lydy | Bright lines

Bright lines

I just had a painful conversation.

Someone who was a speak-to acquaintance with some good will between us, and a lot of social discomfort, argued some time ago -- possibly the last pool party -- that there could be legitimate reasons for what happened at Abu Graib. After some shouting, and some later thought, although perhaps not calmer thought, I informed him that we are no longer on speaking terms.

He has just called with all the good will in the world on his part, wanting to give me valuable information. I established that he still felt that torture was, under some circumstances, acceptable and useful. I told him that if he wished to send me the information in email, that would be a kindness, but that I was now going to hang up.

He's the only person in the world that I'm not speaking to, the only person in the world where the resolve lasted past a few contacts. He's prone to depression, which makes what I did worse. He's a Viet Nam Vet, so he quite reasonably believes that he is speaking from an informed decision. I hated doing that. I'm shaking. But torture is wrong, and anyone who believes otherwise is not a good person. I told him that, too.

I have other friends who, I know from conversations that tiptoed around it, believe torture is acceptable under some circumstance or another. They haven't crossed the bright line, they haven't said that point blank. Are they less of a bad person because they haven't said it to me? Probably not. My excuse is that if they do not speak to me of it, then I do not have to judge. Am I copping out? To some extent.

If you are my friend, do not ever tell me that you think torture in any form is moral or useful for gaining intelligence. I will, in fact, stop speaking to you, no matter how uncomfortable it makes both of us. I will stop being your friend. It will hurt me, and if you are my friend, presumably it will hurt you. I am restricting this to conversations, both in voice and in photons. A blog, though, is not a conversation, and I consider it exempt. I'll geet back to you about comments in someone else's blog.

This may not be a brave or appropriate line, it is my bright line.

In the normal course of things, I would say I was sorry I was being so rigid. On this topic, I'm sorry I'm being so flexible.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Being sorry that you're being so flexible makes sense; so does being somewhat flexible: drawing those lines isn't easy either.

ah, that's hard.

the part that gets me is that, skipping entirely the question of whether or not there are good and/or bad ways to get useful information, torture doesn't get useful information. it doesn't work for its stated purpose. it doesn't work. why does anyone want to condone it when it doesn't work? (i mean, i know why. desperation and other, more ugly parts of people's souls.)

i spent a lot of time in, i think, 1999 & 2000, wishing that mccain would run, thinking that i actually liked some of his policies and thinking that even should he win instead of a democrat, he seemed like a decent option. i've changed my mind on that one.

just so

I've heard the claim that "torture doesn't get useful information" many times, yet it has been used very effectively. I don't think that's a useful moral arguement.

i am not having this conversation with you in lydy's lj. if she wants to have it with you, that's fine. i am not interested.

This isn't the place to bring that up.

Google my Lj Name, or my given name (terry karney) with torture.

Which will tell you what I know, and what I think.

I'm an Army interrogator, and interrogation instructor, what I can say is the "effective" use of torture is.... how to say this succintly, and with as much politesse as I can mange...

Bullshit.

TK

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and we can carry on this discussion in your journal or mine.

Or mine. I'll try to catch up with you LJs, but don't hold back on my account. I want to hear what you both have to say.

As a Navy Vet, I do not believe that torture brings about good results at all.

BUT...sometimes, as a parent who has adopted children who were tortured at hands of birth parents, I would like them to feel a little bit of what they put my kids through...but I know it wouldn't do any good....I guess it is just a revenge feeling!

I don't think that wanting someone to experience something that they deliberately inflicted on another is quite in the same category.

I'm with

cakmpls on this one. As long as you don't go out and do it, wanting to do it makes perfect sense. If you do go out and do it, they'll likely put you in jail, which would be a bad thing, not to mention not good for your kids, so please don't.

Hey, would a long-distance hug help? Sorry, but I can't babysit from a thousand miles away, but I can think of a warm fuzzy and send it flitting off in the ether towards you.

Babysitting would be nice......and a hug is even better!!

I grew up believing that only the Bad Guys used torture. I was mortified to find out we could be Bad Guys too. And still am.

We all have our personal limits. It's good to know yours and it's good to be honest about what they are, and why they are there.

With people who believe that our safety is more important than our morality, you can always forgo the moral-high-ground argument and go for the practical.

Being a Vietnam vet puts one in an informed position? Retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam, says, "If I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything." He says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 to assess interrogations in Iraq, says that torture is "not a good way to get information."

Right here among us on LJ,

pecunium is/has been, among other interesting things, a military interrogator. He says torture doesn't work for its stated purpose.

