I was going to write a long post about Stop the ACLU’s recent “Was it worth it?” post. In it, they ask the question that now that we know that the London plane bombers were exposed because the Pakistani interrogators “broke” someone rather easily. As Stop the ACLU notes, Pakistani intelligence is not afraid to “break a few eggs” and that’s probably what brought about the information that saved hundreds of lives.
Their question?
Knowing that the only way this information came out was through (likely) torture, was it worth it?
I was going to write a long post about how it obviously isn’t because if you make all your decisions based on what “could” come out of them, you’re setting yourself up to hurt a lot of innocent people, and you can’t say torture is worth it because you can look back at a case and say it worked simply because the fact is it isn’t going to always work.
Anyway, as I referred back to the post in question this morning, they posted an update. In it, they linked a Slate article which is excellent on the subject and explains why condoning torture “in some cases” is a stupid and dangerous move.
It feels strange even to have to use the term “proposed legislation” about a subject like this. When you think of all the things the law forbids, with varying degrees of success, it is hard to believe that torture by public officials isn’t on the list. But yes, according to the Bush administration, no law prevents our government from torturing (at the very least) nonuniformed noncitizens outside the United States. And the Bush folks like it that way. But others, including many congressional Republicans, don’t.
That hypothetical terrorist with a nuke is central to the most (maybe the only) articulate argument against the McCain bill. The argument, made by Charles Krauthammer in the Weekly Standard, is, in a nutshell: 1) No rational moral calculus could possibly justify sacrificing a million innocent lives in order to spare the would-be mass murderer a few minutes of pain. And 2) once you accept that torture would be justified in one situation, avoiding the use of torture on other situations is no longer a moral imperative. The question becomes where you draw the line.
In law school, they call this second point, “salami-slicing.” You start with a seemingly solid principle, then start slicing: If you would torture to save a million lives, would you do it for half a million? A thousand? Two dozen? What if there’s only a two-out-of-three chance that person you’re torturing has the crucial information? A 50-50 chance? One chance in 10? At what point does your moral calculus change, and why? Slice the salami too far, and the formerly solid principle disappears.
And therein lies the dilemma, and it’s one that I don’t reckon any answers will be forthcoming for anytime soon.
That, dear readers, is exactly the reason why a government should not condone torture in any fashion.
[tags]torture, terrorism[/tags]
Pingback: Anonymous