for the rights of all humans.
Bill Ellis
Here is that question again, but slightly differently phrased than that posed by Alan Dershowitz.
In this question there is no hard fact that a serious attack is imminent: it may be but "may" covers everything:
an asteroid may hit the earth soon. Harsh action would not be justified on this basis.
However, if it was almost a certain fact that a large attack was imminent and mass destruction of an area and
its population was likely, then the situation is different.
Who wants to defend saving the life of the terrorist from torture at the cost of a major destruction of
a city and its people? Supposing your friends and family were at stake? One would have to question whether
the terrorist has the right to play the part of the decision maker using his own standards and judgement.
To me that is unacceptable.
And, even if we did permit him to make that decision once, and a catastrophic act did happen -- and we knew
there were more to follow, who on earth would passively permit the terrorist the right still to remain silent.
The potential victims have rights too, don't they? Don't we have some responsibility to them?
Over the years I have heard small snippets about suitcase nuclear bombs. A few days ago on C-SPAN I heard
someone say that the Russians did make these and that several years ago, a Russian General said that some
were missing, apparently. It was casually said and the speaker moved on to other topics. But to me THAT IS
NEWS. Not new news but important news. Not about O. J. Simpson, not about Lewinsksy, not about a $325 million
lottery, not about who won the recent game, but really important news. Remember the FBI flight training warning
that was ignored? Have we learned anything?
I heard once, a suitcase bomb is capable of destroying eight square blocks. Enough to destroy Congress, many
government offices and the White House combined. Also would lower Manhattan, or the Pentagon be chosen again?
We could have a very carefully structured legal torture law under strict, minute by minute, constant court
control for a situation where it is almost certain that a major terrorist act is about to take place. Or,
we could assume that this would happen anyway, even without such a law. But then someone would be responsible
for breaking the law and, if no such mass destructive act was really planned, would anyone going to be put on
trial?
But then the term "terrorist" opens Pandora's box. Some people believe that the United States commits
terrorist acts. The CIA station chief, formerly stationed in Washington, was kidnaped, tortured and
murdered in Beirut. It has been reported that he knew a lot of CIA information. So..?
To use relatives as hostage is not acceptable unless a known area was the target, for then the terrorist
would also suffer family loss and it might change his attitude. Handing the terrorist over to a another
country with the object of letting them use torture is morally repugnant but, realistically, it solves
one moral dilemma while creating another.
Probably the best thing to do is to allow the President to authorize extreme action where a disastrous
attack is strongly believed to be imminent. That would probably happen as it is, anyway.
Harold Calder
This is a no-brainer. Clearly with the lives of thousands at stake in any one terrorist act these
days, torture is justified by any number of principles --- survival, the protection of untold innocent
lives, "the greater good for the greater number"...... This is not a civil liberties question, and please
let's not waste any more time on that kind of issue in this kind of situation. No more of "The terrorists
win if we do this." The fact is the terrorists win if they kill us!!
Richard Logan
I have very painfully come to believe that if hundreds of lives could be saved, that some form of
torture is ethically justifiable. I think of the Nazi period and ask if it would be justifiable to
torture a Nazi official if you could get information about Jews about to be sent to gas chambers. If
you accept the premise that we are fighting a ruthless enemy the answer to this question seems clear.
Torture in this case is self defense.
Marvin Rosenberg
Assoc. Prof. Case Western Reserve University
He should neither be turned over to a harsher country, his family should not be arrested and he
should not be tortured. If we do not want to become a totalitarian state ourselves then we should
not support such oppressive measures. The family members, if they are not active members of a terrorist
group and if they have not actively participated in terrorist acts then they should not be forced into
such an ordeal that they are not part of. Sending the criminal to another country is just as bad as
torturing them in the United States, it should not be looked upon otherwise.
Niko Sommaripa
Cambridge MA
I think no purpose justifies torture. Human dignity is worth much more than life, not thinking in the
dignity of the terrorist, but in the condition of someone that stoops to the same means to obtain an
upper objective. Human Rights were wrote under calm conditions, so that they could guide men's actions
under desperate situations.
Maybe there are specialists and specialized ways of moving people to cooperate; otherwise, would that
man be disposed to talk even under torture? Recent cases tell us something about it.
Juan David Enciso
Business and Ethics Professor
Bogota, Colombia.
Let Arafat and Sharon handle the problem!
Mohammed Howard
We have rules, for all people. Either they work and should be defended, or they do not, and we should
return to totalitarianism. If we believe in democracy, then it must be defended in spite of its costs.
