« Bad Christmas Music - UPDATED | Main | A Trekkie's Dream »
December 02, 2005
On Torture
For months, a very good debate has been taking place on the internet about how far the United States should go when questioning terrorism suspects - should torture be acceptable?
Personally, I don't believe that torture, by which I mean severe and lasting physical pain, should be used. Basically, I think it's ineffective, as people will say anything to end pain. Plus, it's just wrong. Psychological coersion is different - if we can trick information out of people without physically harming them, then I think it's an allowable method of interrogation.
Unlike Andrew Sullivan, though, I'm not horrified by the practice of making detainees touch an Israeli flag or things like sensory deprivation. Ace points out that at one time, Sullivan wasn't terribly bothered by those things either. Until, of course, Bush decided to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sullivan's change of heart on this issue shows his fundamental unseriousness of late. I agree with him on the ineffectiveness of the FMA and partially on torture, but wish he would stop writing on the subject. He makes those of us who disagree with torture look silly by defining it down to include basically anything that makes someone feel bad.
Posted by slublog at December 2, 2005 12:00 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1988
Comments
This is off the cuff so flame me medium-rare instead of well done please.In some situations I can see an economy of personal distress at work: the distress of the prisoner, vs. the distress of innocents if the organization accomplishes its goals unfettered by the compromising of sensitive information the prisoner may know. Of course, that "may" at the end there makes it kind of hard to know, doesn't it?
Posted by: MainiacJoe at December 2, 2005 12:39 PM
I wish it were true that torture is never effective -- then there wouldn't be a hard choice to make -- but there are historical instances where it has saved lives. The question posed by the economy of personal distress is this: How much suffering of innocent victims are we willing to require in order to maintain our own moral purity?
To my mind, the end doesn't justify the means -- the means determine the end. You don't cause good by doing evil, any more than you can look forward to a harvest of corn if you plant turnips. But my confidence in this premise is shaken by the "Morality 101 proposition": You have captured a terrorist who, you have good reason to believe, knows the location of a nuclear device set to go off in a major city....
The Belmont Club has a very useful discussion of this topic.
Posted by: Gerald Childers at December 3, 2005 10:28 AM