Torture is good for you.
May. 17th, 2005 10:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheAccording to these people, not only is torture morally defensible, even praiseworthy, there is simply not enough of it around, and it really should, nay, must be legalised for the good of us all.
What got my attention was this:
It turns out that they were under surveillance. Therefore, so are you, and you are taken in for 'questioning'. Under this theory, it is not only morally fine, but necessary for you to be tortured to death for information you don't have, and possibly put your family at risk as well.
Not to mention that their entire thesis is based on the theory that torture returns accurate reliable data, which it doesn't.
Notice that I haven't included a single expletive here. This is because every one I thought of is insufficient. There is no expletive which can express my utter contempt for this theory.
Remember though, kids, lucky for us Academia is controlled in a rigorous, even Stalinist, fashion by the Left, so opinions like this can't possibly be published. So we should be thankful that we can determine ab initio that this paper Doesn't Exist. Thank goodness for that, eh?
Oooh, ooh, it might be said that the outpouring of contempt from most people on this is itself an example of Stalinist Groupthink in action. That would be ignoring the concept that people might be personally and individually repulsed by what amounts to the Malleus Maleficarum for the new age.
What the hell is going on, by the way, that when many people agree on a proposition, that this becomes prima facie evidence that that proposition is wrong? feh.
For those who have no access to The Age, and so that the true richness of this article is preserved forever:
By Liz Minchin
May 17, 2005
Torture should be legalised and is a "morally defensible" interrogation method, even if it causes the death of innocent people, according to an article by two Victorian academics that has sparked outrage here and overseas.
In a paper soon to be published in an American law journal, the head of Deakin University's Law School, Professor Mirko Bagaric, and a fellow Deakin law lecturer, Julie Clarke, argue that when many lives are in imminent danger, "all forms of harm" may be inflicted on the suspect, even if this resulted in "annihilation".
Their views caused such a stir at the University of San Francisco, the journal's home, that last month a public debate on torture was organised, and Professor Bagaric was flown over to talk alongside keynote speaker General Janis Karpinski (since demoted to colonel), the officer formerly in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
And even before their paper has been printed, Professor Bagaric and Mrs Clarke have begun receiving hate mail from students and staff at Deakin University, as well as being heavily criticised by some of their legal peers.
Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected to be criticised for his views, particularly on torturing innocent people.
"Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer," said Professor Bagaric, who has been head of Deakin's law school for more than two years.
"But in some extreme cases, where it is almost certain someone has information that could prevent many lives being lost and there is no other way to obtain that information, the mere fact that they're not directly involved in creating that threat doesn't mean they can wash their hands of responsibility."
Asked if he believed interrogators should be able to legally torture an innocent person to death if they had evidence the person knew about a major public threat, such as the September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric replied: "Yes, you could."
He went on: "Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in New York you had a person in custody who admitted they had overheard the S-11 organisers' plans and knew there were going to be further attacks, but then refused to say any more. In those circumstances you would start with a minimum degree of harm, if that didn't work, you would escalate it.
"And if that unfortunately resulted in an innocent person being killed, in those circumstances that would be justified. I think as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate."
The director of the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture, Paris Aristotle, said he was shocked when a colleague sent him a copy of the paper, which will appear in the July edition of the University of San Francisco Law Review.
"It's the most extreme argument that I've seen for torture, and at many levels it's the shallowest," he said. "Torture is not just the physical application of pain, but requires the complete subjugation of the person at emotional, psychological and spiritual levels, too. To assume that once the physical pain has disappeared that there are no deep scars left behind is simply ignorant of how torture really works, but the authors conveniently skim over that aspect of it." Entitled Not Enough (Official) Torture In The World?, the paper cites Amnesty International reports of torture and ill-treatment in 132 countries to argue that international bans have not stopped torture, and it should therefore be regulated to allow greater public scrutiny.
But Liberty Victoria president Brian Walters, SC, attacked that proposal as illogical, saying, "this article is a stain" on Deakin University's reputation.
"If you accept that torture is widespread and should therefore be legalised, why wouldn't we then legalise crime? Let's sell licences for people to practice their favourite crimes, criminals would be so much more accountable. That is the level of debate this argument turns on and it is absolutely pathetic," he said.
