Make a Comment • Email Link • Send Letter to Editor • View for Print
Letters to the Editor • Torture

Tortured Logic

  There has been much talk about President Obama releasing CIA memos regarding the use of torture, or, ahem… “enhanced interrogation tactics”, on prisoners of “The War on Terror”.   On the right there is livid outrage towards Mr. Obama’s releasing of the records (God forbid we have the government being honest about something). The arguments generally consist of complaints that our national security is being put at risk (never mind that our personal security from infringement by government is diluted as an effect), and they proclaim torture to be a noble practice. Without it, they claim, we wouldn’t be able to obtain valuable information which is used to save peoples lives.   On the left there is praise for the improved (and oddly uncharacteristic) transparency being shown by the new administration. At the same time they are angry that prosecutions are not being sought (we hung Japanese war criminals for doing the same to our troops in WWII) for former Bush administration officials who ordered these practices to be carried out. Torture, they say, is evil because it is an inhumane practice banned by the Geneva Convention.   On both sides there seems to be a simplistic rationale, and neither one can effectively stump the reasoning of the other. It is essentially an un-winnable battle of principle vs. pragmatism.   What I want to do is strip bare the issue. I want to throw aside the readily assumed stances that refuse to delve into a deeper philosophical analysis. I also want to throw aside any pre-existing dogmas (i.e. Religion) that might not be accepted as universal truth by all involved.   Let us first begin with the commonly accepted philosophy of pragmatism. Strangely enough, at least with this particular issue, those who deem themselves the most religious and morally uncompromising are the very individuals who embrace the pragmatic viewpoint on torture.   The basic reasoning of pragmatism is that whatever works best is the preeminent direction to take. Of course this begs the question of what exactly they mean by “works best”. From the utilitarian point of view, it is what benefits the most people. However, pragmatism can be taken by an individual for his own selfish endeavors. For instance, if one robs a family to feed his own desires, he is being pragmatic in his own favor rather than the favor of the many against the few.   Concerning the specific issue of torture to obtain information, the pragmatic response is that the use of the information obtained (to use it for the good of the many) is worth whatever cost comes from the torture itself. The ethics of the matter are not included in this purely utilitarian mindset.   But let us review the pragmatic value of torture to obtain information from a purely logical standpoint. Of course there are cases in which useful information can be obtained and used for good with the infliction of torture, this fact cannot be debated. However, is it as practical a tool as it is argued to be?   First, we must focus on the individuals caught. Without the use of due process, we have no assurance that those captured and detained are actually terrorists. As well, the ones who are terrorists do not necessarily know any useful information. The final problem encountered is the resolve. The current threat we face is that of suicide terrorism. These are individuals so convinced of their correct position that they are willing to sacrifice their very life for it. Whatever information known by any given interrogatee would not be easily released to sworn enemies with the use of painful infliction, when outweighed by the already accepted prospect of killing oneself.   There is also the matter of the information being sought. The info itself is purely speculation, none of it is known. If it were otherwise the need for interrogation would not exist. The event feared may not even be in the planning.   Then there is the matter of those who are tortured. Under torture any human being would give up information to end the pain. Unfortunately, for those who know nothing, the information given will be fabrication. And for those who are in possession of quality information, they will just as easily give up false information. For it will end their pain without betraying their cause. This of course will lead to waste of time and resources following a false lead while the actual plot (if there is indeed any at all) will continue unhindered.   With all of these basic facts reviewed, what is the likelihood of obtaining good information using torture, that could then be used for the benefit of saving people? Very, very slim.   And what of other methods? Many interrogators and psychologists have come out in favor of alternatives to torture. With the use of due process we could easily weed out the terrorists from the non-terrorists captured. At the same time, with the use of alternatives to torture, those who know nothing can be simply identified. Those who do know something can be coaxed into giving that information up. Without the infliction of pain the individual will be less likely to give up false information to end the suffering.   