A twist to the torture argument
Work this into conversation at your next opportunity
Are you tired of the “We need Torture to save us arguments”? I am. How does one respond? I came up with this response after listening to a radio interview. The interviewer discussed the moral ground argument then asked …but if we knew that the person definitely had the information we needed why wouldn’t torture (or aggressive methods) be OK to use? The responder paused but didn’t address the question. Here is a response next time you engage in the torture conversation.
Ask - when did you stop beating your spouse?
Why? Because the underlying assumption is incorrect. To absolutely know that the person has the necessary information you have to have absolute evidence. Right? I mean absolutely knowing conveniently renders those quaint terms like alleged and suspected obsolete.
How does one absolutely know? Well, you figure there is some sort of convincing evidence gleaned through surveillance, wiretapping and all the other tools of the trade that would be employed to gather this evidence. With all these tools wouldn’t we have discovered where the bomb, attack, action will occur? Remember the assumption is we absolutely know.
When the conversation turns to “we strongly suspect” - then you are no longer sure and ask what separates you from being a suspect? Where do you stop?
This of course doesn’t even broach the moral arguments but those could be your second punch followed by a round house kick.
Undermine the assumption and render it useless. America doesn’t torture because we have sound moral character. The moral high ground is a difficult road to take but we take it. That is why Randy Kuhl, Tom Reynolds and Jim Walsh have to go. They enable this administration to take America down a path we shouldn’t take.
Think of it as verbal waterboarding.
Well said.
I can’t cite anything right now, but about 2 years ago I read a study which concluded that torture does not produce better information than other accepted practices of interrogation. Basically, it was found that once you start torturing, your victim will say anything they think might make you stop… And thus we send the entire FBI after an Arab convenience store rather than an actual threat.
That is true. It is well documented. My point was simply when dealing with people who hold the belief that torture is OK under some circumstances it is important to reframe or shift the debate.
In this argument the underlying premise of discovering information is wrong. This opens the door to the fact based discussions about it not working etc or the moral discussions about America becoming what we used to deplore.
Attack the underlying assumptions and the rest of the argument follows.
Not that what J’s saying isn’t important. But the proven fact that “torture=they tell you what you’re looking for even if it’s false” will bounce off these people until you shift the frame. Once you get them to question their basic assumption, as you did, then they’re off the safe talking points enough that you can slide a fact or two thru the crack in the armor.
Or as Jim Derych puts it in “Confessions of a Former Dittohead”, shifting the frame can temporarily fry the “Dittohead” microchip people get when they’ve been Limbaughed or Hannitized, allowing you to download facts directly into their brain w/o them being screened out.