I saw it in a movie once…
Why is it that torture advocates rely on absurd hypotheticals to make their case? The latest senior legal professional to advocate systematised inhumanity is Peter Faris QC (via), who hit the news after posting an example of acceptable torture on his blog:
A psychopathic murder [sic] has buried a teenage girl alive and he is captured by the police. He refuses to say where she is. He taunts the police with his knowledge. Torture is acceptable to find the girl and to save her life. (This example is taken from the film Dirty Harry…)
Yes, you read that correctly. His argument in favour of torture is based on an event that never happened. The thing about movies is that we know for sure the bad guy has the information in question. We know this because they are made up, and the person who made them up gave them that knowledge.
The bad thing about real life is that we are not made up, and we can never be sure what a bad guy knows or doesn’t know — even if they are bragging about some particular crime. Here is a real-life counter-example: “Two hundred people confessed to kidnapping Lindbergh’s baby, for example.” People confess to things they didn’t do, and the police will often believe them even if they contradict the physical evidence. Is Faris willing to torture them all?
But I think the rest of Faris’s example is worth quoting:
(This example is taken from the film Dirty Harry — in the film, Harry shot the man who then gave the information but the girl had already died).
He picked a movie in which the torture was useless! They tortured the suspect to death, and yet did not save the victim.
This just goes to show that those who support torture aren’t really interested in saving lives. They are just interested in inflicting horrendous pain, suffering and even death on people they don’t like, on the basis of an untested and unproven belief that the person knows about a crime. It is vengeful vigelantism, and nothing more.
PS: Here is a list of Faris’s favourite movies. Let’s hear your suggestions for other ridiculous arguments he will support by reference to these films.
He he.
You are a member of the security and intelligence wing of the People’s Front of Judea. You hear of a plot to capture Herod’s daughter by the Judean People’s Front. You capture a member of the Popular People’s Front who claims to know when and where the kidnapping will take place. If you torture the captive, you can find out when the Judean People’s Front are planning their attempt, thereby allowing the People’s Front of Judea to kidnap her a few hours before hand, and then to issue demands to Herod.
Torture is justified.
Terrific race the Romans. Terrific.
I’m really struggling to understand why the “torture debate” has resurfaced in this country. Anyone who has any understanding of the historical use of torture, knows that it simply doesn’t work, no matter how justified you feel it might be. It is especially useless in the kinds of examples being thrown about – an “emergency” measure to prevent major catastrophes. This assumes that (a) you know something is about to happen (b) you have in custody the correct person responsible for what is about to happen (c) said person isn’t going to feed you bullshit.
In reality, bombings and other such attacks are generally unpredictable, suspects are rarely in custody before the attack happens, and torture produces equally unreliable information from both the guilty and innocent. Both will say anything to make the torture stop, not necessarily the truth.
So why is the same old bullshit being spread about by people who, judging by their positions, should be smarter than that?
Hmm.. I’m surprised he didn’t suggest administering Voight-Kampff tests to suspected terrorists to make sure they’re not replicants. You never know, those funny looking people and all that.
I had do a double take on his summary of Dirty Harry: “Eastwood get’s it right – Dirty Harry is truly a legend”
Am I being unfair?
I feel very relieved that I have only seen 3 of Faris’ 25 favourite movies. Perhaps there is a correlation between the number of viewings and people’s opinion on torture.
Who knows, maybe if I had seen all 25 of Faris’ films I would be sticking bamboo sticks underneath a kid’s fingernails because they knew something about a recent Icy Pole theft at the local shops.
And one more thing, In life of Brian, Jesus was obviously being tortured at the end because he knew something about the JPF. Acceptable Mr Faris? I think not.
You are all delusional. As even a cursory viewing of 24 will demonstrate, torture is ALWAYS an appropriate policing technique. Use it freely, use it liberally. But not TOO liberally, less you become liberal. And that’s bad – unless you’re Liberal. Ummm…
Screw you all!
Things Petey may have learned from the movies:
People who do origami are weird. I saw it once in this film Blade Runner. This guy he did some origami and wot do you know, he turned out to be dodgy. So watch out.
I don’t know why people complain so much about prisons. Those prisoners look like they’re having an orright time to me. I saw it in the film The Blues Brother, where the blokes in the gaol sing and dance to an Elvis Presley song. It looked jivin’.
And. There’s this film, right, called The Third Man. In it, this guy tells us all about how fascism is great, because in Italy under the Borgias they had all these great things happen, while those boring old turds in Switzerland had peace, love, and nothing more exciting than a cuckoo clock, the retards. So, go Fascism! Also, the Harry Lime song is pretty. I love a good zither. Dum-de-dum-dedum, de-dum-dedum…
And so forth.
It’s not like me to be so catty, but good Lord… Like shooting fish in a freaking barrel.
Also, Leni Riefenstahl was ‘probably Hitler’s mistress?’ PROBABLY? Well, that’s a nice controversial little tidbit to casually throw into the ring!
“This just goes to show that those who support torture aren’t really interested in saving lives. They are just interested in inflicting horrendous pain, suffering and even death on people they don’t like, on the basis of an untested and unproven belief that the person knows about a crime. It is vengeful vigelantism, and nothing more.”
That is a huge unfounded assumption.
I suppose that Faris, given that he lists ‘Shoah’ as one of his favourites, could well encourage the suppression of terrorism by terrorising and locking up in giant camps anyone even remotely suspected of being a terrorist or of having association with terrorists… wait, that’s already been done .
Terrorism, in my above post, should be fringed with quotes, like so: ‘terrorism’.
I mean, we are talking about two regimes who showed themselves, and are continuing to show themselves, as being quite willing to imprison people for ridiculous lengths of time (or for the span of their lives, however blessedly short those lives may have turned out to have been) on little to no evidence at all.
I agree, it is an absolutely unfounded assumption. We’re not JUST interested in inflicting horrendous pain, suffering and sometimes death on people we don’t like. We also like ridiculing, marginalising and slandering them in public like the pathetic roaches they are.
You see, despite all the military posturing, global real-politik and economic blustering us rulers of the free world actually like the Chinese. They’re not so bad (so long as they keep buying our bonds the slanty-eyed pricks). They’re on to something with that whole “social order, protect the motherland” thing. So what’s a few towel-heads and political dissidents between friends huh?
“That is a huge unfounded assumption.”
err – yes – because it’s an *argument*
I’d happen to agree with most of that argument – for torture advocates, getting a chance to punish a perceived baddie in the name of “truth” is both the means and the end. No fussy “trial”, no annoying “defence” or defence lawyers, none of that damn “evidence” to worry about, and no judge or rules of court – it’s just you and them in the interrogation room with whichever implement works best.
And as various others have pointed out, even if you ignore all the legal / moral implications, torture is not a very useful means if your end is to prevent harm – torture generally produces false confessions. The anecdotal evidence is that good negotiation skills and some understanding of psychology will get you much closer to the truth every time. eg http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
The real reason this “debate” is being fanned by conservatives is that the “torture is acceptable for emergency situations on terrorists” scenario is a neat hole into which governments can scrape human rights and the rule of law whenever it is getting a bit too hard for their liking.
Just ask Steve Biko…
Trackback.
This is the old, “women and children” argument. As soon as someone screams, “Save the women and children!!”, it’s generally accepted that people have the right to forget all norms of human behaviour and carry on like animals.
In the sad real life Dirty Harry scenario which occurred in Germany 2-3 years back, and which Ms Clarke loves to cite, the child was also found dead. There was a reason why we disbanded the NCA. And it wasn’t just because of the horrific bombing in Adelaide a few years back.
Sjusju is spot on. That’s exactly the reasoning behind my “unfounded assumption”. The fact that their argument is based on emotion — what would you do if your baby daughter was being eaten by a terrorist! — reveals that vengeance is behind these calls for torture.
They always watch Dirty Harry but never watch Magnum Force.
These sleazy hypotheticals always take me back to the Bart is Murderer episode of the Simpsons.
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving
family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal
a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don’t like bread? They like… cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that’s okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price
that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.
It really beggars belief that people with years of experience in the criminal justice system keep dragging up this argument.
Whatever you think of torture, morally and legally, surely the evidence that it doesn’t actually work might make you think twice before advocating it.
The argument is premised on ‘necessity’ – the so called ticking time bomb, yada yada. Yet the need for torture assumes it actually has utility.
What utility, I wonder? The few case examples that arguably demonstrate torture has worked are a tiny sample space from which to extrapolate an argument of such generality. Meanwhile, on the other hand, is an expanse of research that demonstrates how utterly futile torture is as a means of extracting constructive information on a case.
