tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post4709499542058823617..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Of two mindstetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-5180156191730554642009-01-16T08:50:00.000-05:002009-01-16T08:50:00.000-05:00I think that torture should always be illegal. ...I think that torture should always be <I> illegal. </I> Assuming the absolute worst case wherein a nuclear device is about to go off in some major metropolitan area, and we <I> happen </I> to have <I> the </I> guy who knows where and he's not talking, then I think torture may be the <I> least horrible </I> option. But it should still require an investigation. If it is obvious that there was no choice but to extract the information coercively, then presumably the person doing to torturing would be vindicated.<BR/><BR/>This was patently not the case with Abu Ghraib, nor (I daresay) in the various other times it has been used over the past eight years.<BR/><BR/>And thank you for keeping the conversation going. It's good to have readers!Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-49228862606369139522009-01-15T15:05:00.000-05:002009-01-15T15:05:00.000-05:00Whoa, who is arguing for relying on torture? I'm ...Whoa, who is arguing for relying on torture? I'm certainly not, and the US isn't AFAICT. In fact, the use of torture is almost always counter-productive. For example, the US treats POWs quite well, as this encourages surrender and discourages fighting till the last man. The US chooses to do this even when dealing with non-signatories to the Geneva Convention, because the tactical and strategic benefits outweigh the costs. It isn't primarily a question of morality or legality (see below) unless the enemy agrees to forgo torture as well. I'm perfectly happy for AQ leadership to remain fearful that they may be captured and tortured if they do not publicly and effectively disavow torture as well. Having said that, it would be a horrible error for the US to use torture for any but the most exceptional cases. And of course, it cannot be used at all against an enemy who respects the Geneva Conventions.<BR/><BR/>But, as a question of legality, I can't see placing torture completely off-limits without any guarantees from our enemies that they too will rule out torture. You know the Geneva Conventions are binding only when *both* sides play by the rules (see article 2, which reads "[High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the [non-signatory] Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.")<BR/><BR/>Morally, I do not see how one can accept the necessity of war as the least worst action and at the same time deny that torture can ever be the least worst action.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking time to present your view, and I hope I haven't horrified you too much in presenting my view as a guest here. I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-22861097955377610832009-01-15T13:36:00.000-05:002009-01-15T13:36:00.000-05:00Your argument relies on the assumption that tortur...Your argument relies on the assumption that torture can sometimes be necessary because there are times when it is the only way in which some other catastrophe can be prevented. If Manhattan can be saved from annihilation by torturing someone, then I think it's a ridiculous sacrifice to ask of Manhattan in order to eschew torture. But this argument relies on a situation that, by all accounts, never happens. Information gathered is frequently unreliable because people will say <I> anything </I> to make the torture stop. Rarely (if ever) is the threat so imminent that the only means of preventing disaster is to torture. By relying on torture, we compromise both our moral standing and the quality of our intelligence.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-41454067833189357442009-01-14T22:36:00.000-05:002009-01-14T22:36:00.000-05:00I'm not saying torture is equivalent to war. War ...I'm not saying torture is equivalent to war. War is far, far, far, worse than torture with respect to any measure of human rights.<BR/><BR/>Human rights are violated by both war and torture. If respect for human rights leads one to conclude that torture must be ruled out under all circumstances, a fortiori war, with its far greater scale of human rights violations, must be ruled out under all circumstances.<BR/><BR/>In short, if war (which is far worse than torture) can be a necessary evil, the claim torture cannot likewise be a necessary evil has a very high burden of proof to be rationally accepted. I don't see that you have made that case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-65535469458849869172009-01-14T16:53:00.000-05:002009-01-14T16:53:00.000-05:00John, you're comparing two things that are not equ...John, you're comparing two things that are not equivalent. Sometimes war is a necessary evil, one that involves the violation of certain human rights as a tragic but often unavoidable consequence. Because of these violations war should be entered into with great caution and due solemnity. However, the death of innocent children is not a desired end, and should be considered a horrible loss when it occurs.<BR/><BR/>Torture, on the other hand, is an intentional violation of human rights for the purposes, purportedly, of extracting information. (That there is a punitive, <I> revanchist </I> aspect can hardly be plausibly denied.) There are other, more effective ways of getting the information desired, but it takes more work and time to get it. The violation of the rights is central to the function of torture, not peripheral and unavoidable, and so it is not comparable with war.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-8583500528007460772009-01-14T09:32:00.000-05:002009-01-14T09:32:00.000-05:00Torture is immoral because it violates human right...Torture is immoral because it violates human rights? Hell, war is even more immoral by that standard. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you tolerate military action given sufficiently compelling circumstance, despite knowing it is inevitable innocent children will die as a result. If so, why is torture always wrong when the greater evil of war can be justified by circumstance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com