Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means"

[Kuan]

Is it right to torture a suspect to gain crucial information to save lives? Is it right to blackmail, extort, or bribe if its in the name of public safety?

I was wondering about this because I started reading what seems to be a highly biased conservative book called, Courting Disaster. It discusses in the first few pages I read an operation the CIA carried out that captured one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks and details how the suspect would not speak to any of the investigators, saying he would await lawyers in the US before he spoke. Well, that never happened as he was taken to a secret CIA location stripped naked for a physical and other tests, and interrogated. He held up well for the conventional techniques. So they tried some different stuff, including waterboarding. He gave them the information they wanted which lead to the capture of more high ranking Al Quieda officials and the foiling of a massive terrorist attack on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I didnt get far into the book before I went to work, but based upon this so far, it got me wondering, how far should we go in the name of public safety?

Does this type of behavior makes us more of a target?

Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means" sound?

[connermt]

Is it right to torture a suspect to gain crucial information to save lives? Is it right to blackmail, extort, or bribe if its in the name of public safety?

I was wondering about this because I started reading what seems to be a highly biased conservative book called, Courting Disaster. It discusses in the first few pages I read an operation the CIA carried out that captured one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks and details how the suspect would not speak to any of the investigators, saying he would await lawyers in the US before he spoke. Well, that never happened as he was taken to a secret CIA location stripped naked for a physical and other tests, and interrogated. He held up well for the conventional techniques. So they tried some different stuff, including waterboarding. He gave them the information they wanted which lead to the capture of more high ranking Al Quieda officials and the foiling of a massive terrorist attack on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I didnt get far into the book before I went to work, but based upon this so far, it got me wondering, how far should we go in the name of public safety?

Does this type of behavior makes us more of a target?

Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means" sound?

I have no problem with this concept, as long as we're (the people doing it) are sure we've picked the right person to question.
That would be the bigger issue for me.

[Kuan]

Do those detainees we want to question get habeus corpus? That's a major dilemma if your interrogating them and they have the right to remain silent.

[bluethread]

Do those detainees we want to question get habeus corpus? That's a major dilemma if your interrogating them and they have the right to remain silent.

Those are the rights of a citizen. Not withstanding the rather ambiguous wording of the 14th amendment, those rights are for citizens. It is interesting that the president credited with bringing about the 14th amendment, Lincoln, suspended habeus corpus during the civil war.

[Darias]

Is it right to torture a suspect to gain crucial information to save lives? Is it right to blackmail, extort, or bribe if its in the name of public safety?

That question assumes that the suspect is guilty, and telling the interrogator what he wants to hear equates to accurate intel. It is not right to initiate aggression, especially in the name of something it actually endangers.

For example, the torture and coerced "confession" of al-Libi was Collin Powell's smoking gun for Iraq's WMDs and Saddam's ties to al-Qaida. The information was later dismissed as false, not surprisingly. Torture gave us a pointless war, took everyone's sons and daughters, took everyone's wealth... for nothing... for lies. Well, I'm not being completely honest; the state benefited, so that's something.

I was wondering about this because I started reading what seems to be a highly biased conservative book called, Courting Disaster. It discusses in the first few pages I read an operation the CIA carried out that captured one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks and details how the suspect would not speak to any of the investigators, saying he would await lawyers in the US before he spoke. Well, that never happened as he was taken to a secret CIA location stripped naked for a physical and other tests, and interrogated. He held up well for the conventional techniques. So they tried some different stuff, including waterboarding. He gave them the information they wanted which lead to the capture of more high ranking Al Quieda officials and the foiling of a massive terrorist attack on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I didnt get far into the book before I went to work, but based upon this so far, it got me wondering, how far should we go in the name of public safety?

Don't waste your time reading a book rife with counter factual claims.

If you want to get a taste for the brutal reality of this sort of thing, I highly recommend you watch the award winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side. While this was appropriate for a classroom setting (where I first saw it), this documentary features graphic photos, reenactments, and vivid descriptions of US torture, including forced sexual humiliation, among other disturbing details. It's horrifying, but the truth tends to be. Nevertheless, I reckon this is only appropriate for mature audiences. I hope otseng will permit this:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

Does this type of behavior makes us more of a target?