Dr Daniel Jordan
In the case of the terrorist convicted: Absolutely no torture! It is a violation of basic human rights.
If he is a citizen he should get all the due process the Constitution provides, as should his family.
Let the penalty of the law dictate the consequences.
If he is not a citizen we must deal with those cases through the rule of law, therefore if the law
imposes penalties for a foreign national convicted of a crime in this country, let the law take its
course.
These principles are a few of the commitments we have made that make America, with our acknowledged human flaws, a great country.
Ruel J. Eskelsen
Gee, guys, was it just our ancestors that were willing to die for freedom? You figure that you get a free
ride? Life is not that easy: you have to be willing to put your life, and that of those you hold dear,
on the line whenever this kind of choice comes up. Use torture and you show your true values are those of
the enemy, not those of the fighting founders of a democracy. Realizing this may make us a little more
interested in being a good citizen in the world instead of consummately selfish. The only long-term escape
from terrorism is altruism; and there is no short-term escape.
Michael Scriven
Professor of Psychology
Claremont Graduate University
Someone has been watching too many movies - The 1998 film "The Siege" depicts the very torture scenario
envisaged. Bruce Willis played the obsessed military man intent on torture, while Denzel Washington the
FBI agent who stops the torture and thus saves America's soul. (Read the movie synopsis at
http://www.thesiege.com/htmls/movie_info2.html).
You might not Hollywood liberalism all the time, but this time they got it right. To condone the torture is
to sign up to utilitarianism and consequentialism.
David de Carvalho
This raise a important and controversial point of difference between "anglo-saxon" and "latin" criminal
law. With the last one, juries in criminal courts are supposed to base their decisions on "intimate conviction"
which, of course can sometimes result in risky sentences, but may offer a more workable solutions to cases like
the one you put forward. In a "latin" court it is likely the alleged terrorist would have be sentenced to jail
because the clues against him and his negative attitude were sufficient indications that realizing him could
endanger the lives of the good citizens. Offered a fair trial he had' not taken the opportunity to prove against
the alleged charges. After the sentence has been made he could still offer new facts that could be considered
in a second trial if they were serious. This is far from a perfect legal system. But I suggest it can offer a
better social protection without seriously deprive defendants' rights.
Alfred Gilles
Well, if Weber is right and the end of the state is its own survival, while the means of the state is the coercion,
then appealing to Utilitarian principles should not be much of a change. In my opinion, whenever we make Communitarianism
the epistemology of an Egocentric (Individualized) State, we are only promoting coercion with a different propaganda
(by using nationalist or culturalist sentiments). The most obvious example of this was in Pinochet's Chili. Using
torture and the removal of human rights, as a method of ensuring civic stability is pretty fucked up no matter who
is engaging in it. The depoliticization that is involved in such an act not only destroys the language of human
rights, but it changes the entire imagination of the community. When America loses its ability to imaginatively
dialogue (even with its most feared enemies), it depoliticizes and demoralizes the communal/nationalistic epistemology
that it is trying to protect.
Tristin Hassell
Post-Grad @ University of Edinburgh
p.s. check out william t. cavanaugh's book "Torture and Eucharist"
Do not torture, for two reasons: 1) principle, 2) it will feed a spiral all over the world. But: explain this point
of view in its nuances clearly to the world. Explain the principle: a) That ultimately you want forgiveness and
a stop to violence. But as long as there is violence you will fight it with all respectful and civilized means,
in a powerful way, ready to make peace and forgive all the time. b) That forgiveness does not exclude right
punishment for the deeds one is responsible for. I do not oversee the consequences of arresting the mother and
the daughter. Do not turn him over to the harsh ally, you remain to be responsible.
Abraham de Kuijf
The Netherlands.
Nothing justifies torture. You just have to keep him in prison until he will talk. Think about the consequences
if he is innocent!! You can never be certain.
Prof. S.E. J F8rgensen
He should not be tortured in any case, also his mother and daughter should not arrested. I know it is very
difficult, but to use similar methods is no a way for the future. The only way is a very long dialogue. I
agree with a communitarian dialogue: This is not a problem of one terrorist. This is a problem of a large
group of people. We are responsible to bring to this problem a new view.
Jan Skaloud
Czech Republic.
I would have said arrest family and ask them to put pressure on him; if this fails, then torture in the
knowledge that if the 'victim' can prove that he was innocent of the presumed knowledge, then he will be
compensated generously. But then I noticed that you used 'American' lives - others do not seem to matter
to you. So let him be and take the risk with 'your' lives. Sorry, in my books all lives have equal values,
even if this is not true for insurers and bankers, and even employers, but in this case...
