How many of those who instantly become consumed with moral outrage when the word ‘torture’ is mentioned would personally resort to torture if the lives of their own loved one’s were about to be forfeit?
I'm guessing quite a few, although that's not a good argument in favor of allowing the use of torture. Many of us might resort to otherwise unthinkable actions to protect the lives of loved ones. That natural response isn't a good basis for national policy. But it does help put the moral outrage in perspective. The article has a much better argument for considering the use of torture:
Would I... sanction the use of torture to prevent the potential destruction of our cities and all who live in them? Of course I would - and I’d expect any Leader of any Party, no matter how much they personally abhorred the concept of torture, to put the safety of the nation and the lives of decent hardworking folk before their own selfish views.I'd put all sorts of caveats on that argument, but at its core it is very difficult to counter, except with moral absolutism or blind legalism, unless you pretend that torture can't possibly be effective.
Mass death and destruction by some terrorist group or another is going to happen. It’s only a matter of time. Somebody knows who and where these people are.Advise them of their rights and give them lawyers? That seems to be the answer of most torture opponents who think foreign terrorists deserve legal rights. Mr. Terrorist Leader is captured and we bring him in for interrogation, planning to use all of those great non-coercive techniques that some argue are way more effective than torture. And Mr. Terrorist leader says, "Screw you. I'm saying nothing. I want a lawyer." And he refuses to say another word. Then what?
What are you going to do if you catch one of them?
A case easily be made for short-term detention without a lawyer and other legal rights. But short-term is a matter of weeks or months.
ReplyDeleteTo do so long term -- six years in Guantanamo without charge, for instance -- is an outrageous violation of the rule of law that makes the West exceptional.
We can't countenance that. Nor can we countenance unlawful torture. If someone does torture in this "potential destruction of a city" scenario [and as far as I know there has never been such a scenario outside of fiction] then the unlawful torturers must ultimately turn themselves in and be held accountable for their decision to ignore the law. Is my position "blind legalism" ?
Now if you want to argue that the law should be changed to allow for torture in such situations then you may do so, and perhaps someone like Peter Stokes would join you (I see no mention of "law" or "legal" in the article). But I trust you won't find much support for such a legal torture proposition outside of right-wingnuts.
"To do so long term -- six years in Guantanamo without charge, for instance -- is an outrageous violation of the rule of law that makes the West exceptional."
ReplyDeleteI'd argue it has nothing to do with the rule of law. These aren't criminal defendents. They are enemies. And even if you look at it from a legal standpoint, if we are at war, wartime prisoners are held indefinitely. I don't think just holding them indefinitely is a good idea from a functional standpoint, but that's a different issue.
"Nor can we countenance unlawful torture."
Sure we can. Rules have exceptions. Sometimes laws have to be violated. And we can certainly countenance it in gray areas, such as CIA operations outside the U.S. involving non-U.S. citizens. There is a significant body of evidence suggesting that the CIA has employed various torture techniques for interrogation throughout much of its existence -- and even trained others in those techniques. This is certainly the view of left-wing historians, and they have a pretty good case. Torture isn't anything new for the U.S. We've used it at various times and for various reasons throughout most of our history.
" then the unlawful torturers must ultimately turn themselves in and be held accountable for their decision to ignore the law."
I'd have to say that depends on the situation.
"Now if you want to argue that the law should be changed to allow for torture in such situations"
I'd argue that common sense allows for torture in such situations, and that, as Stokes wrote, the government has a responsibility to use it if it is truly necessary.
"Now if you want to argue that the law should be changed to allow for torture in such situations then you may do so"
That's not such good idea because we can't define every particular situation. But neither should we attempt to close off every loophole.