[QUOTE=Lemur866]
But it isn’t just a thought experiment. We have an administration that encourages the use of torture against detainees. It’s happening right now, with the encouragement of Bush and Cheney. It’s not a hypothetical, it’s real, and we’re doing it.
So the question then becomes, how should we respond to the Bush encouragement of torture? Should we applaud, figuring that terrorists deserve it? Should we figure that the President knows what he’s doing, and even if we’re uncomfortable about torture, give him the benefit of the doubt and refuse to speak against torture? Or should we oppose the routine use of torture against detainees?
Not that everyone who is detained gets tortured, but surely if a detainee ends up in the wrong cell at the wrong prison on the wrong day, he’s could easily be tortured by an American torturer, and that torturer is torturing that detainee with the knowledge and approval of his superiors.
Should we applaud that torturer and call him a hero? Should we hold our tongues until we’ve walked a mile in the torturer’s shoes?
Or should we advocate that any American serviceman who tortures a detainee should be court martialed under the Geneva Conventions?
You can claim that torture might be justifiable under certain circumstances, but you consistently refrain from explaining how that should influence our public policy. I suppose, reading between the lines, you advocate punishing people who are caught torturing prisoners, but that we shouldn’t try very hard to prevent freelance torture, because that freelance torture saves lives, we just don’t want to admit it.
Or what?
My public policy is to vigorously advocate for the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions for all prisoners. All prisoners taken by our soldiers should be treated as POWs until and unless a court determines them to be guilty of particular crimes. Note that POWs can be detained indefinately under the Geneva Conventions, until the conflict is over. As long as we’re still fighting in Iraq, we can keep insurgents prisoner, and we can keep suspected insurgents prisoner. But prisoners must, must, must be treated either as criminals and given a fair trial and either convicted or released, or treated as POWs. And simply treating someone as a POW doesn’t forclose the possibility of trying him as a criminal later. And while it isn’t realistic to expect that the Geneva Conventions will never be violated, soldiers who violate the Geneva Conventions must always be looking over their shoulder in fear of a court martial.
It’s perfectly permissible to construct a thought experiment to explore the limits of moral principles. You’re willing to torture terrorists to save lives. Are you willing to torture innocent people to save lives? Would you anally rape a terrorist’s five year old child if you thought it would convince the terrorist to give you information that would save lives? Would you cut off the child’s ears, jab burning cigarettes into the child’s eyes, cut off the child’s fingers, castrate them? What if torturing that one child would save lives? If it’s moral to torture a terrorist to save lives, why isn’t it moral to torture an innocent person to save lives? If graphic discussions of torture of innocent children make you uncomfortable, just remember that this is only a thought experiment–under what circumstances is it moral to rape a five year old child?
[/QUOTE]
Hysterics aside (and wondering at your ability to conjure those images!), it would depend on the potential gain. Would I do the above if the terrorist was witholding the location of a particularly excellent deli? I doubt it. Would I do so if it meant saving my wife? Sure would, with bells on.
I love how you make it sound as if there were American Torturers (is that a new A&E TV show? Is it an Armed Forces rank?) roving the Halls of Guantanamo, picking cells at random, hoping to apply devious methods of excruciatingly inventive torture. Allah forfend if one of your theoretical detainee is in the “wrong cell in the wrong prison on the wrong day”. :rolleyes:
I also have some problems with the assumptions made in your first paragraph. “Encourage” is a strong word. I might have accepted “allow”, or another word with connotations of looking th other way, but I haven’t read the White House missive tasked with stirring up the unenlisted masses with dreams of delicious torture.
To answer the question buried in your soapboxy screed, I would probably hold officers suspected of torture to the court-martial process. I would, however, make an allowance for situational necessity. I still believe that torture is a useful way to extract data from people who the forces on the ground (and I doubt Cheney is selecting the torturees) believe have information that, unearthed, will save lives. It’s a war zone, by nature under military law, and as such, is subject to different rules.
I still wonder at the ease with which you slip into your moral polarity. Things are either “good” or “evil”, and never the twain shall meet. Must make things easy.
-Cem