I'm getting quite tired of hearing recycled arguments from Cato and so-called "civil libertarians" against the torture of known terrorists and mass-murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As Rothbard correctly points out, the torture of such individuals is only a small portion of the retribution they deserve:
Take, for example, the police practice of beating and torturing suspects—or, at least, of tapping their wires. People who object to these practices are invariably accused by conservatives of “coddling criminals.” But the whole point is that we don’t know if these are criminals or not, and until convicted, they must be presumed not to be criminals and to enjoy all the rights of the innocent: in the words of the famous phrase, “they are innocent until proven guilty.” (The only exception would be a victim exerting self-defense on the spot against an aggressor, for he knows that the criminal is invading his home.) “Coddling criminals” then becomes, in actuality, making sure that police do not criminally invade the rights of self-ownership of presumptive innocents whom they suspect of crime. In that case, the “coddler,” and the restrainer of the police, proves to be far more of a genuine defender of property rights than is the conservative. We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault. In short, in all cases, police must be treated in precisely the same way as anyone else; in a libertarian world, every man has equal liberty, equal rights under the libertarian law. There can be no special immunities, special licenses to commit crime. That means that police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals. As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man’s rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief. SOURCE (emphasis is mine)
There have been many other injustices that have been committed by the US government in the so-called "War on Terror." That is what I can say for sure. It is also why I consider this issue of water boarding and torture mostly a red herring (I'm obviously not using the strict definition of the term here), simply a distraction from other aspects of the "War on Terror."
Political Atheists Blog
Wouldn't such a system encourage police to plant evidence and abuse people, as whether their actions were valid can only be determined after the action? Also, wouldn't it encourage people to accuse others of committing horrendous crimes, knowing full well the treatment these persons will receive will be proportional to the accusation?
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Rothbard was obviously making that statement in the context of a "libertarian society" (i.e. privatized courts).
I don't think anyone would suggest that Rothbard favoured suspected criminals being tortured by the present corrupt government-run system of "justice".
krazy kaju:I'm getting quite tired of hearing recycled arguments from Cato and so-called "civil libertarians" against the torture of known terrorists and mass-murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Yeah, those civil liberties are so pesky.
There is no case against most of these people being tortured. Politically Bush had everything to gain by trying these guys and proving they did 9/11, had culpability and they had actionable intel. The reason why they have not been charged is because they have no evidence. The only evidence they have, is that gained under torture, which would never hold up in court.
I'm not even sure Bin Laden did 9/11, so to think that a lot of these people who were at Gitmo, some of whom were turned in by poor people looking for reward money, seems very surreal to me.
Again, if there was any case against these guys, they would have been shown off publicly. They are hidden, the torture is hidden etc.
krazy kaju:As Rothbard correctly points out, the torture of such individuals is only a small portion of the retribution they deserve
Tell that to Maher Arar.
krazy kaju: It is also why I consider this issue of water boarding and torture mostly a red herring (I'm obviously not using the strict definition of the term here), simply a distraction from other aspects of the "War on Terror."
I'm not so sure of this. Obama is being called to account for his lack of honesty while campaigning. The reason why torture is an issue, is that he is still doing it. He can't go after Bush and Cheney, because he is still doing rendition, and still doing torture at Bagram. Bob Barr talked about how the incoming President was going to inherit all of the criminality of Bush and Cheney. Obama is just as guilty as the men he is being pressured to investigate.
Sukrit Sabhlok: Rothbard was obviously making that statement in the context of a "libertarian society" (i.e. privatized courts). I don't think anyone would suggest that Rothbard favoured suspected criminals being tortured by the present corrupt government-run system of "justice".
True about the "present corrupt government-run", but you say "suspected criminals" and that's what the present State does. It tortures if they are "suspected". Now if they are proven to be guilty why not proportional eye-for-an-eye. I'm still personally not for murder eye-for-an-eye, but maybe this is something I would need to get past in my own thinking. Cause I'm sure if somebody hurt or even killed my wife I would tear that criminal apart limb from limb if I could. So after all I guess I am eye-for-an-eye.
The suspects were tortured in order to obtain further information about terrorist acts, which allegedly prevented terrorist attacks against a Brooklyn bridge and the LA Airport.
liberty student:Yeah, those civil liberties are so pesky.