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader, Department of Geography
Editor, Energy & Environment
Faculty of Science
University of Hull
A convicted terrorist who refuses to talk about a planned terrorist activity despite incentives and
refuses to cooperate with authorities still is protected by the Fifth Amendment guarantee against being
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself and the Eighth Amendment guarantee
against cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. That means we do not torture people for information
about a crime or possible crimes. If there is probable cause to believe that his daughter or mother knows
of these crimes or attempted crimes, then they can be prosecuted under due process. But to suggest that
we undermine the constitution by sending them to foreign states that are known to apply torture to coerce
confessions from the accused or convicted is unconscionable. Those who do not stand up for the principles
upon which our nation was founded are indeed un-American and reprehensible.
Chris Wright
Minneapolis, MN
I was born in the Netherlands and live in Israel since the age of ten. In order to state my position I
would like to summarize the legal situation in Israel regarding torture. Note that since I have no legal
training and know the Israeli laws only through the media, I cannot vouch for the correctness of the legal
aspects of my summary in more than the most general terms. According to Israeli law, it is not allowed to
physically mishandle suspects for any reason. There is one exception: It is possible to get authorization to
exert "moderate physical pressure" on suspects who are deemed to be "ticking bombs". The decision of who
belongs to that category and the supervision that the standard is not exceeded are subject to the supreme
court's decisions (who also defined the bounds of "moderate physical pressure"). In Israel there is an ongoing
debate as to whether this solution is reasonable, or all physical pressure should be forbidden in any case, or
whether extreme physical pressure (i.e., torture) should be allowed. I want to argue in favor of the middle road.
While allowing extreme physical pressure sounds repugnant to most people, extreme scenarios should be taken
into account: what if we could have prevented 9/11 and saved five thousand people by torturing one person? In
Israel, terrorists claim lives of civilians on an almost daily basis, and this example is not far fetched.
Against this line of thinking I would bring four arguments:
1 - "Restraint" - From a legalistic point of view, there seems to be no reason to enact a "torture" law. If a
person saves another person's life and can demonstrate that it was necessary to break a law for this (for
example, trespassing in order to save somebody from drowning in a swimming pool), the law recognizes the
principle of "necessity". That is to say, when the matter is brought to justice, the savior will not be
declared a criminal. There is no need to enact a law for the special case of interrogating agencies; the
law already recognizes special needs. The interrogating agencies dislike this argument (made by the Israeli
supreme court), since it means that in each "ticking bomb" case, the interrogator would have to make the
decision (torture or not) with the knowledge that he or she will be tried in court. But this is exactly the
desired effect: I would not want the decision to torture a suspect to be taken lightly. Introducing a
yardstick which will prevent torture in any case where the interrogator is not totally convinced he or she
will not go to jail is a good thing.
2 - "Collateral damage" - Many historical examples (e.g., police interrogations in all countries) demonstrate
that the extreme "justified" example above would not be the only case in which the "right to torture" would be
used. For every deserving culprit, it stands to reason that investigating agencies would interrogate several
or many other people of various degrees of innocence; would it be justified to torture an "auxiliary" agent
who supplies a car? a person who was forced into harboring the suspects? etc. etc.
3 - "Efficiency" - How many false confessions have been obtained through pressure? A person under too much
pressure will sometimes point to anybody who is likely to satisfy the interrogator (especially if he or she
is innocent and has no real information). This can damage the interrogation and cause more harm to more
innocent people.
4 - "Debasement" - It is my opinion that one of the greatest dangers of granting any person the "right" to
abuse another person is the fact that that person will be influenced by those actions. People who commit
violent actions are affected by them, and this debasement cannot be contained and isolated from the outside
world; a person who tortures people, no matter how "justified" the torture is declared by the person or even
by society, will not be the same as he or she was before. This phenomenon is widely seen on soldiers and
security personnel over the whole world, even when they only train for violence and never actually fight; it
should be kept to a minimum.
On the other hand, in my opinion it is not possible to justify an absolute moratorium on any physical
pressure in a scenario with real, concrete danger. Is it not justified to try and scare a gunman holding
a family hostage into talking by giving him a slap on the cheek, if you need to ensure the door is not
booby-trapped? Clearly, both the immediacy of the danger and the extent of the pressure have to be defined
and subject to judicial review (as they are in Israel).
