The Allen Almanac

11 Responses to “2 out of 5 Americans are Pro-Torture”

1. Marty Says:

   
   

   October 21st, 2006 at 2:13 am

   If you could allow Osama Bin Laden to be tortured for two days to save 2000 lives, would you? Does this make you one of the pro-torture idiots?

2. Sara Says:

   
   

   October 22nd, 2006 at 9:36 pm

   That’s a straw man argument.

3. James Allen Says:

   
   

   October 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm

   The situation you describe is a highly specific almost impossible circumstance. If you’ve captured someone you absolutely know has information that could save lives AND torturing them will get you the correct information neccesary to save them AND there is no other way to get that information, then torture away. But how likely a scenario is that? Setting up a national policy on a house of cards like that is foolhardy, and when the stakes of human suffering are this high it is down right criminal. Torturing people as a matter of policy will cause magnitudes more human suffering than it could possibly ever prevent.

4. Marty Says:

   
   

   October 23rd, 2006 at 4:14 pm

   Sara, my argument is so unlike a straw man argument that I don’t even know what you are trying to say. Beating up a straw man is arguing against a point no one made. I was just pointing out an example where almost all of us would be pro-torture.
   James, I am not saying I agree AT ALL with the crap Bush is pulling, but the survey did say “in any form”, didn’t it? I would like to see the exact wording of the questions, because you can get almost any result you like by changing the wording. I do agree that alowing the U.S. government to torture anyone, for any reason, is bad. Their motives are clearly not trustworthy, and it is a slippery slope.

5. Sara Says:

   
   

   October 23rd, 2006 at 6:11 pm

   Actually, your argument is a straw man argument exactly as you described it. I can’t imagine anyone making the argument that we shouldn’t torture Osama bin Laden if we knew for a fact that doing so was the only way to save 2000 lives.

   But as I read somewhere else, you can not EVER know that someone definitely knows information of that type and that torturing them will give you the correct information you need. You can only suspect these things, and that is simply not good enough. Torture is pointless, in addition to being monstrous.

   And if you are so against the Bush torture policy, Marty, why would you try to make their argument for them?

6. James Allen Says:

   
   

   October 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 pm

   27,000 respondents in 25 countries were asked which position was closer to their own views:

   * Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.
   * Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.

7. James Allen Says:

   
   

   October 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm

   There is a serious, and fundamental, problem in the nature of the hypotheticals that are typically employed in discussing this issue. Those hypotheticals usually run along these lines: We know (for example) that a nuclear device has been planted in New York City. We know that it is set to go off within the next 24 hours. And we know that this individual we have just apprehended knows where the nuclear device is.

   If the matter were not so serious, I would be tempted to say only that people who offer such hypotheticals have been watching too many movies. But since the matter is so serious, I will point out the following error: this is not how the situation is at all likely to develop — in real life. Think about it for a moment. If you in fact knew all of those elements, don’t you think it likely that you would also already know where the bomb is? How would a situation develop where you knew all the other variables, but it just happened that you didn’t know where the bomb was? I submit that it is not at all likely, except in the imagination of a Hollywood scriptwriter.

   The underlying problem is this: in real life, all of these facts — what it is that is planned, where, when and by whom — are precisely those facts which you will be in the process of discovering. It is fantasy to think that you would have all the answers, save one. And this doesn’t even address the serious problem as to the accuracy of any information you are likely to get by employing torture on the individual in custody. To put it another way: in real life, it is much more likely that you will know that something terrible is going to happen, but you’re not certain exactly what the nature of it is. And you might know the city, and you might know that it’s probably going to happen in the next 24 or 48 hours (or “very, very soon,” or “within the next week”). Finally, you might be 80% or 90% certain that this particular individual knows what it is that is planned, and where and when it’s going to happen — but I doubt very much that it would transpire that you would know with absolute certainty that a given individual has the single piece of information that you happen to be missing. Forget about fiction scenarios, and ask yourself how this type of situation would be likely to actually develop in the real world — and you will see that the usual hypotheticals are hopelessly inaccurate and misleading.
   [...]
   McCain’s point is that we still do not consider sadistic, inhumane treatment as valid — but if the circumstances demonstrate that, in the particular case, the use of torture in fact led to the saving of many lives, then, but only then, will we decline to impose the punishment that would otherwise be imposed. But the principle would remain intact. The exception would remain tthe exception: we still would not approve such conduct, and thus make it acceptable and sure to spread further in its use. We would recognize that a genuine emergency might carve out an exception only with regard to the punishment imposed, but not with regard to the behavior that we condemn in no uncertain terms.

   http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/10/lies-in-service-of-evil.html

8. Marty Says:

   
   

   October 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm

   Sara, no, it’s not straw man because I did not imply that anyone made the argument that we shouldn’t torture Bin Laden. I only pointed out that most of us WOULD allow it. Even James agreed to that.
   “Making their point for them” is called playing devil’s advocate. Notice I did NOT say that the government should be allowed to make the decision. If the survey said the 2 of 5 U.S. citizens thought that G.W. Bush should be allowed to decide whom to torture, well, I think we all agree they would be idiots.
   Besides, we have to find something on which we disagree, otherwise it’s no fun!

9. Sara Says:

   
   

   October 27th, 2006 at 6:06 am

   Regardless of what kind of argument it is, you have to admit that the situation you described is so unlikely to happen that we can pretty much write it off. Yet the Bush people use that exact argument to defend their position that Bush should be allowed to torture whoever he wants in order to keep us “safe.” They use fear to get people to let them destroy our nation’s values, and we really need to be aware of that. Fear is a powerful means of controlling people. I wonder just how much Bush and the Republican Congress could get Americans to go along with in the name of safety? I’d rather not find out. I’d rather we just get them out of office ASAP, if at all possible.

10. Marty Says:

    
    

    October 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    I totally agree with you. James was right in saying my scenario was too specific and unlikely. My main point is that the wording ‘believe in torture’ is misleading. As I said, Bush and the government can NEVER be allowed to decide whom to torture. Bush is leaving office anyway, but we need to get the democrats out too. They will inevitably do the same crap, maybe just more slowly. Things will get worse until we fire both parties and stop thinking as if we only have two choices.

11. Marty Says:

    
    

    October 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    I meant to say the wording “Pro-torture” is misleading.

Leave a Reply