When Is Torture Justified? (Joe Gandelman)
A debate about that is raging in legal circles, political circles...and on blogs. As usual, one of the most precise comments comes from Oxblog, where David Adesnik writes:
- I recognize that there are certain extreme situations in which torture is justified. If a terrorist knows that a chemical warhead is about to explode in downtown Baghdad, then the gloves come off.
But in general, I think is premature to say either that torture is an efficient method of interrogation or that it is the only method. Moreover, the negative repercussions of torture in terms of both domestic and foreign opinion are so great that we can only afford to use it as a method of last resort.
That's about as definitive a statement, and concisely put, as you'll see anywhere.
Negative repercussions in terms of PUBLIC OPINION?
How about negative repercussions in terms of it's WRONG TO FUCKING HURT PEOPLE?
Or is morality just not a concern in this war of ours?
Torture is such a poor method of extracting information that the inquisition stopped using it. Put anyone in enough pain, and they will tell you anything you want to know, regardless of the truth...
Certain interrogation methods actually work. Other interrogation methods are not reliable. Some of BOTH categories would qualify as torture.
First, you need a clear definition of what does and does not constitute torture. Next, interrogation experts need to identify and implement techniques that are not torture, but are effective with good reliability. Methods that are reliable, but qualify as torture, should be made illegal. (By the way, I'm pretty sure the above is actual policy, and has been for some time.)
In "ticking bomb" scenarios, where you assume there exists an interrogation method that works quickly and reliably, but amounts to torture, the interrogators should use the illegal method, and then be prosecuted for breaking the law. If it can be shown that an "necessity" defense is reasonable, then they should be convicted and then pardoned.
This is a classic example of "hard cases make bad laws." The general rule that torture is wrong, and should be made illegal, is a good law. "Ticking bomb" scenarios do not invalidate the rule; they merely suggest that exceptional situations can exist, and some consideration should be taken for these eventualities. In our justice system, executive clemency serves as an exceptional remedy.
Actually, they could have used more inhuman torture techniques. They could have played Kathy Lee Gifford's latest CD.
Torture is never an effective military tool. It is only an effective *political* tool, where the threat of torture enforces political orthodoxy. Put someone in enough pain and they'll say anything to stop it. The corrollary of torture is sadism: Anyone willing to put another human being through some torture will very likely, through an organizational process of elimination, be someone who enjoys inflicting it.
And torture debases both the person suffering it and the person inflicting it.
We live in a world where torture happens. I accept the fact, but I refuse to accept the premise that it's ever, for any reason, justifiable.