Horus,

Sancho and others have already answered your questions for me. Most of what I would have said to your second post has also been said already.

Gosh darn 'two posts in 24 hours' rule. :)

One point I might add though: If we're going to start nit-picking with definitions to the extent that you are, then we'd never define anything; which makes your request for a definition start to look like a red herring, and a frivolous attempt to shift the goal posts.

Questioning what constitutes torture is like a suicidal person wondering if they should jump from the 15th floor or the 20th floor.

You don't need to definition as clear-cut as what you're asking for to see where it's all leading. Just a basic understanding of history and a sound knowledge of today's political climate.

Grputland’s interesting posts say we cherry-pick deontological and consequentialist ethics. Although mainly consequentialist, there is a kind of inverted deontology in some arguments for using torture – that some people/crimes are so bad that the rules of civilised behaviour don’t apply.

But taking Mirko’s consequentialist argument to its logical conclusion, there is no reason why torture should be confined only to those we know to be guilty, and to cases of extreme danger.

If, say, there’s only a 50% chance of a suspect having information that could prevent a bomb destroying dozens of innocent lives, isn’t the balance of utility such that the suspect’s suffering is outweighed by the potential benefit of the information received? The likely guilt or innocence of the suspect is material only to the extent that it affects the probability of attaining useful information.

And, if a particularly tough suspect fails to provide information when tortured themselves, doesn’t the same logic permit the torture of, say, their children, if this persuades the suspect to provide the information sought? In countries where torture is used it is fairly common for individuals to be coerced by being forced to watch their loved ones tortured. It may be cruel and unfair, but if, as Arjay claims, “the individual is never greater than the whole”, isn’t that acceptable too, in extremis?

And how do we determine the point at which the feared consequences of not torturing become so severe that torture is warranted? Surely by that same calculus – the good anticipated exceeds the bad inflicted, and can’t be achieved in any other way – we’d be justified in inflicting pain in many situations, for example persuading violent criminals to betray their accomplices, or even as a deterrent. Perhaps the benefits anticipated would be less than for a terrorist who has planted a bomb, and the degree of acceptable violence therefore less, but the same logic applies. The only difference is a question of extent.

Taking the extreme – and extremely unlikely – example of the terrorist and the ticking bomb disguises the full implications of where this logic leads.

Torture has not been found to be a very effective method of getting information.

Torture can make someone give information quickly, but the information may not be accurate.

So the torturer then has the task of verifying whether or not the information is accurate. This may require diplomacy, and torturers are not often renown for much diplomacy.

How Mirko Bagaric became the head of a law department in a university is beyond comprehension.

I think I summed it up pretty well in my last post.If Mirko's mentality prevailed during WW2,then the Nazis and the Japs would have won.In times of war ,you get information by whatever means possible.We just did not hear all the gory details that were used to elicit information from the enemy.

I knew the Walter Mitty type character for a number of years until I clicked that he was the same Jim the school library was named after. Nothing ever seemed to rattle Jim. Walter Mitty, NOT.

Slightly built and giving the impression of a timid person, I was flabbergasted to learn that Jim was in Z-Company (that is my recollection but it could have been called something similar) and then more surprised to learn what Z-Company specialized in. They were routinely parachuted behind enemy lines in SE Asia with the mission of kidnapping key Japanese soldiers and then to interrogate them.

Jim, like most WWII vets who were actually involved in the carnage of military action, would speak little of his experiences. He did not give a detailed response when I asked him about how they got information from the captured soldiers but said that they had sworn an oath of secrecy and so he would not be able to write a book as I had suggested. However, he did say various methods were employed up to and including the "talk or be kicked out of a plane at altitude" method.

It seems the secrecy oath may have been required in the 1940s to circumvent the highly evolved individuals who would have demonstrated their objections to the various interrogation techniques of Z-Company; or perhaps additionally to protect other diggers from retribution by the Japanese.

Of course that concern is just another absurd contention of the pro-torture proponents who are concerned with the safety of military personnel on duty.

But modern communications have forced many changes. It is clear to me that those who believe we would not win WWII if it were fought today, are absolutely correct.

Sancho,
Sorry, I forgot I supposed to genuflect when I saw the magic words ‘civil liberties’– well, raspberry to that. (CL is entitled to the same challenges & mockery as any other orthodoxy).

I have a lot of empathy for wronged parties –ALL wronged parties.
Unfortunately, terror victims don’t get a chance to appeal their sentences, & they usually don’t have the luxury of having their rights read to them, either.

You offer some in-your-face examples of bad practice.
But it may be more enlightening to turn the issue inside out:
As in, what is legit practice when dealing with prisoners?
It would be inspiring to see civil libertarians in front line positions living and dying by their principles rather than in protect back rooms watching others die trying to uphold CL principles’ – while they heap criticism.

Also, it may be enlightening to juxtaposition what we cannot do to prisoners but can do to our fellow citizens. For example, according to accepted protocol it is illegal to punish a prisoner who refuses to cooperate – many employees & (friendly) soldiers would welcome the same ‘rights’.

And as for:
“Prove to me that even one terrorist act has been prevented in Australia by the use of torture. Show me the confession and the evidence to back it up. Or is the public too stupid too judge for itself?”

(Strange you should seek to artificially limit it to Aust!)
I must here, throw in the towel –you’ve got me there!
You see, even when one of our more prominent mujahideen had written letters proudly describing his attacks on villagers in Kashmir & Bosnia, and is caught at the scene of the crime(s) , his family, & CL supporters, were still able to maintain “NOTHING WAS EVER PROVEN”
As indeed it wasn’t – it has no doubt already gone-down in the CL annals as simply just another ASIO/CIA beat up!