Amnesty International spokeswoman Nicole Bieske, who is also a lawyer, was stunned by the idea of regulating torture. "It's astonishing and appalling that somebody would hold this opinion in relation to such a fundamental issue as torture, and to be justifying it on moral as well as pragmatic grounds," Ms Bieske said.
One of the Deakin staff members to have condemned the paper is the director of psychoanalytic studies, Justin Clemens.
He called the pair's argument "disgusting in the extreme, and symptomatic of a failure of contemporary legal ethics".
Professor Bagaric said that one of the reasons that he and Mrs Clarke had submitted the paper to a American law journal was because they are more open to new ideas on human rights.
"What has surprised me is how different the reaction has been in the US and Australia," he said. "At my talk in the US, some people were for torture, some were against, but most people realised there were different sides of the argument.
"You didn't get the kind of emotive comments that I've had here in Australia, saying that this view is horrendous, unthinking, and irresponsible."
What got my attention was this:
Asked if he believed interrogators should be able to legally torture an innocent person to death if they had evidence the person knew about a major public threat, such as the September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric replied: "Yes, you could."So... hypothetical: You overhear someone on a train. You don't actually hear any words, just that those two gentlemen are speaking quietly to each other. They see you, and come over. "If you say anything about this," they tell you, "we'll kill your family." Terrified, all you can do is agree, and assure them that you really did hear nothing.
It turns out that they were under surveillance. Therefore, so are you, and you are taken in for 'questioning'. Under this theory, it is not only morally fine, but necessary for you to be tortured to death for information you don't have, and possibly put your family at risk as well.
Not to mention that their entire thesis is based on the theory that torture returns accurate reliable data, which it doesn't.
Notice that I haven't included a single expletive here. This is because every one I thought of is insufficient. There is no expletive which can express my utter contempt for this theory.
Remember though, kids, lucky for us Academia is controlled in a rigorous, even Stalinist, fashion by the Left, so opinions like this can't possibly be published. So we should be thankful that we can determine ab initio that this paper Doesn't Exist. Thank goodness for that, eh?
Oooh, ooh, it might be said that the outpouring of contempt from most people on this is itself an example of Stalinist Groupthink in action. That would be ignoring the concept that people might be personally and individually repulsed by what amounts to the Malleus Maleficarum for the new age.
What the hell is going on, by the way, that when many people agree on a proposition, that this becomes prima facie evidence that that proposition is wrong? feh.
For those who have no access to The Age, and so that the true richness of this article is preserved forever:
Make torture legal, say two academics
By Liz Minchin
May 17, 2005
Torture should be legalised and is a "morally defensible" interrogation method, even if it causes the death of innocent people, according to an article by two Victorian academics that has sparked outrage here and overseas.
In a paper soon to be published in an American law journal, the head of Deakin University's Law School, Professor Mirko Bagaric, and a fellow Deakin law lecturer, Julie Clarke, argue that when many lives are in imminent danger, "all forms of harm" may be inflicted on the suspect, even if this resulted in "annihilation".
Their views caused such a stir at the University of San Francisco, the journal's home, that last month a public debate on torture was organised, and Professor Bagaric was flown over to talk alongside keynote speaker General Janis Karpinski (since demoted to colonel), the officer formerly in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
And even before their paper has been printed, Professor Bagaric and Mrs Clarke have begun receiving hate mail from students and staff at Deakin University, as well as being heavily criticised by some of their legal peers.
Professor Bagaric told The Age that he expected to be criticised for his views, particularly on torturing innocent people.
"Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer," said Professor Bagaric, who has been head of Deakin's law school for more than two years.
"But in some extreme cases, where it is almost certain someone has information that could prevent many lives being lost and there is no other way to obtain that information, the mere fact that they're not directly involved in creating that threat doesn't mean they can wash their hands of responsibility."
Asked if he believed interrogators should be able to legally torture an innocent person to death if they had evidence the person knew about a major public threat, such as the September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric replied: "Yes, you could."
He went on: "Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in New York you had a person in custody who admitted they had overheard the S-11 organisers' plans and knew there were going to be further attacks, but then refused to say any more. In those circumstances you would start with a minimum degree of harm, if that didn't work, you would escalate it.
"And if that unfortunately resulted in an innocent person being killed, in those circumstances that would be justified. I think as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate."
The director of the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture, Paris Aristotle, said he was shocked when a colleague sent him a copy of the paper, which will appear in the July edition of the University of San Francisco Law Review.
"It's the most extreme argument that I've seen for torture, and at many levels it's the shallowest," he said. "Torture is not just the physical application of pain, but requires the complete subjugation of the person at emotional, psychological and spiritual levels, too. To assume that once the physical pain has disappeared that there are no deep scars left behind is simply ignorant of how torture really works, but the authors conveniently skim over that aspect of it." Entitled Not Enough (Official) Torture In The World?, the paper cites Amnesty International reports of torture and ill-treatment in 132 countries to argue that international bans have not stopped torture, and it should therefore be regulated to allow greater public scrutiny.
But Liberty Victoria president Brian Walters, SC, attacked that proposal as illogical, saying, "this article is a stain" on Deakin University's reputation.
"If you accept that torture is widespread and should therefore be legalised, why wouldn't we then legalise crime? Let's sell licences for people to practice their favourite crimes, criminals would be so much more accountable. That is the level of debate this argument turns on and it is absolutely pathetic," he said.
Amnesty International spokeswoman Nicole Bieske, who is also a lawyer, was stunned by the idea of regulating torture. "It's astonishing and appalling that somebody would hold this opinion in relation to such a fundamental issue as torture, and to be justifying it on moral as well as pragmatic grounds," Ms Bieske said.
One of the Deakin staff members to have condemned the paper is the director of psychoanalytic studies, Justin Clemens.
He called the pair's argument "disgusting in the extreme, and symptomatic of a failure of contemporary legal ethics".
Professor Bagaric said that one of the reasons that he and Mrs Clarke had submitted the paper to a American law journal was because they are more open to new ideas on human rights.
"What has surprised me is how different the reaction has been in the US and Australia," he said. "At my talk in the US, some people were for torture, some were against, but most people realised there were different sides of the argument.
"You didn't get the kind of emotive comments that I've had here in Australia, saying that this view is horrendous, unthinking, and irresponsible."
"Let's say that straight after the first plane hit in New York you had a person in custody who admitted they had overheard the S11 organisers' plans and knew there were going to be further attacks, but then refused to say any more. In those circumstances you would start with a minimum degree of harm. If that didn't work, you would escalate it ... I think as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate."
Professor Mirko Bagaric,
head of Deakin University's Law School
head of Deakin University's Law School
"This article is a stain on Deakin University's reputation."
Brian Walters SC,
Liberty Victoria president
Liberty Victoria president
"It's the most extreme argument that I've seen for torture."
Paris Aristotle,
Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture
Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 06:02 pm (UTC)Ummm.... what happened to Innocent until proven guilty???
Thats appalling....
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 06:05 pm (UTC)I think I'll read Small Gods again tonight.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 10:02 pm (UTC)And bluntly put that isnt the point of this as far as Im concerned.
Innocent, Guilty?
You've got to ask yourself if *anyone* deserves to be violated in a myriad of physical and mental ways in a deliberate and concerted effort to degrade and reduce them to human wreckage.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 07:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 05:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 08:12 pm (UTC)As an exercise in Utilitarian ethics, it could be argued that torture is both defensible and justified. Which points out some of the problems inherent in that school of thought.
It was interestingly... courageous1 of the pair of them to come out with this idea. It's a bit like the work of the Fool or the Village Idiot, throwing stuff like this up for review and discussion again, when we all though the idea was over and that there was only one possible conclusion.
I find their proposition revolting. It may have some value in the same way that certain confrontational art does though.
