I’ll go ahead and go on record as condoning torture. My only caveats are that when used, it must be judicious and effective. Judicious meaning, you are absolutely certain that the person whom you are torturing is guilty of the crime, has the knowledge you mean to extract. Effective meaning that the reasonable expectation is that by torturing this one person, many other lives will be saved. I oppose torturing under any other conditions.
But Phineas, you ask, what about the Geneva conventions? If we torture their prisoners of war, won’t they torture ours? They well might. But if they torture our prisoners of war, it’s still OK as long as they do it judiciously and effectively. Right? It’s only wrong if it’s unjust and ineffective.
Of course, the key is how to define judicious and effective. I believe the conditions are almost never satisfied, therefore I oppose all torture.
You know that little Jack Bauer hypothetical scenario trotted out by the pro-torture mob? It asks, what if the interrogator is holding a known terrorist, who is in possession of knowledge of an immanent terrorist attack, and by torturing him, we may save the lives of thousands of Americans? Wouldn’t torture be OK then? Shouldn’t it be legal then? Shouldn’t the President authorize it then?
Here’s my turnaround to that argument: If you are an interrogator holding such a suspect, and thousands of American lives hang in the balance, wouldn’t you go ahead and torture him anyway? The heck with the law, Geneva conventions, Presidential pardons, etc? What kind of person would let thousands of innocent people die just to protect himself from prosecution? If the situation is *really* that crystal clear, what difference should a law make to a sincere person whose only wish is to save lives? Ah, but the situation is never really that crystal clear. Legalizing or authorizing such actions does little more than to provide legal cover for all those practices which are *neither* judicious *nor* effective.
No Comments