Yes, on occasion one can get accurate, helpful information from someone who is being tortured. The rest of the time, one gets inaccurate information that turns attention in the wrong direction at the wrong time. The problem is that one has no way of knowing which it is until it's too late.

What I said was that, as a vet, he quite reasonably believes that he has an informed opinion. I do think it's reasonable, in the sense that everything that he was told matched pretty well with what he saw and what he experienced. While the US didn't admit to torture during that war, there was certainly enough of it, and while the specialists may have known better, most of the soldiers weren't specialists.

I don't think he has a more accurate position. In fact, I think his arguments are a load of donkey dung. But I do understand why he thinks he has privileged information, and I understand that by refusing to accept his "expertise" I am raising his stress level. I don't hate the guy. I have just decided to not have anything to do with him. I know damn well he's fragile, and I'm not pleased about adding additional stressors to his life. The thing is, this is as considerate as I am willing to be with someone tells me that they think that torture is acceptable.

It's taken a long time for me to draw this bright line, but I believe it to be the right one. I don't mind warning people, once. But what I've decided is that by engaging people on the issue, I give it validity in their mind and mine. It does not deserve such.

Go you!

"I have other friends who, I know from conversations that tiptoed around it, believe torture is acceptable under some circumstance or another. They haven't crossed the bright line, they haven't said that point blank. Are they less of a bad person because they haven't said it to me? "

Actually, they're probably worse. They're being dishonest and hypocritical.

Speaking as someone also prone to depression (and still getting over the last "smackdown"), I'd encourage you in not feeling bad about your actions. You're not responsible for his depression (nor is he, he's responsible for what he does with it). Also since he phoned you up after you told him you didn't want to speak to him you may need to be really firm about this limit you've set. I think you did the right thing in telling him to e-mail you and then hanging up.

There are people that I don't talk to, some because it's not good for me, and some because I just don't want to.

My problem is very often I cross people off my list because they've crossed a line that they didn't know exsisted. At least you're giving people fair warning.

Take care.

No, they weren't being dishonest. We were both backing away from a confrontation which could only have led to grief. My mother and I never discuss abortion. Some of my friends and I never discuss politics.

I don't feel bad, except insofar as being mean to someone makes me feel shaky. I don't feel responsible for his depression. However, as a reasonably fragile person myself, I do attempt to avoid braking people where possible. If I knew that he were phobic about the color red, I'd probably avoid wearing red if I knew he was going to be around. Black looks quite as ravishing on me as red. 8-)

No, they weren't being dishonest. We were both backing away from a confrontation which could only have led to grief

That makes sense. Sorry that I misinterpreted what you wrote.

Actually, what I hate the most is when I've crossed a line that I didn't know existed -- and I never do find out why things went all wrong. Not being able to fix it is one thing; not knowing even whether it's fixable is quite another.

OTOH, I once found out from a third party that someone wasn't speaking to me, which was news (and a couple of years old, at that) to me. It was especially interesting as we'd exchanged politenesses once or twice at parties since he'd instituted that policy -- and when I phoned, we had a conversation. Actually, it was a mutual breakup, and I'd pretty much given up on talking to him about anything of substance. Ah, people.

All hail fair warning! When one has such lines, it's good to know it yourself. It can be even better to tell your friends.

We discussed this in person, and on further reflection I think you're being both unfair and counter-productive.

Unfair. You and I travel in circles where people speak their minds; and if you engage in a conversation, it's to elicit someone's opinion, discover facts, or to attempt to persuade. By cutting this person off, you've changed the rules in mid-stream and without fair warning.

Now, I understand about red lines, and if you'd discovered that he likes babies roasted (with a side order of potatoes) then you'd certainly be justified in cutting him off. But you're not discussing his personal sins or behavior, and I wonder why you suddenly draw the line here.

Counter-productive. If you cut off everyone who disagrees with you on whether torture can be morally justified, then you have no chance to persuade them that it's immoral. You disappear from the debate.

While I understand your feelings better than you might expect, I think that if you must take yourself out of this debate, you should find a way that doesn't include cutting off your friends.

Oh, and I should probably add this disclaimer: don't attempt to read more into this message or my comments than I've put in. There's a distinct difference between effective and moral behavior.

Unfair. You and I travel in circles where people speak their minds; and if you engage in a conversation, it's to elicit someone's opinion, discover facts, or to attempt to persuade. By cutting this person off, you've changed the rules in mid-stream and without fair warning.