I am not arguing that the situation in Israel is ideal; however, in this case of conflicting needs and
rights the Israeli legal framework looks to me like a very reasonable compromise.
Gidi Etzion
Software Engineer
Jerusalem, Israel
I would like to preface this discussion by giving you some background on myself. I was born in
Jerusalem on May 2 1945, exactly one day after the official end of World War II to Holocaust
survivors. My first language at home was Yiddish. Over the years, I lived and absorbed many
languages and many cultures. This is germane to this discourse because, seven languages and
having lived in several Latin American countries (Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico), as well as
France, and having visited other countries in Europe and Latin America have taught me that
every language is a psychological space. Even within Spanish speaking countries there is a
difference between the mentality of a Mexican from the mentality of a Venezuelan from the
mentality of a Guatemalan.
I believe that we Americans do not know how to deal with these people. We have a problem with
understanding that people in this world have different mind-sets (come from a different
psychological space). We continually treat people as if the whole world were playing chess on
the same chessboard and by the same rules. Unfortunately, they don't.
There exists in the Arab mind, for example, a culture of Honor that is quite different from
ours. Honor to the Arab mind is more akin to Latin American Machismo. It is expressed through
violence and power over others. Lying and cheating are acceptable, if used to achieve Honor.
Defeats are not accepted and history is revised to express a defeat as a victory.
They do not perceive our humane treatment of prisoners as being right. Instead, they
perceive it as a weakness and stupidity and naivete on our part. Instead, they seize the
opportunity to take advantage of our freedoms, which they perceive as a stupid loophole
that we have left for them, rather than adopting them, and use them against us in an attempt
to destroy these very freedoms that we are granting them for their own protection. To them,
our giving them any means to protect themselves against us is an act of stupidity. They have
no respect for freedom or democracy and in fact, I have heard several radical Muslims state
that Islam and Democracy are incompatible ideas, since Islam requires absolute submission
(a relinquishment of Freedom). This is used as justification for their Monarchies and
Autocracies and the lack of religious freedom in the Islamic world.
The terrorists know what should happen to them if and when they are caught. They play by the
rules of their own countries. Their perception of our freedoms are that we are weak and
stupid --- therefore, deserving of being overthrown. They laugh at our humanity.
We need to hand them over to Israel ("the ally known for their harsh methods"). I don't agree
that the consequences to American lives might be dear. I believe that if we continue to play
chess as if ours were the only one in the world, we will ultimately lose.
When countries are at war, as they were in World War II for example, many freedoms are suspended.
We are already suffering curtailment of our freedom by increasing fears (of flying, of going to
malls, restaurants, living in apartment buildings etc.) imposed by the terrorists. If the government
needs to curtail some freedoms directed against certain people (by racially profiling them to identify
terrorists) whether illegals, naturalized citizens, or even citizens who share the ideology of
Islamicizing this country by force) to preserve our Constitutionally granted freedoms, then this
is preferable to losing everything, which is the terrorists declared intention.
Let's look at this legally. It is illegal to call for the overthrow of our Government. Basically,
these people have declared that this is their intention. They have publicly declared that Islam is
incompatible with Democracy --- yet, they are availing themselves of our very Democracy to destroy
us by demanding their Constitutional rights.
This is a paradox and an oxymoron. We need to redefine, if only temporarily, who these rights and
freedoms apply to. President Bush is right in Guantanamo --- our laws do not apply to these Terrorists
and they cannot avail themselves of them. They do not believe in Freedom. They are not willing
participants in the Democratic experience. They are enemies to Democracy and therefore, should not
be allowed to enjoy the privileges Democracy affords.
Gail Tenzer
I think the death penalty is appropriate... his family's not responsible for his actions and
treating our enemies as we treat them lowers us to their level.. and keeping him in jail for
life costs HONEST taxpayers $$$! terrorists aren't worth it!
Brenda Hughes
My unequivocal response, which you may quote, with my name, is that torture is a despicable act
under any circumstance and thoroughly dishonorable to boot, regardless of whether the suspicion
of guilt is nebulous and insubstantial or firm. Moreover, arresting mother and daughter would,
in my mind, be as condemnable as the terrorist act we so desperately want to forestall. Can we
imagine the US Government's reaction to this scenario being played out on a US citizen???
It is such a complicated arena, seemingly un-resolvable in the context of our "head-in-the-sand"
position. For there is still the largely (publicly) un-addressed question of our own country's
complicity in the provocation of terrorism; we have bullied and wrecked and ruined the lives of
countless weak and defenseless people the world over, all in the cause of "national interests,"
have dared the world to resist these predations, and still wonder why we are so fervently disliked.
Those of us who have just stood by in these predations, indulging our presumed entitlement to the
most and the best of everything, bear a heavy burden of unclaimed culpability, even if that neglect
does conserve our identities and self images.
The Law Report on Australia's Radio National for 14 May 2002 bore the title: "The U.S. Government's
War on Terror;" no mention is made of the use of torture. The following account was featured, however,
and documents treatment that seems tantamount to torture (Di Martin is the program host):
"Truck driver Anser Mehmood is a Pakistani national who was living with his wife and four children
in New Jersey on an expired visa. He was picked up a month after the attacks. Anser Mehmood: FBI
people came to my house they were about 20-25 people they told me they have a search warrant and
they do search my house for 4-5 hours. And then they told me we find you OK, we don't have any
problem with you, but you have overstayed visa. Di Martin: But things were far from OK. Mehmood
went to the immigration authorities, who assured him that his visa violation would be dealt with quickly.
But shortly after, his arms and legs were shackled, and he was taken to one of New York's most notorious
lockups û Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Centre. Speaking by phone from jail, where he's remained for
seven months, Mehmood describes his prison warder welcoming party. Anser Mehmood: They pull me out of the
van and throw me on the floor, and then again me pick me up from the floor and then bang me on the wall
with their full force. It happened about 4-5 times. They bang me on different walls and instruct me that,
You just obey orders otherwise you will be dead.ö Di Martin: Anser Mehmood says his hand was dislocated in
the beating û yet he says he didn't receive proper medical treatment. The warders then threw him into
solitary confinement under the highest security û a section usually reserved for the most dangerous of
criminals.
Anser Mehmood: The lights are on for 24 hours, there's two cameras watching 24 hours, and we have to stay
inside for 24 hours, we didn't go for any recreation or anything for first two months, I was just allowed
to make one legal call on 21-22 October to request to have a lawyer.
Di Martin: That was almost three weeks after he was locked up. Anser Mehmood had to wait six weeks before
he was allowed to phone his wife. He was kept in solitary for more than four months. Mehmood's lawyer,
Martin Stolar says his client was under suspicion because Mehmood holds a hazardous materials licence,
he ran a flight simulator program
on his computer, and he has a joint Swiss bank account with his Pakistani father. But Mehmood needed the
licence for his job, the flight simulator software is widely used in the US, and it's certainly not
unusual for Pakistanis to have an overseas bank account. Martin Stolar can only assume that Anser Mehmood
was cleared of suspicion when he was released from solitary and transferred into the general prison
population of murderers and drug traffickers. Mehmood hopes to be deported this week.
Tom Maclean
First, I would need to know all the legal options. If this includes arrest and questioning of his family, of course.
Although, I believe the law-enforcement community does have the lattitude to use a variety of strategies that
may be considered unethical, ultimately, I would not use torture to obtain information because it is just wrong.
If we consider ourselves civilized, we must act in accordance to a fair and firm set of standards. As soon as you
rationalize the use of an action on the basis of what others may do or due to extreme circumstances, you end up
using the "whatever it takes" defense.
Perhaps this isn't the most popular view. And I probably would be the first person to try other methods if the
lives at stake were my own family, but that's my decision.
Jim Lichtman
Santa Barbara, CA
We learned from Nazi-German and Franco-Algerian war that torture should never be allowed. That rule was for
that reason codified in 1950 in Article 3 ECHR and in Article 7 ICPPR 1966. The European Court of Human Rights
has repeatedly stressed that the interdiction of torture is absolute. There can be no justification. The
person's mother and daughter can only be arrested if there is serious suspicion that they personally have
committed a crime themselves. Both Article 5 ECHR and Article 9 forbid "Siepenhaftung", i.e. detention of
family members only because the person is a family member of a suspected person. American lives are not better
than other lives.
Kees Groenendijk
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands
No, he should not be tortured. Two wrongs don't make a right. The denial of his human rights will not promote
ours. Sister Mary Rose Under no circumstances "let him be". One can only project what is likely to be effective;
I imagine the arrest of his mother and daughter would be best, and that next in line would be to turn him over
to another nation that is somehow trustworthy with regard to our common interests, yet high on the list of offenders
according to Amnesty International. There ARE circumstances when an ethical people need to step over the line,
and the hypothetical you offer is one of those.
Martin B. Miller
High Falls, NY
|
