this is who we are
Nov. 2nd, 2007 03:47 pmThe crowd at Making Light continually humble me.
Terry Karney (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pecunium) is a military interrogator. He's been arguing against the use of torture in interrogation on utilitarian grounds for at least as long as I've been paying attention (almost exactly three and a half years). I first saw him on ML; since then I run into him in other places every so often.
In the aftermath of Attorney General nominee Mukasey's waffling on whether 'waterboarding' constitutes torture (short answer: yes), Terry was drawn into a . . . 'discussion' with a contrarian on ML. In the course of the discussion Terry noted that if he were convicted of torturing someone, the ML commenters would hardly rally round him; they'd 'toss him out.'
Which prompted Xopher to pen a comment here that just about took my breath away. Buried in all the moral muck in that thread, in the depressing midst of having a discussion about whether it's okay to force confessions out of suspected criminals, there's this amazing beacon of love and support. Just . . . wow.
As for the utilitarian argument ("torture doesn't work"), even Quentin Tarantino concedes it: "You torture that guy long enough, he's gonna tell you he started the goddamn Chicago Fire. Now, that don't make it fucking so!" Every single professional involved with gathering intelligence, from the Spanish Inquisition on down, has come to the same conclusion: torturing people for intelligence provides bad intelligence.
Which is, ultimately, beside the point. Terry has to make the utilitarian argument because the people he's dealing with simply don't care about the moral aspect. That it is /wrong/ to do these things to another human being doesn't penetrate.
This is something that I just cannot comprehend. The idea of mistreating someone powerless squicks me on a visceral level. I am wholly unable to see the viewpoint of anyone who thinks that this is ever a good idea. Do these people not have any compassion? Or do they just think that 'terrists' are automatically subhuman, and deserve it?
I understand the desire for revenge. I also understand that curbing that desire is a large part of why we have laws in the first place.
See especially Robert Farley: "You see, the misconception here is that torture is designed to elicit information." Also James Killus (in a comment at ML): "The mere fact that the U.S. sponsors torture causes pain to one side of the culture war (you know who you are). And The Other Side likes that it causes you pain. It's meant to hurt you, plain and simple. They hate you that much."
How did this happen?
Terry Karney (
pecunium) is a military interrogator. He's been arguing against the use of torture in interrogation on utilitarian grounds for at least as long as I've been paying attention (almost exactly three and a half years). I first saw him on ML; since then I run into him in other places every so often.In the aftermath of Attorney General nominee Mukasey's waffling on whether 'waterboarding' constitutes torture (short answer: yes), Terry was drawn into a . . . 'discussion' with a contrarian on ML. In the course of the discussion Terry noted that if he were convicted of torturing someone, the ML commenters would hardly rally round him; they'd 'toss him out.'
Which prompted Xopher to pen a comment here that just about took my breath away. Buried in all the moral muck in that thread, in the depressing midst of having a discussion about whether it's okay to force confessions out of suspected criminals, there's this amazing beacon of love and support. Just . . . wow.
As for the utilitarian argument ("torture doesn't work"), even Quentin Tarantino concedes it: "You torture that guy long enough, he's gonna tell you he started the goddamn Chicago Fire. Now, that don't make it fucking so!" Every single professional involved with gathering intelligence, from the Spanish Inquisition on down, has come to the same conclusion: torturing people for intelligence provides bad intelligence.
Which is, ultimately, beside the point. Terry has to make the utilitarian argument because the people he's dealing with simply don't care about the moral aspect. That it is /wrong/ to do these things to another human being doesn't penetrate.
This is something that I just cannot comprehend. The idea of mistreating someone powerless squicks me on a visceral level. I am wholly unable to see the viewpoint of anyone who thinks that this is ever a good idea. Do these people not have any compassion? Or do they just think that 'terrists' are automatically subhuman, and deserve it?
I understand the desire for revenge. I also understand that curbing that desire is a large part of why we have laws in the first place.
See especially Robert Farley: "You see, the misconception here is that torture is designed to elicit information." Also James Killus (in a comment at ML): "The mere fact that the U.S. sponsors torture causes pain to one side of the culture war (you know who you are). And The Other Side likes that it causes you pain. It's meant to hurt you, plain and simple. They hate you that much."
How did this happen?