Torture Discussion
My friend Steve Edwards and myself don't disagree about all that much. We both agree that when he's pissed he dances like a crazy bastard. Something we diverge on is the republican debate. Steve loves those inbred buffoons - hark at the poor duffer - he's positively slavering over the coming ascension of King Charles the *mumble*. Another issue is torture. Steve is wholly against it. I am not for it. There is a difference. Steve says it doesn't work, it's a waste of time, it's always wrong in any possible circumstance. I argue that it should never be decriminalised, but it's worth a try if the scenario is suitably dire - individuals should take it upon themselves to break the law if the situation so demands. Yes, as a method of extracting information I'm sure it does not produce reliable results. HOWEVER I imagine it depends on the individual and the confluence of a number of other factors. I certainly don't think it's 100% unreliable. What I mean is it's conceivable that if a nuclear bomb's ticking in one of our cities and we've captured a belligerant who has knowledge of the device and/or its whereabouts, torturing the person could get results. It may not work but the point is it's worth a try in an immensely dangerous situation. And if those who decry torture absolutely were to be honest, I believe that most of them would abandon their words if a loved one was missing and significantly threatened and the torture-decrier had the perp in front of them. Then this comes along which sums up my thoughts, though with a more elegant economics metaphor.
The issue of torture is an immensely grey area. It's something we, as civilised people, should instinctively revile. What if one of our cities suffered a catastrophic strike with many thousands of lives lost, however? And it became known that the intelligence services were holding an individual at the time of the strike who they knew was aware of all the details of the attack? Said individual wasn't tortured due to legal reasons and kept quiet. The strike was carried out successfully and devastatingly. Do you think Joe Public would find that acceptable? I wouldn't find that acceptable, to be honest.
On the one hand, we make torture legal using a system of checks and balances that limit its usage to extreme cases - perhaps have some kind of judicial warrant system. However, something along these lines was tried in Israel and "extreme cases" turned out to be a slippery slope down the severity scale.
On the other, we make sure it remains completely illegal so there's next to no chance of it filtering down into more common law-enforcement usage. Back to the doomsday scenario - what if individuals hide behind that prohibition for moral reasons or reasons of self-preservation - even in the face of a direct and looming threat to innocents? Torture in such a predicament seems a fair last resort, but if it's not legal, we couldn't be surprised if officers of the law decided they won't use it - despite the fact it could conceivably save scores. Point if, if there is no legal recourse to torture, there's a danger that it will not be used even when it is arguably immoral not to do so.
Despite the flaws, I still like the latter option. It's far from a perfect solution - and I doubt one exists - but officially and for the record, we must never use torture. Officially. But being 100% against torture all the time is reckless.
The issue of torture is an immensely grey area. It's something we, as civilised people, should instinctively revile. What if one of our cities suffered a catastrophic strike with many thousands of lives lost, however? And it became known that the intelligence services were holding an individual at the time of the strike who they knew was aware of all the details of the attack? Said individual wasn't tortured due to legal reasons and kept quiet. The strike was carried out successfully and devastatingly. Do you think Joe Public would find that acceptable? I wouldn't find that acceptable, to be honest.
On the one hand, we make torture legal using a system of checks and balances that limit its usage to extreme cases - perhaps have some kind of judicial warrant system. However, something along these lines was tried in Israel and "extreme cases" turned out to be a slippery slope down the severity scale.
On the other, we make sure it remains completely illegal so there's next to no chance of it filtering down into more common law-enforcement usage. Back to the doomsday scenario - what if individuals hide behind that prohibition for moral reasons or reasons of self-preservation - even in the face of a direct and looming threat to innocents? Torture in such a predicament seems a fair last resort, but if it's not legal, we couldn't be surprised if officers of the law decided they won't use it - despite the fact it could conceivably save scores. Point if, if there is no legal recourse to torture, there's a danger that it will not be used even when it is arguably immoral not to do so.
Despite the flaws, I still like the latter option. It's far from a perfect solution - and I doubt one exists - but officially and for the record, we must never use torture. Officially. But being 100% against torture all the time is reckless.
posted by James Waterton at 12:22 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home