1. In the same way that Sir Humphrey Appleby would use the word.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 09:12 pm (UTC)Reductio ad absurdam.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 11:46 pm (UTC)I think it's high time someone used this completely sensible approach. I think the same theory should be applied to murder, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but despite international condemnation, there still seems to be rather a lot of terrorism going on in the world. Maybe we should regulate that too.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-16 11:52 pm (UTC)This paper says that the Cable Street Particulars were entirely justified. That's scary.
The good professor might think differently if he were the one threatened with a bottle of Ginger Beer...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 12:08 am (UTC)And the easiest way to turn a pragmatic utilitarian into an ardent civil libertarian is to load him into the back of a truck with the usual suspects.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 06:10 am (UTC)Also read Jeff Sparrow's excellent rebuttal of the idea.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 07:18 am (UTC)The right to free speech in this country is only implied in common law, rather than enshrined in Constitutional Law as in the US, but as a passionate believer in freedom of expression I think it needs to be clarified as "You have the right to say what you think, but everyone else has the right to tell you that you are talking out of your arse."
I suspect that if he chose to, Peter Singer could construct a similar argument to justify canibalism under the right circumstances. It would be hard to argue with his reasoning because he's very good at coming up with positions that are hard to reason against.
Most people would still feel that cannibalism is wrong and would be horrified by the idea, even if they could not refute Singer's arguments on logical grounds.
It gives me hope for my fellow-creatures that their reaction to an attempt at offering a justification for torture, however well argued, is still "No. That is wrong!"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 04:49 pm (UTC)Well, that's a good point. When you put it like that, yes, it gives me hope, too.
I guess I was just having a moment of being irritated by people in general (not anyone here specifically) jumping in without getting the facts. For example, I've heard a lot of dramatisation of Bagaric's position to imply or downright accuse him of advocating torture as a routine activity, or that his paper was written to help Bush feel better about the torture perpetrated on Iraqi soldiers. However distasteful and reprehensible I might find Bagaric's views about torture, this is not an accurate representation of what he's saying. He wrote, "Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent high-profile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evidence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible."
Debating how one can define innocence, or whether the worth of one innocent person whose life might be saved vs the worth of the innocent person who may need to be tortured in order to save a life is still perfectly valid, as is speculation as to how this kind of attitude might pervade the rest of government, society, etc.
So on the one hand, although I'm pleased people have knee-jerk responses in the way that they do, I also think that this ugly, inhumane, short-sighted "recommendation" could also act as a catalyst for thought and analysis, potentially prompt an evaluation of how current government policies might allow unofficial torture, prompt governments to make policies and legislation even more stringent against torture and also highlight how much torture, official and unofficial, is actually going on in the world. And these possibilities aren't well-served by knee-jerk reactions that only serve to reinforce the status quo.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 04:51 pm (UTC)Erp. I meant, "torture perpetrate on Iraqis by soldiers". Teach me not to proof my comment.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 11:03 pm (UTC)The idea of degrees of innocence, and the calculation of whether X or Y person is innocent enough to justify someone being tortured on their behalf, in order to protect them is the stuff of philosophy tutes. I think our new housemate may find this one intriguing.
I generally agree with the notion of playing the ideas rather than the author, so thanks for reminding me/us again. But I also agree with Catsidhe's and Enrobso's comments.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 04:50 pm (UTC)Jeff Sparrow is also right, and you may notice, is independantly echoed in many of the comments here, plus a couple of others that he didn't think of.
It came out later yesterday that this guy was on the Refugee Review Tribunal. He sat in judgment over people who actually had been tortured. Now that is sick.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 04:55 pm (UTC)Good! My work here is done. See my comments above to
It came out later yesterday that this guy was on the Refugee Review Tribunal.
Yes, I agree that Prof Bagaric seems like a very bizarre and creepy individual with the potential to do a great deal of harm to many people. *shudder* If no other good comes from this, at least he's been removed from that particular position.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-20 10:48 pm (UTC)"What has surprised me is how different the reaction has been in the US and Australia," he said. "At my talk in the US, some people were for torture, some were against, but most people realised there were different sides of the argument.
"You didn't get the kind of emotive comments that I've had here in Australia, saying that this view is horrendous, unthinking, and irresponsible."
At last, a reason to be proud to be Australian. I'd almost given up.