Unequivocally, yes. It helped radicalize Anwar al-Awlaki who went on to influence the underpants bomber and the Fort Hood shooter.

Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means" sound?

No, the means are barbaric and the ends are actually counterproductive to the stated goals. It is the same psychotic reasoning used to justify the Spanish inquisition.

I have no problem with this concept, as long as we're (the people doing it) are sure we've picked the right person to question.
That would be the bigger issue for me.

As evidenced by the documentary, this is not what happens. Innocent people are captured, tortured, and then die in custody. As this has historically been applied, certainty was not a prerequisite for violent interrogation. Certainty is not required for signature drone strikes, which hit targets and first responders without knowing who is on the receiving end. As a result, homes, weddings, and funerals have been decimated causing heavy civilian casualties, including about 170 child deaths. This is done in the name of combating terror, but it has the effect of generating more anti-Americanism and more terrorism.

Do those detainees we want to question get habeus corpus? That's a major dilemma if your interrogating them and they have the right to remain silent.

No, and thanks to the NDAA act of 2012, neither do American citizens, at home or abroad. As for the topic of Miranda rights, failing to issue it means anything confessed under duress won't be admissible in court. Rounding up people, most if not all of whom are innocent, under the assumption of wrongdoing -- with no intent to grant them a trial let alone release... it's indefensible on all levels.



-

[Sonofason]

Is it right to torture a suspect to gain crucial information to save lives? Is it right to blackmail, extort, or bribe if its in the name of public safety?

I was wondering about this because I started reading what seems to be a highly biased conservative book called, Courting Disaster. It discusses in the first few pages I read an operation the CIA carried out that captured one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks and details how the suspect would not speak to any of the investigators, saying he would await lawyers in the US before he spoke. Well, that never happened as he was taken to a secret CIA location stripped naked for a physical and other tests, and interrogated. He held up well for the conventional techniques. So they tried some different stuff, including waterboarding. He gave them the information they wanted which lead to the capture of more high ranking Al Quieda officials and the foiling of a massive terrorist attack on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I didnt get far into the book before I went to work, but based upon this so far, it got me wondering, how far should we go in the name of public safety?

Does this type of behavior makes us more of a target?

Is the ideaology, "Do the ends justify the means" sound?

Honestly, the end does justify the means. But the question ought to be, is this the sort of world we want?

I know my following comment is not on topic, so please forgive me for introducing it here. We are all sinners. And we all love our sin. Do you really want to live in a world where all of your sin is exposed to everyone else in the world?

More to the topic - Is it right to use such interrogation methods if there is even a slight chance that the subject of interrogation is innocent? Is it right to cause suffering of the innocent for the sake of a possibly justified end?

[keithprosser3]

At the risk of sounding facile, it depends on the end and the means. If we stick with the means as torture, what ends could justify it?

I'll consider two scenarios.

Clearly it would not be right to use torture to find out who stole a 50c bar of chocolate from a corner shop, but it might be right to use torture to save several lives.

The problem is where to draw the line? I suggest that is a question that doesn't have an answer in the abstract. Each case has to be considered on its merits. I think a blanket statement that torture was always wrong is an attempt to avoid having to take responsibility for making moral choices.

I would never torture someone over a bar of chocolate, but I would use torture to save several lives. I do not approve of torture at all, but neither do I approve of senseless deaths. Give that sort of scenario, the principle that torture is always wrong makes it easy to make a decision: i.e. don't torture.

The question is whether such an inflexible policy it make it easy to make the right decision.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by Kuan]

The way American intelligence services do it, you bet.

We're wimps when it comes to torture, and it's extremely effective.

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 8 by The Me's]

What guides you to this decision though? It seems counter productive to me to torture. What reasons guide you to this statement?

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 9 by Kuan]

How can it be counter productive if you prevent terrorist attacks and save lives?

And how can you call it "torture" if journalists line up to have it done to them so they can see what it's like?