Nice attempt at a straw man. Where did I attack civil liberties? I attacked, to quote myself, "so-called 'civil libertarians," like those of the ACLU.
I'm sure that in your fantastical world, no court would uphold evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report, direct physical evidence linking Khaled Sheikh Mohammed to the 1993 WTC bombings, wiretappings linking him to numerous other terrorist plots, and many captured terrorists all arriving at the same conclusion, but in the real world...
I'm not even sure Bin Laden did 9/11
I suppose physical evidence linking Al Qaeda to 9/11 is not enough, as well as Bin Laden's own confessions.
so to think that a lot of these people who were at Gitmo, some of whom were turned in by poor people looking for reward money, seems very surreal to me.
If the military's standards were as low as you imply they are, one would expect that half of Afghanistan would already be inside Gitmo just so the other half could make a couple thousand bucks.
This, of course, I don't agree with. Had you read my OP, you would have seen that I condemned REAL violations of rights, like this.
Yet another glorious straw man. Christ, you cannot stop spewing these out, can you?
Reread the quotation I presented. Clearly, torturing an innocent is itself a crime.
So you still hold that torturing a man guilty of the planned murder of thousands of people in order to obtain information that could prevent the death of potentially thousands of more people is wrong?
Considering that you have barely even scratched my OP, let me restate my beliefs here:
krazy kaju:Nice attempt at a straw man.
Thank you.
krazy kaju:I'm sure that in your fantastical world,
Nice Ad Hom.
krazy kaju:no court would uphold evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report,
They wouldn't. The commission was all show. Many of the testimonies were not given under oath.
krazy kaju: direct physical evidence linking Khaled Sheikh Mohammed to the 1993 WTC bombings, wiretappings linking him to numerous other terrorist plots, and many captured terrorists all arriving at the same conclusion
If they had evidence, they could have got convictions.
krazy kaju:I suppose physical evidence linking Al Qaeda to 9/11 is not enough, as well as Bin Laden's own confessions.
They are not. The FBI has not listed Bin Laden as wanted for 9/11, according to their own spokesperson, for lack of evidence. This is a fact.
krazy kaju:If the military's standards were as low as you imply they are, one would expect that half of Afghanistan would already be inside Gitmo just so the other half could make a couple thousand bucks.
How much do you know about the people at Gitmo?
krazy kaju:Yet another glorious straw man. Christ, you cannot stop spewing these out, can you
No, I can't. Thank you for the compliment. It's been remarkably easy to rile you up. I didn't even try.
krazy kaju:So you still hold that torturing a man guilty of the planned murder of thousands of people in order to obtain information that could prevent the death of potentially thousands of more people is wrong?
Of course. You're arguing as a statist would, making ends justify the means arguments. Torture is never acceptable.
krazy kaju:Torture, as Rothbard correctly points out, is only acceptable if the tortured person is already guilty of capital crimes, such as murder, since the torture is only a small portion of the punishment that can be rightfully doled out to the murderer.
Rothbard wasn't right about everything. This is something he was very wrong about. It's a problem a lot of the Austrians have, when they step outside deductive knowledge, and start positing rules for society. I don't like it when Hoppe does it, Long does it, or Rothbard does it. I think it undermines a lot of their own theoretical work when they go out and try to define morals and conventions for everyone at large.
krazy kaju:To decry torture of mass murderers is not only absurd, but a sort of a red herring distracting from REAL issues.
Torture is absurd. Not only does it not work, but it is philistine act. Torture cannot logically exist in a society based on rights and liberty. A man may be punished for his crimes, but not forced to confess to an accusation, or just forced until he confesses to "something".
krazy kaju:The suspects were tortured in order to obtain further information about terrorist acts, which allegedly prevented terrorist attacks against a Brooklyn bridge and the LA Airport.
This has nothing to do with your initial claim, since you originally were only claiming to justify torture of guilty people. To make this claim, you'd have to show that this is a reasonable tactic, and that a possible or suspected threat to some people in the future trumps actual rights violations now. I think that's an inhuman claim, but you haven't even argued for it.
Now, on your use of Rothbard - I think Rothbard is wrong if he suggests that torture of those convicted of crimes is acceptable. It is not a small portion of proper retribution, because it serves no retaliatory role whatsoever. The only punishment I accept is payment to make the victims whole, and torture gives the victims nothing.
