Re: "Even if torture works."

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:10:50 +0000, hummingbird
<ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:02:26 -0000, "TD" <tdefries@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>"hummingbird" <ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:nhrdp1data60lk2jd18hmif2mjmpnmj650@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>>> Policies of this nature do not have a pick 'n mix option.
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely. Key Human Rights issues like "No Torture" need to be upheld
>>>>unequivocally. There is no middle ground. I am disgusted with our govts
>>>>spineless complicity in these renditions and our feeble and ultimately
>>>>self-destructive "torture evidence should be considered" stance.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>>As am I.
>
>Indeed.
>
>>> It's a pity that some people find it easy to strongly support
>>> Bush/Blair and their war but then claim not to support the methods
>>> they use to carry it out: naivety and double standards par excellance.
>
>>Let's say the government of Madeupistan wants to reduce the number of
>>murders in that fine country. Now, torture is _one_ of the methods it
>>proposes to employ in order to do so.
>
>In this scenario, anybody who supports the policy is also directly or
>indirectly supporting the tactics. There is no pick 'n mix option.

There is an element of truth in your "no pick'n'mix" statement,
relating to the *inevitable* consequences of an action.

If you advocate a particular policy, e.g. invading Iraq to remove
Saddam's regime, you must accept the inevitable consequences -- e.g.
that people will be killed in the process. You can't advocate military
action and then disown the inevitable deaths that result from it.

You can't even disown the accidents -- except where they result from
outright incompetence or a policy decision that was clearly
unnecessary. Humans are fallible and war is a high stakes situation
with much room for confusion. It is inevitable that there will be
mistakes made that cost lives.

The most you can say is that whilst you dislike the deaths, you feel
the decision to wage war was worth the cost -- i.e. a judgement that
the war was necessary or worthwhile despite the deaths. All you can
hope for is that the military will try to keep those deaths to a
minimum.

However it is not inevitable that those waging the war start using
torture on their prisoners. That is a policy decision, a matter of
choice on the part of the people who employ it and the people who
authorise it.

The US authorities could have prosecuted their "war on terror" and the
invasion of Iraq whilst pursuing a different policy on the issue of
the use of torture.

I therefore fail to see why support the "war on terror" entails
support for the use of torture.

Indeed if you regard the goals of the "war on terror" as goals that
would be pursued come what may then the *only* thing you could
possibly influence how the goal is pursued not whether it is, and a
position of support for the goal might be the only position from which
you will be listened to.

In such a situation I cannot see how it is hypocritical to support the
goal whilst criticising and opposing some of the methods employed,
especially if the methods concerned are counterproductive to the
goals, as I believe about the use of torture in OIF is -- it has
handed a propaganda gift to the enemy.

>Governments do not permit their electorates to dictate the tactics
>used when they wage war.

I'm not sure that's true. ISTM that pressure to keep the death toll
down has led to the development of military technologies and tactics
that do precisely that.

>>Must you then totally oppose the
>>government,
>
>IMO in such situations one has to decide which of the issues ranks
>highest in one's conscience and act accordingly.

Here you're saying that sometimes you must balance one issue off
against another in tricky circumstances. If a government pursues a
goal you approve of using methods you disapprove of, then you're put
on the spot of deciding whether to oppos

>>or may you oppose the use of that one method while supporting
>>the general principle of reducing the number of murders?
>
>There is NO pick 'n mix option in such matters.

There is if you're the government, ergo, there is the option for those
who support the government but oppose the tactics to bring maximum
pressure to bear on them to cease those tactics.

I see no hypocrisy or double standards in such a decision. Only a
judgement that the pursuit of the goal will either happen come what
may and only the means are up for negotiation or that pursuit of the
goal comes ahead avoiding the tactics disapproved of.

It was not inevitable that the US pursued the policy on torture that
it has done -- it was a choice made by the executive, a choice that
can, potentially at least, be influenced by those who agree with OIF
and TWAT but disagree with the policy on torture adopted.

>If you decide to support the policy knowing that the tactics include
>torture, how can you argue with any moral strength that you didn't
>agree with those tactics?

You can do so because/where the tactics are a choice, not an
inevitable/necessary part of achieving the goal.

You can also do so if the goal is non-negotiable but the tactics are.

You can do so if had you been calling the shots you'd have done things
differently.

Of course not being the one calling the shots, all you can do is bring
pressure and criticise the offending tactics or oppose the policy
outright. If you believe that the former is more likely to be
effective, that you're more likely to be listened to and that you do
support the broad objectives, ISTM the rational option...

> It's just an attempt to disown liability
>for the nasty bits of war which happen.

That only applies to disowning the inevitable deaths, not the policy
choices made. Of course if you say you'd have chosen to pursue things
differently, you have to accept the consequences of that too...

James

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >>> indirectly supporting the tactics. ... watch closely what people support and what they do. ... >>> If you decide to support the policy knowing that the tactics include ... >>> torture, how can you argue with any moral strength that you didn't ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >>support the fight against crime, you implicitly condone the attacks on ... >for the tactics they choose to use to effect that policy. ... If all you mean is that the government will ... >to the policy, you also give implicit support to the tactics. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: "Even if torture works."
    ... >> support. ... be it a policy or an old biro. ... >> You may have noticed how support for the Iraq invasion has dropped off ... >supporting specific tactics used in the course of it. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Less OT: Grand Strategy and the GWoT
    ... > a choice among goals, rather than a list of goals. ... operations, and battles. ... commanders understand the conditions for victory before seeking battle. ... tactics; the strategic orientation at the operational level requires ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: A-League Result [R, not surprisingly]
    ... >their back to goal or alternativly we run at defences head on (with some ... >not just goals). ... Despite their tactics going forward leaving much to be ... ask any supporter in The Den and they would ...
    (rec.sport.soccer)