I'm not playing a "gotcha" game. If I haven't made my position clear, or if I've backed someone into a corner, then we retire to our separate corners and see if there's a way out of the nuclear option. I'm not looking to lose friends over it. I hope that I give very fair warning. I try to allow for mistakes. People are not usually bad people all the way through. I do believe that someone can be a bad person in some major area, and still be a friend of mine.

Counter-productive. If you cut off everyone who disagrees with you on whether torture can be morally justified, then you have no chance to persuade them that it's immoral. You disappear from the debate.

Debates rarely end with a firm decision on the part of one side or the other. Usually, people need some time to think about it. I am willing to discuss it with people who are willing to discuss back. That means warning them that I am not persuadable and that if they decide they are absolutely in favor of torture, I really, really don't want to hear about it. If the debate appears to be in good faith, then I'm willing to engage.

I'm dead certain about this issue, but I have been wrong about things that I'm dead certain about before. I'm willing to discuss it and do my best to listen. But only in the context of actual discussion, not in the sense of putting up two moral view points against each other, if you see what I mean. There are different types of discourse, and I hope that I'm able to tell which one. When it looks like things are shading over into one, I will warn my conversational partner how close we're coming to a bright line.

This is an issue that you and I have. I am aware of that. So far, we have always given each other enough space that I'm not uncomfortable. It's required a certain sensitivity on both our parts. You recently sent me an article on a professor who had written a book supporting the historicity of blood libel, which used almost exclusively testimony from torture victims during the Inquisition. I found this interesting, and definitely a sign that we were at least in discussion, not merely squaring off with fixed positions. That's a lot of the difference.

The reason it's in the same range as baby eating is that it requires a certain set of beliefs about the value of human beings and the proper use of authority which I think is in the same category as being a devout racist, or a member of the SLA.

It's really complicated, Moshe, which is why I have a bright line. It's because without it, I lose my balance all together.

I've lost it once or twice when someone tries to talk to me about the need for torture (or a couple of other "stern" measures).

I don't blame you for having a bright line on this, and a bright line is the way to draw it. I can infer things, but if someone doesn't tell me, am I to convict on my impressions?

No.

TK

I was catching up on your old entries, and just wanted to say I'm very glad I read this today. This discussion contains some very useful factual references I needed to back up something I've been thinking about.

My husband has been watching a DVD of the TV show 24 Hours, and I'm finding it morally repugnant, specifically because of the way torture is shown. It's just a TV show, but one problem is that I suspect its effects can spread outside the tube.

My other reason for commenting here is that, given your bright line, I'd suggest you try ard to avoid seeing that show.

I haven't seen the show, but yeah, from what I hear it would leave me frothing at the mouth. Who needs it.

For what it's worth, I don't blame the show for society, I blame society for the show. A personal factoid: I was watching Nova tonight. It was about the Great Escape, when seventy-odd prisoners escaped from a German prisoner of war camp in WWII. Only three got clean away. The rest got caught. The Geneva Convention had a specific penalty for escape: 10 days solitary. Hitler was fit to be tied, and so a "great war crime" was committed. He ordered all of the recaptured prisoners to be shot. And my first thought was, What do you mean, a great war crime?

I think we lost a lot of our perspective because of WWII and Nazi Germany. What Hitler and the SS did was profoundly disturbing and infinitely evil. Somehow, though, it seems to make smaller evils less evil. And greater evils, too. Pol Pot's regime is thought to have been much worse. (I know almost nothing about it, save for the stacks of skulls, so I rely here on historians, probably historians with agendas). The thing about Pol Pot, though, is that it wasn't documented. For all its heartlessness, it seemed somehow less horrible because there weren't careful records of the pounds of tallow rendered into soap.

Now, stir in a back-lash to the Great Society and the counter-culture (and do, please, try not to confuse the two) and you come up with motivation to do evil and the justification that "it's not as bad as..."

It grieves me, but you know, nobody ever said the human race was sane.

I'm actually less bothered by "it's not as bad as" than by frivolous comparisons. Feminazis, soup nazis, Godwin's Law ("As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.").... in a sane world, comparing something to the Holocaust would elicit gasps and "Not really???" There are a few things that merit fair comparison, Pol Pot being one. (I don't know anything about his regime either; I can admit intellectually that it might have been worse but I have a hard time visualizing what 'worse' would look like. Very likely this is because I don't want to.) But I think when smaller evils are likened to a great one we lose a little of our ability to judge.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Bright lines

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Unfair and Counter-Productive

Re: Unfair and Counter-Productive

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject