On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:52:37 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


The argument is a valid one - how often would it happen is a major
component of this debate and one that should be recognized as a valid
counter argument.

That's where the argument gets hazy. Look, in the abstract, if torturing
one would save many, I may do what it takes, or, overlook what happens,
but that doesn't excuse torture as policy.


The examples you presented also dodge the main question - Hitler, Stalin
and Pinochet used torture as a political instrument and not as a
technique to gain military intelligence to assess potential threats -

So, when the veil of secrecy is finally lifted, if it turns out that that
is exactly what we did? What then? I mean, rumor has it we waterboarded
one guy 183 times. And what was that BS at abu Graib?


Dershowitz also makes that distinction and argues that there is a moral
imperative to protect the lives of citizens - another way to put it is
that a single evil to benefit the common good, while morally
questionable, is defensible and excusable. At it's heart, that is the
argument - can torture be defended as being a valid technique when time
and lack of intelligence is of the essence.

It's arguable, and perhaps, just perhaps, defensible, in a strict one off
way, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking blanket
policy, and from there, it's not a slippery-slope, it's a damn cliff.


To me, the term "torture" has been expanded beyond any common sense. The
International Conventions proscribe the use of almost all cohersive
tactics - even those that are relatively benign such as hallucinogens,
"truth" serums and other passive techniques (sleep deprivation,
sound/light, etc.). That just seems to me, in this day and age of
advanced medical technology, that these types of cohersive tactics
should be considered as a valid intelligence tool and should be used to
gain intelligence not available via normal methods.

Yeah, but ... those International Conventions aren't for the protection
of our enemies, they are for the protection of our own. The question to
ask is, what tactics do we want our soldiers to be subject to?