fiveredapples wrote:
Now, I think I know where you're going. You want to say that each water dousing becomes more and more painful such that eventually we get to a severely painful water dousing, and it's roughly at this point, or not much further beyond, that these known terrorists decided to talk. And, of course, this paints of a picture of us inflicting severe pain on the known terrorists. This story is coherent enough, but it's not reality.
I am only interested in the degree of pain because
you think it important.
If we were arguing that inflicting suffering on prisoners is permissible because we do that - and worse - during war, then why would we be bothered about the degree of suffering?
In a later post you write:
But this is only a theoretical concern. In practical terms, it's not a concern because CIA water boarding works, and it works without causing severe pain or severe suffering. So we'll just keep doing that and that alone. If the terrorists ever become so resistant that they push us to water board to severe pain or severe suffering, then we might have to ask the question of how much further are we going to ramp up the interrogation techniques to get them to talk. But I can't see that this will ever happen because human beings can only condition themselves so much or tolerate so much.
Indeed, it would only be a theoretical concern, in that we are discussing the morality rather than the effectiveness. Whether we can really draw a line between the two is something I return to below.
(As a side issue, a US soldier writing in the magazine which runs these boards suggests that the waterboarding was less successful than was claimed because the enemy had adjusted their organistaion to minimise the damage any individual can inflict. The problem is not whether the person will eventually crack, it is whether you can crack them fast enough.)
I don't know about a "general moral argument" that covers all the cases in which you're morally justified to inflict pain on someone else. I'm not sure I want to even attempt wrapping my head around that. Sounds awfully difficult.
For my purposes, I just know and go by what most people here in America believe: that inflicting pain, even severe pain, even dismembering or killing another human being is sometimes morally permissible, most notably as self-defense. That doesn't mean it's always morally permissible in self-defense, but in many instances it is. So, I think that's enough. And I think CIA water boarding falls directly under the category of self-defense, albeit it's not mano-a-mano self-defense.
But surely self-defence is only permitted where there is an immediate threat - and no alternative is available. One isn't allowed to work on a hypothetical; I cannot shoot somebody because I think they might attack me, or somebody else, in the future.
When giving reasons why waterboarding is acceptable, the 'ticking bomb' scenario is the favourite because it most closely resembles an immediate threat, and thus self-defence.
Later you write:
I can't rule out doing it to US citizens. I think in a case where someone abducts your child and has him tied up in some dungeon, incapable of feeding himself, then I think CIA water boarding should be performed provided we have nearly incontrovertible evidence that he's the abductor. This is a case in which if the perpetrator is unwilling to divulge the location of your child, then your child will die in a day or two.
So again, this scenario closely resembles 'self defence'. The question is why stop there? The people waterboarded by the CIA did not know of that sort of 'ticking bomb' plot, yet it was judged their information could still save US lives. So why shouldn't one torture US citizens who use drugs, to make them reveal their suppliers? Wouldn't that also save lives?
We surely have to have some rule about who can be waterboarded, and by whom.
My own position is that nations like the USA are not supposed to be like fascist states, meaning that they believe their values are universal, not just for Americans. You said above that it would be difficult to come up with a '
general moral argument', yet everyone assumed the USA already had one, and it started:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
When the US take a prisoner, I think they are obliged to give them the same rights they say should apply to 'all men'. Of course they can still restrain them, just as they can put criminals in prison, even execute them, but it has to be done according to a law which treats all men equally.
It isn't inconceiveable that the USA might enact a law that allowed waterboarding, but it would have to apply to everyone and be subject to law. If the USA is unwilling (for whatever reason) to allow Americans to be waterboarded, then this must apply to everyone.
Nor is this just theoretical. The Declaration of Independence was a formidable weapon; a powerful argument why the USA was not just another nation. The idea that the US military 'liberated' rather than conquered other people really had traction, when those people were deciding whether to resist the USA or not.
I would suggest that the hostility shown towards your view on these boards is fundamentally motivated by disappointment. Nobody imagined the USA was perfect, but (unlike regimes which have done far worse things) the USA represented hope. That is why so many people are so angry with what has happened to it.