Another problem with torture as a tool of interrogation

[Warning: SPOILERS for the mid-season finale of "Battlestar Galactica"]

The usual reasons that people condemn torture as a tool of interrogation are that it is inhumane and never justifiable, and that it leads to false confessions, as people will say anything to stop the pain.  While watching last night's episode of "Battlestar Galactica," it occurred to me that there is another reason, which is that we're almost bound to over-torture, because the people who are willing to commit the torture in the name of the state are almost bound to be sadists who derive personal pleasure from it.

In the episode "Pegasus," the Galactica and trailing human fleet join up with the Pegasus, a bigger, newer battlestar under the command of Admiral Cain (Michelle Forbes), who outranks Commander Adama.  Cain's crew has captured a Spylon, one of the No. 6 models, but unlike the Boomer unit being detained on Galactica, the No. 6 prisoner is in pretty bad shape, and later we learn why: the "Cylon interrogation officer" on the Pegasus raped the No. 6 model and even encouraged crew members to rape her as well.  When Cain takes command of the fleet, she sends her Cylon interrogation officer to interrogate Boomer, and after beating the crap out of her, he has his men hold her down while he prepares to rape her.  Fortunately for Boomer, the Chief and Helo get wind of what's going on, storm in, and in the process of saving her, the interrogation officer is killed accidentally when his head gets slammed into a protruding wall bolt.

Anyway, the acting is really good here and it shows that the Cylon interrogation officer is a real bastard who gets his kicks from raping the defenseless Cylon females.  Almost as loathesome are the Pegasus crew members who cherish their memories of engaging in gang rape.

And therein lies the problem.  Let's suppose that you are not a deontologist -- that is, facing a ticking nuclear time bomb, you might be willing to accept that torture is a necessary evil to save millions of people.  Would you have the stomach to torture the prisoner to get the information you need?  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, and I know that I'd absolutely refuse to rape a prisoner, and I'm guessing you'd refuse too.

So who does that leave to do the torturing and raping?  People who do have the stomach for it, which sadly, will be likely to be people who like it.  (Unless we have some real-life Jack Bauer, who always tells the terrorists on "24," "Please don't make me hurt you, I just want the information.")  And if the designated torturer enjoys what he/she does, he/she will likely press for torture at the earliest time, rather than as a last resort.

Comments

[Eric]

Your BSG commentary seems to have gone down significantly so I'm glad that you're coming back to it.

Re: Torture
Is it really that different than killing though in terms of psyhcological effect? I think most people wouldn't want to kill someone unless under some extreme condition but we train people to do it and appluad those who are really good at it (decorations, tallying of kills, etc.). Basically what I'm asking is do you feel that your criticisms of torture apply to killing as well and if not, why?

[Tung Yin]

do you feel that your criticisms of torture apply to killing as well and if not, why?

If we're talking about the kind of killing that soldiers commit during war, I think it's different, though some of the same considerations might apply -- i.e., people who like killing are more likely to want to go into an environment where killing people is legal. The difference is that in a war, the enemy is not completely helpless the way that a torture victim is.

[Eric]

I kind of understand your point but I'm just having trouble drawing distinctions once we've come to the point where as a society we've decided that killing is justified (as in times of war). If we're okay with killing people is the distinction with torture something of an artificial creation? Surely torture for the sake of torture isn't justified but if we're doing it with the credible/reasonable belief that it is effective in getting us information necessary to defeat our enemies why would it be more wrong than killing them? Especially in the context of BSG where the survival of the colonials is so tenuous and where there is an arguable position that the cylons are just machines.

[Tung Yin]

If we're okay with killing people is the distinction with torture something of an artificial creation?

Perhaps. I think Michael Walzer has it right in Just and Unjust Wars, where he discusses the British terror bombings of Berlin during World War II. Justifiable in 1940 when Britain alone stood against the Nazis, and defeat was very likely. Not justifiable in 1944.

But I take your point to be going to the substantive justification of torture.

Surely torture for the sake of torture isn't justified but if we're doing it with the credible/reasonable belief that it is effective in getting us information necessary to defeat our enemies why would it be more wrong than killing them?

This is crucial to my argument. The fact that torture (especially rape) is so morally repugnant means that whoever we employ to torture/rape on our behalf is almost certainly going to enjoy doing it, and that makes it more likely that they will seek to torture for its own sake.