On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:37:11 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

1. My opinion, yes. Legal interpretation? I don't know.

It's an interesting subject with two distinct viewpoints. Alan
Dershowitz, a not exactly "conservative" legal scholar nor a foaming
at the mouth reactionary villian (from the liberal perspective)
advocates and believes that under certain conditions, torture is
permissible and effective method of obtaining information.

As usual, there are two arguments here.

1 - The "dirty hands" dilemma which is really a cost/benefit analysis.
The usual circumstances are the "ticking bomb" scenario in which a
bomb is set to go off and kill thousands of people - the cost of
harming one human life to save thousands of human lives is defensible
and/or excusable. This argument basically states that while morally
indefensible, the end result justifies the means.

2 - That there is a moral, ethical and legal humanitarian obligation
that supercedes the need for information and that no justification can
be made to support the harming of one human being to save thousands of
human beings under any circumstances. That the ends to not justify the
means on a human and personal level.

The view under the Bush administration was the same as Dershowitz's -
that the end justifies the means - another way to put it would be that
while morally reprehensible, in the "dirty hands" scenario, it is
excusable and justifiable. As a general rule, while the United States
is a signatory to most, not all, of the interntional conventions on
the use of torture, it does reserve the right to determine it's own
findings guided by US law rather than international law - meaning that
the United States can make it's own rules if it feels necessary -
which is basically the "conservative" viewpoint. The Obama
administration has the exact opposite viewpoint and this is basically
supports the liberal/progressive viewpoint.

There are ancillary arguments to both sides about the nature of
"torture", what is and isn't torture, are the international
conventions too broad, yada, yada, yada. For instance, the use of dogs
to "threaten" an informant is verboten. "Psychological" techniques
(sleep deprivation or annoying sounds, hyponsis) are forbidden. "Drug"
techniques (such as "truth" serum) are forbidden. Some governments
allow for one, and not others.

I'm not at all sure how I view it to be honest. I think I'm more
inclined towards the Dershowitz viewpoint if I was pressed hard to
give an answer. On the other hand, I'm not much for inflicting pain as
the be all and end all. I suppose if I had to choose a "method" I'd
prefer the psychological approach in that I'd most likely use those
techniques to get what I wanted rather than inflict physical harm. You
know - hypnotize the suspect, find out that he's afraid of rats say,
then flood his cell with rats and see what happens.