MORE ON THE TORTURE QUESTION

David Aaronovitch lays out the anti- case in the Times:

As [John] McCain puts it now, we are in "a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists". And we fight it — always, always, always — by being as little like those oppressors as we can possibly be. Even if torture works.

Much as I want to agree, I still can't past the oft-quoted "ticking bomb scenario". Part of me thinks torture should be banned in all circumstances, yet I also know that whenever the ultimate "how do we save New York/London?" hypothetical is raised, I come down on Krauthammer's side in accepting that some form of torture should be an option. (What troubles me more is that, given the way organizations work, it might then easily become an everyday tactic.)

David Luban's anti- essay makes the reasonable point: "Real intelligence gathering is not a made-for-TV melodrama.". But sometimes real life is melodrama, which is why so many commentators reached for disaster movie metaphors on 9/11. (Until that day, most of us would have dismissed the events on Flight 93 as a scene from a Chuck Norris film.)

The real quandary - for me anyway - is whether, having consented to use torture, you then acknowledge the fact in law. Alan Dershowitz's endlessly controversial book - which I've linked to before - comes down in favour of a tightly monitored warrant system. (Just to be clear: the kind of treatment he cites is needles under fingernails.)

It is always difficult to extrapolate from history, but it seems logical that a formal, visible, accountable, and centralized system is somewhat easier to control than an ad hoc,off-the-books, and under-the-radar-screen nonsystem.

Consider also this passage:

The ancient Jewish system of jurisprudence came up with yet another solution to the conundrum of convicting the guilty and preventing harm to the community in the face of difficult evidentiary barriers. Jewish law required two witnesses and a specific advance warning before a person could be convicted. Because confessions were disfavoured, torture was not an available option. Instead, the defendant who had been seen killing by one reliable witness or whose guilt was obvious from the circumstantial evidence, was formally acquitted, but he was then taken to a seure location and fed a concoction of barley and water until his stomach burst and he died.

Shades of grey upon shades of grey. Like many people, I'm still groping my way forward on this one.

Comments

[Antipholus Papps]

If you can submit another living human being to excruciating agony in order to extract the information you wish to hear, your society is not worth saving and you have become an inhuman monster. Period. Ticking bomb or no. It is extremely depressing that we can even have this discussion. We have learnt nothing from history.