The evidence you're relying on was gathered by government officials - the people who, according to Rothbard, are now judged on the basis of how the case turns out. I mean that, if the tortured person is found guilty, then the torturer is cleared of wrongdoing, and otherwise is guilty of a heinous crime. This seems to involve a bit of self-interest. I think Rothbard is wrong on this point too - if someone deserves to be tortured (somehow) and I torture them, without knowing that conditions exist that justify that torture, then later find out that the torture is justified, I don't think this can be used to defend my actions. A justification for my actions only works if I know about it.
Rothbard:police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
What libertarian system of law would have retribution as a punishment?What libertarian system of law would force judgements on the accused?
And: since when do we live in a libertarian system of law anyway?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Pol Pot must have been the ultimate Rothbardian--totally into waterboarding.
Thedesolateone: krazy kaju:As Rothbard correctly points out, the torture of such individuals is only a small portion of the retribution they deserve What libertarian system of law would have retribution as a punishment?What libertarian system of law would force judgements on the accused? And: since when do we live in a libertarian system of law anyway?
In my view, a broad libertarian view of justice essentially guts the entire concept of retribution.
The U.S. is bound to international law -- the Geneva Convention, Convention Against Torture. Its agents contract to follow the Constitution and/or international law, depending on the agency -- namely, the president as the chief exective/commander in chief. It's uncontroversial that the Bush Administraion violated international law. Rothbard's analysis of torture and justice don't fit here.
Care to link to the attacks "prevented"? I read the torture memos. The L.A. claim was bogus. If you're talking about the US Bank Tower attack that was thwarted in '02, KSM was detained on the 1st of March '03. There are many questions as to the importance of Zubaydah and the memos suggest that what information he provided was before being tortured. Because of this, intel pushed that "there must be more" and along the way has continued to slowly (silently) downgrade his imortance. In '02, he was #3 or #4 guy in al-Qa'ida. After torture and secret prisons (stolen fruits of labor possessed by the State, might I remind you)? Not so much.
Either way, your arguments seem to suppose that the motivation behind the 266 instances of waterboarding KSM and Zubaydeh were to prevent imminent attacks, find info on cells, and the like. This is wrong. Go back to the timeline. They were tortured to go on the record linking al-Qa'ida with Iraq. The method was clear: KSM seemed like a guy who'd have a ton of information and Zubaydah seemed weak enough to say anything just to make it all stop.
I highly recommend you listen to Glenn Greenwald's interview with the UN Sp. Rapp. on Torture Manfred Nowak and this AntiWar Radio interview with Scott Horton. Hell, I recommend subscribing to Greenwald's blog and AntiWar Radio in whatever reader you use.
First, I believe that torture is morally wrong, and that the U.S. should never engage in it for any reason. I agree with Shepard Smith of Fox News, who said on Freedom Watch that “we are America and we do not fucking torture.
I understand that there are those who disagree with me, and who contend that it is justified if it produces results. To these people, I’d simply submit that it is not effective. Prior to this entire debate, I had read that torture produces, at best, inaccurate information. This made sense to me because I pledged a fraternity before hazing became illegal, and the last thing that I would have done in these circumstances was to disclose any information to those who were hazing me. I’d also like to ask those who advocate torture because they contend that it is effective, why did it take 83 incidences of waterboarding before Abu Zubaydah allegedly yielded useful information and 183 incidences before Khalid Sheikh Mohamed did.
We also have the issue of what the CIA refers to a blowback. We’ve lost the moral high ground, much like al Qaeda lost the high ground in the Middle East with their beheadings. They’ll now find it much easier to recruit people. Torture is never right and it never “works.”
All those who were tortured were and are suspects. Courts haven't charged many of them with crimes. No suspect in any crime should be tortured, it's unjustifiable for any civil society, whether we're at "war" (I use this word lightly) with their country/organization or not.
I as much as anyone want to see the bastards behind 9/11 get what they deserve. However, using torture to get confessions out of them is not only counter-productive, but it's leaning on the unconstitutional line. Do a fair trial, gather evidence in a legal manner, and convict them.
For the record, I side with Cato on this issue. They're right to argue against torture, and as a society we should neither embrace it nor justify it legally.