Charles Krauthammer's article on the ethics and practicalities of torture doesn't make for comfortable reading - how could it? But it's persuasive all the same. Laying out the case against the McCain amendment, he advocates the use of extreme force in two specific areas - the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario and the interrogation of "high-level" terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Krauthammer doesn't mince his words: "waterboarding", for instance, is "terrifying and deeply shocking". I don't feel good about agreeing with his argument, yet I honestly don't see a viable alternative. As David Gelernter has said, invoking The Brothers Karamazov, saying "never" instead of "almost never" is a trap that well-meaning people have been falling into for a long time.
Here's Krauthammer again:
Torture is not always impermissible. However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information). And once you've established the principle, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, all that's left to haggle about is the price. In the case of torture, that means that the argument is not whether torture is ever permissible, but when--i.e., under what obviously stringent circumstances:
I have one query about the "high value" thesis: the example Krauthammer gives as a success - the use of torture to determine the whereabouts of a kidnapped Israeli soldier - seems to fall short of the "ticking bomb" standard. Doesn't it bolster the view that legalized torture could easily become an everyday tactic rather than a weapon of last resort? Or am I missing the point?
Alan Dershowitz addresses the same general issues in his book Why Terrorism Works:
The tragic reality is that torture sometimes works, much though many people wish it did not.
The instance he cites is of an Al Qaeda operative, arrested by the authorities in the Philippines in 1995, who was forced into giving details of a plan to destroy eleven airlines over the Pacific. Agents beat the suspect "with a chair and a long piece of wood, forced water into his mouth, and crushed lighted cigarettes into his private parts".
It took them sixty-seven days to get the information.
Sixty-seven... (Via Power Line)
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan links to a summary of the case against torture.
UPDATE 2: George Bush's spiritual advisor, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus adds to the debate [scroll down a little], as does Jonah Goldberg.
Comments