Does counter-terrorism justify torture?

As one who’s been somewhat of a consequentialist for 20 years or so, it’s easy for me to come up with various scenarious where it’s a definite yes on torture (Harris has a few examples in his article) - I am not against it or anything else in principle - but in real life, it’s always more difficult to say I support what what my intuition and gut always generaly say no too. One knows so little about what actually is the case and what is even likely to happen. It’s just rarely the case that we can see doing “horrible” act X results in a “good outcome” Y or whatever

The question is a bit vague to give a yes/no answer to - “Does counter-terrorism justify torture? ” I can, however, say that I disagree with him and maybe you when he said of about Khalid Sheikh Mohammend:

If there is even one chance in a million that he will tell us something under torture that will lead to the further dismantling of Al Qaeda, it seems that we should use every means at our disposal to get him talking.

One chance in a million? Hmm. Nope. He does’t really get very nuanced in this article. So what do I support? There is a position on governments using torture that I first found mentioned in Michael “should be PM Iggy of of Canada” Ignatieff’s If Torture Works. I later found this fine summary of that view that I agree with 100%

It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.

You might have read that yourself, as it’s Sam Harris.

Wow!  Looks like a terrific season.

what I really don't like about the way the article 'In Defense of Torture' works is that the reader is being manipulated to imagine their worst fears in order to be persuaded to say yes to worst case torture. I don't like being manipulated, and I don't like where he is heading. to me it sounds like preparing the readers for tolerating the crimes the Bush administration hasn't even admitted yet being involved in.

fear based security thinking is not what is going to bring more peace into this world. I can imagine situations where even I would kill someone to protect my child - but what good does that kind of imagination do me, other then living in fear and thinking of the worst to happen?

I refuse to make any general statement about any moral and ethic question that targets our deepest fears. and I love that you brought this up, C.

I've only seen the first season of '24' on DVD, I didn't have the heart to get myself involved with the following ones. too fast, too much pressure and tension for me, I hardly was able to stop watching, they are so intense and persuasive. of questionable morals and ethics, and very well done. they totally function on worst case scenarios, making any kind of action tolerable if only the good ones make it and destroy the bad guys, no matter how.

as I said, I hate being manipulated like that, even when it's really well done. maybe it's my German background, having  Hitler and his persuasive, convincing and perfectly working machinery of “Gleichschaltung” ('equalization', I suppose) in my field of collective subconscious. that, and my focus on peace and non-violence.

in the face of worst case scenarios it may seem a naive and awfully helpless, even ridiculous looking attitude, I'm aware of that. it's not of much use in discussions like this, other then adding a different point of view and another possibility of focus.

there are many people out there that are conducting our fears like an orchestra. everybody knows that we are being manipulated by the media, but this knowledge doesn't seem to make much difference.

the only way I see for me to not be overwhelmed by fear is staying focussed on what really makes a difference for me, staying connected with love and a peaceful mind, no matter how hard it gets, and I don't succeed as much as I'd like, it's a life task. I try facing my fears here and now,  in me, as they occur.

to me, worst case scenarios are a weapon in the 'war on terror' in order to manipulate people to a predictable outcome. I rather see myself on a path to 'being peace'.

My friend Sandra quoted this  text from Thich Nhat Hanh on our writer's pod Diving Deeper in response to “A challenge to you dear writer” that invited us to write something in support of the Burmese monks and people.

“Many of us worry about the situation of the world. We don't know when the bombs will explode. We feel that we are on the edge of time. As individuals, we feel helpless, despairing. The situation is so dangerous, injustice is so widespread, the danger is close. In this kind of a situation, if we panic, things will only become worse. We need to remain calm, to see clearly. Meditation is to be aware, and to try to help.

    I like to use the example of a small boat crossing the Gulf of Siam. In Vietnam, there are many people, called boat people, who leave the country in small boats. Often the boats are caught in rough seas or storms, the people may panic, and boats may sink. But if even one person aboard can remain calm, lucid, knowing what to do and what not to do, he or she can help the boat survive. His or her expression - face, voice - communicates clarity and calmness, and people have trust in that person. They will listen to what he or she says. One such person can save the lives of many.

    Our world is something like a small boat. Compared with the cosmos, our planet is a very small boat. We are about to panic because our situation is no better than the situation of the small boat in the sea. You know that we have more than 50,000 nuclear weapons. Humankind has become a very dangerous species. We need people who can sit still and be able to smile, who can walk peacefully. We need people like that in order to save us. Mahayana Buddhism says that you are that person, that each of you is that person.”

He also talks about if we are fully aware, everyone will identify with the perpetrator of violence as well as the victim. As he wrote in a poem:

     “I am the 12-year-old girl, refugee
    on a small boat,
    who throws herself into the ocean after
    being raped by a sea pirate,
    and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable
    of seeing and loving.”





end of the quotation and of my contrubution. I love your blog, C, and as I said before, I love that you bring up these questions in between all the other things you are interested in. I have read your post yesterday and I knew I was going to respond, but I was clueless what to say, so I let it sink in, slept on it, and here it is.

with love,
Gabriele