Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Obama stance on waterboarding unethical?

Posted May 7th, 2009 by Steve
(follow up from the Christopher Witz thread on Obama, CIA...)
 
It is the widely held view that waterboarding is unethical, correct?  Or could is be a superficial view that when looked at deeply actually proves the opposite?
 
Take President Obama's banning of waterboarding as an example, widely hailed as a improvement. I pose the following scenario:
 
The Central Intelligence Agency has in custody a co-conspirator for a terrorist operation planned in a U.S city.  This individual has bragged to his interogators that he knows the details but will not tell a soul. What do we do?
 
Waterboarding has been outlawed.
 
A week later a chemical attack is successfully carried out with 100 casualties.
 
What would President Obama tell the victims families?  " I am sorry for the loss of your daughter sir, it turns out we had a person in our custody that had knowledge of the plot but would not tell our interrogators.  We naturally refused any waterboarding...but look at the bright side, we took the high road and are respected by the rest of the world!" (and their relative level of morality)
 
Is this really higher ethics?
 
Would you as President not feel any guilt for not doing everything you could? Is the sustained uncomfort of a detainee who refuses to part with his knowledge of a plot worth 100 lives?  50?  How about 1?
 
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------
 
 
I do not understand why people are so up in arms about the Bush era waterboarding.  Does it kill? No. Does it cause permanant damage or scars? Not that I am aware. Was it used indescriminantly? No, only on a handful of suspects believed to have knowledge of planned attacks.
 
Does Al Quaeda have a ban on torture? No. they do it all the time. So why afford them the same courtesy? They probably view the banning of waterboarding as "a weakness" not some ethical progress that they now will view the infidels in higher esteem.
 
I wonder if this "taking the high road" is not just some ego trip/ pat on the back to make ourselves feel better for " being good people, well respected by the world" and not a genuine concern for what is really ethical.
 
In an ideal world we could always just make the easy decision on what is right or wrong.  The highest view would probably looking at the world karmically: Always do the positive thing no matter what and whatever happens is other people's karma.  Well, that only works if everybody is at that level and also sees things karmically.  But in todays world, that is not a good way to run a society or base decisions on.
 
President Obama to the above family: " Sorry sir, we acted ethically toward the detainee and did not waterboard him...your wife's death was just her karma. "  Can we say this?
 
What I hope is the case is that the ban on waterboarding was used a a PR move to improve our standing in the world but when it comes down to life and death, somebody will be given the green light to do what is neccessary(and right).
 
Some will say that waterboarding does not work...well, we don't know that. If a person does not know anything, of course they will give bad information to stop the waterboarding. But if they do know something, they are much, much more likely to tell...as opposed to being asked nicely.
 
I think we should make the distinction between waterboarding (negative act) as punishment (negative act) and waterboarding(negative action) to get information to save lives (positive action).  If the negative action is balanced by the positive motivation, is it not worth consideration in certain circumstances?
 
What say you?
 
 
(BTW I like Obama and think he is doing a pretty good job so far)

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

ethics and torture

Posted May 8th, 2009 by Christophe Witz

Hi Steve,

I see you take a different stance than I did in my Blog Post. That's fine. Everybody is allowed to express their opinion as one wishes. That is because we live in a free society and we have the rule of law that defends these freedoms.

You bring up the question of using torture (no! you said waterboarding, sorry)  as a means to rescue human lives. Like some terrorist having the information when the bomb will explode or something like that. I understand this point of view, but I come to different conclusions. Let me tell you a case that happened here in Germany some years ago and which has been much discussed since then.

The Case was that of an abduction. The hijacker was caught, but would not tell where he was hiding the little girl that he had kidnapped. Then Superintendend Daschner, local chief of police, gave the OK  for 'enhanced interrogation'. The criminal then indeed gave the information where to find the girl, but it was too late, she was already dead.

Daschner was later condemned guilty for not honoring the fundamental human rights of the criminal. The reasons given for the judgement were that it was understandable why Daschner acted the way he did, all the while the law was clearly transgressed, thus the condemnation.

The point is here that no matter how much of a good idea 'enhanced interrogation' might seem, it is still a violation of human rights, and (even worse) is the first step of undermining the rule of law. This is not the Wild West anymore where Dirty Harry  can do what the fuck he wants to, but we have Laws, and Courts who guard the compliance to those Laws. This point is really crucial, and IMO marks the fine line between barbarism and civilization.

So, coming back to Gitmo and waterboarding: whatever happened, happened. Now it's the task of the american Judiciary System to judge whether there will be condemnations or not. I for my part will watch this process very closely, because it tells a lot about where we're at with ethics, morals, and the rule of law  in today's Western World.

Regards,

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The lesser of two evils?

Posted May 8th, 2009 by David Marshall

 

Steve, I think you make a very important point. We can come up with scenarios in which it is arguably the ethical thing to do to use interrogation tactics like waterboarding.

If we don't consider that perspective, we are potentially valuing the suffering of one criminal over the lives and suffering of hundreds or thousands of others.

I don't think the answer is simply not interrogating; I think we need to develop interrogation techniques that are increasingly harmless and effective.

This is one subject where Obama has perhaps been a little disappointing.

He dismissed the idea of John Brennan as CIA chief for advancing the perspective that Steve offers here. That may be fine, for political reasons and because Brennan perhaps didn't appreciate Green perspectives well enough. It also wasn't wise on Brennan's part to take a position that was hard to distinguish from the Bush adminstration's, though elsewhere he did differentiate himself from the Bush administration well enough.

But then, without consulting the Senate Intelligence Committee, Obama chose Leon Panetta, who was on record for dismissing the perspectives Steve and Brennan offered and who didn't have experience in the intelligence field, though apparently he is a good manager. 

Panetta may turn out to be fine, but it does look like an instance where Obama caved in to the left. The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Democrats, wasn't happy at all they weren't consulted and that Obama chose a CIA chief who didn't have experience in the field, but they eventually confirmed him. In his confirmation hearings Panetta did say something akin to the idea that "enhanced interrogation" techniques might be necessary in a particular situation.

I don't take waterboarding lightly; it appears to have damaging effects psychologically, but on these ethical questions we have to consider the alternative. In some cases the most ethical choice isn't very nice but is nevertheless the lesser of two evils.

By the way, Christopher Hitchens was once waterboarded at the request of his editor at Vanity Fair. You can see him being subjected to it and his comments about it here. It convinces me that it's not an entirely harmless procedure and that we should develop more harmless procedures, but in a case where we have to choose between two evils, the lesser evil may involve waterboarding a committed Red/Amber mass murderer.