Honestly, it can’t be good for your professional credibility to be spouting such nonsense.
Manas, you’ll be pleased to know that he has very little professional credibility, anyway:
He got sacked from the NCA, too, for lying about his “undercover” activities at a brothel.
[knock on door]
Holden: Come in. Sit down.
Leon: Care if I talk? I’m kind of nervous when I take tests.
Holden: Uh, just please don’t move.
Leon: Oh, sorry. I already had an IQ test this year, I don’t think I’ve ever had one of these-
Holden: Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention. Now, answer as quickly as you can.
Leon: Sure.
Holden: One-one-eight-seven at Unterwasser.
Leon: That’s the hotel.
Holden: What?
Leon: Where I live.
Holden: Nice place?
Leon: Yeah, sure I guess– that part of the test?
Holden: No, just warming you up, that’s all.
Leon: Oh. It’s not fancy or anything.
Holden: You’re in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of the sudden-
Leon: Is this the test now?
Holden: Yes. You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down-
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn’t make any difference what desert, it’s completely hypothetical.
Leon: But how come I’d be there?
Holden: Maybe you’re fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself, who knows? You look down and you see a tortoise, Leon, it’s crawling towards you-
Leon: Tortoise, what’s that?
Holden: Know what a turtle is?
Leon: Of course.
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I’ve never seen a turtle — But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden, or do they write them down for you?
Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can’t, not without your help, but you’re not helping.
Leon: What do you mean I’m not helping?
Holden: I mean, you’re not helping. Why is that Leon? — They’re just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they’re written down for me. It’s a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. — Shall we continue? Describe in single words, only the good things that come in to your mind about… your mother.
Leon: My mother?
Holden: Yeah.
Leon: Let me tell you about my mother…
[Leon shoots Holden]
Well, I’m definitely left of center and he does recommens some good films (Christ Stopped at Eboli is one of my all-time favorites), but how conservative is he? He shows a predilection for male-female-male threesomes (Jules and Jim) runaway children (The 400 Blows) and Nazi and Soviet agitprop (Triumph of the Will and Potemkin).
But Rob, you are implying that all people who hold that position hold it for emotive reasons, which just isnt true.
I have been able to identify only two reasons that motivate people to support torture.
First, a desire for vengeance, even if their victim is innocent.
Second, a desire to make some kind of name for themselves by taking an abhorrent position and claiming victim status when people tell them to grow up.
There is a significant overlap between the two groups.
Perhaps you fall only into the second. In that case, I apologise for implying that you are a sadist. On the other hand, I also feel sorry for you — at least the sadists are motivated by something other than shameless fame-whoring.
He and I both like Dr. Strangelove, I’m creeped out to note. I’ll wait for his suggestion that to preserve our way of life and the purity of our precious bodily fluids, we should immediately launch an all-out nuclear attack on the Russians, and then, mein führer… I mean, mister President… establish colonies of our most important military and strategic minds at the bottom of the deepest mine shafts.
I fall in neither, and it disturbs me that you think I am so shallow in my motives.
It disturbs me that you haven’t given me any evidence to suggest otherwise.
“It disturbs me that you haven’t given me any evidence to suggest otherwise.” Now, Rob you seem to be reversing the onus of evidence. Nic doesn’t have to prove anything, except that he supports torture. We (and I rather agree with your analysis) are the ones that need to prove their motivations.
No doubt some people genuinely support torture because they think torture can have benign outcomes. They can say that if they want, and they’re wrong.
Nevertheless, much of the comment in favour of torture comes from parties who wish to either a) shock people, or b) torture people they don’t like.
A most instructive example of the latter came out of the Abu Ghraib scandal:
‘He recounted his abuse at the hands of U.S. guards — and especially, he says, by one Egyptian translator, a Coptic Christian who bragged to all prisoners, “I came to torture Muslims.â€? ‘
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7865
bamboo shoots under my fingernails…..
slow drips of water on my forehead……for days and days and days….
keeping me in an underground pit…with snakes and spiders and all kinda creepy-crawlies….
Listening to Roachford & Boys to Men, minute after minute after minute…
Hearing more excuses – “I was not aware of that information” from our politicians…
Now that’s torture.
As Harry would say…..”Go ahead….Make my Day!!!