Finally, the majority of these people are regular Joes (or more correctly, regular Ahmeds) who were bribed, lied to, and threatened into joining ranks. You will find a few die-hard fanatics, but torture will not enhance in any way the ability to get the information out of them. Those who are not of that strict a persuasion can be convinced that they were lied to (namely about the American’s use of torture), and will give up information gladly.   With better options available, and torture only working to the benefit of anyone on rare occasions while creating many more problems in it‘s wake, any smart pragmatist will be forced to recognize torture’s flaws and the profit from alternative methods of interrogation and information gathering.   For Ethics and Logic I’ll leave any religious doctrines aside so that any person can understand the logic behind the reasoning presented here.   I think as a start it can be agreed that Torture in and of itself is an evil. It is an infringement on another person’s natural rights. An infringement without due process justifies defense. And the only proper defense is against the aggressors who are infringing themselves. I think any reasonable human being would say that torture is a terrible practice.   So the premise supporting torture on an ethical level is precisely the old idiom, “The Ends Justify The Means”.   This is a highly debated topic. The ideal is that if the Ends are good and the Means are evil, then the good Ends will justify the evil Means. The phrase itself dictates this to be the case. In order for the Ends to be worthy of justifying anything, it must be inherently good. And in order for the Means to need justifying, they must be inherently evil.   However, this rationale is left wanting for consistency. For evil cannot begat good, and good cannot begat evil as a direct result. Of course, as with all actions, good can be an inadvertent effect of an evil cause (and vice versa).   To use the issue at hand as an example; If information obtained through torture is used for a good cause, it is an inadvertent effect from the torture. However it is not the direct Ends. In this situation the Means is the use of the information, the Ends are the lives saved as a result of using the information. The actual gathering of the information is part of another Means/Ends relationship. The torture is the Means, and the direct result (Ends) of the torture is the suffering felt on the part of the individual tortured. The information obtained is part of another Ends/Means relationship altogether.   The Ends justifying Means argument is void when other options to obtain the information are available. Of course the act of obtaining information is a necessary means to get to the ends of using the information for good. But how one obtains the information is one of various possibilities.   For example; Let us say that there are several paths to a certain destination. A traveler takes one of the paths in order to reach the destination. Upon arrival he is asked by another traveler, “Why did you take that particular path?” His answer is, “I had to take that path to get to the destination. There was no other way.” This is a false answer. There were other paths which could have been taken. The Ends cannot justify the Means if there were Means available that need no justification. To give another example; Let us say there is a homeless, penniless man starving on the street. Across the street are two restaurants. One is a fast food hamburger joint, and they are giving away free food to those who need it. The second is a fancy French cuisine, but there is no such charity being offered. Then the homeless man, being a picky eater, robs a young couple on the street. He then uses the stolen cash to pay for a fancy meal at the French restaurant. Can he justify his actions by saying, “I was starving and needed food, I had to steal to live. The Ends justify the Means.”? Of course not. He could have, and should have, went to the fast food restaurant and received a free burger.   This brings up another necessary point. If one particular option is cheaper, easier, or more efficient than another path, it does not change anything. Expediency is not an excuse for evil.   Thus, when reviewing the Ethics of torture, the Ends justifying the Means does not stand (and it does not hold up to the basic axiom of non-contradiction).   In the end there is no justification for torture, either pragmatic or ethical. Logic and Facts will not support the claim that it is either necessary or moral. Neither will it support the premise that it works for the obtaining of information better than other options, in fact it is a rarity that it works for that purpose at all (and other problem arise as a result).   It appears that those who proudly proclaim their support for the practices of “enhanced interrogation” are not only holding a morally despicable viewpoint, but also seem to hold to logic that is more tortured than any prisoner at the hands of the CIA.    - Justin T. Buell  

Current News | Contents By Subject

Related items:

Article Image
News Link • Courtroom and Trials

Freedomsphoenix Readerfour

Article Image
News Link • Israel - Palestine

Freedomsphoenix Readerfour

Article Image
News Link • Corruption

Donna Hancock

Article Image
News Link • Torture

Robert Lee

Article Image
News Link • Torture

Robert Lee

AzureStandard