# Isn't it bizarre to be against torture if we aren't against collateral damage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253 "2004-11-23T08:30:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/41 "2004-11-24T01:10:34Z")
Note Apos does not respond to Lemur’s point. So far it’s looking like game, set and match goes to Lemur. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/42 "2004-11-24T01:28:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Note Apos does not respond to Lemur’s point. So far it’s looking like game, set and match goes to Lemur. It is bizarre and unfair indeed to expect me to respond to an onslaught of posts, and if I don’t get to something immediately, it is assumed that I am ignoring it. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/43 "2004-11-24T01:44:26Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I’m sure that we can agree that in some cases, the vast majority of people would agree that torture could be justified. The classic example is the terrorist who knows the codes to shut down a nuclear bomb that’s going to go off in the national capitol. You torture him for the codes without regrets. Sure: but that itself gives the game away. There are situations in which CD is justified, and their are situations in which torture is justified. Why should there be a general approval for one, arguably much greater harm in the course of a good end, and a hard and fast line against another much lesser harm in the course of a generally much GREATER good: line that most people even eventually break down and admit isn’t realistic? > [@](#): > > But the reality is that this situation hardly ever occurs. More realistically, you pick up some guy who might have some connection to some other guy, and you lean on him and slap him around to see if he’ll cooperate. You don’t know for a fact that the guy is a terrorist, you don’t know for a fact if he has really committed any crimes, you don’t know for a fact that he has time-sensitive information, you don’t know for a fact that he has any valuable intelligence at all. In terms of CD, you actually know that many of the expendables ARE indeed innocent, that they have not committed any crimes that you know about, and indeed you know that you have absolutely no cause to threat their lives in particular. > [@](#): > > And so, willy-nilly, torture becomes the policy for everyone who is picked up as a suspected terrorist or insurgent. There’s no way to tell the hadjis apart, so you torture all of them, and either they give you good intelligence or not, it doesn’t matter if they are innocent or guilty or in between. One could say the exact same thing about CD, and yet we don’t. We accept that our military commanders have some degree of judgement about what is too reckless. We accept that they will not be “willy-nilly” in their bombing campaigns, and when they are, we condemn them. > [@](#): > > We have to have policies against torture. We have to punish torturers. This isn’t an argument. > [@](#): > > My rule of thumb is that if a cop or soldier isn’t willing to risk his career for the imformation, if he wouldn’t gladly go to jail afterwards, then perhaps the information wasn’t all that important anyway. Again: I’m unmoved by this because there isn’t such a standard for CD. The inevitable outcome of most military operations in civilian areas is CD. Would you really be willing to say that if military operation that risks CD isn’t important enough for commanders to go to jail if there is CD, then maybe it’s not so important? If so, I commend you, but you stand in stark contrast to the realities of modern warfare and the normal progress of our military justice system. We’d certainly end up with a whole lot of soldiers in jail. > [@](#): > > So you can face a jury or a court-martial with a clear conscience in the nuclear-bomb scenario. The last thing we need is an official waiver that will allow the torture of innocents and/or the guilty. If you absolutely positively need to torture some perp and go ahead we’ll decide what to do with you later. But the torturer certainly shouldn’t get a blank check to torture. Otherwise, we will inevitably have more situations like Abu Graib. Torture as routine. CD, which is arguably a much worse harm, is already far far more routine than the approved torture of a few carefully selected figures with time sensitive information that could save many lives. > [@](#): > > Does torture “work”? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I suspect torture will be more effective against middle-class suburban officeworkers than against fanatical death-obsessed Islamicists. But that is irrelevant. We have prohibitions against torture, not because we are worried that the information gained through torture might be inaccurate, but because we don’t want to give the government the authority to torture us. Again, you are acting like I am making a case for torture. I’m not. I’m making the case that there is a gross disconnect between our feelings about the rightness of torture and our feelings about CD. I don’t know whether I support either, but I am intrigued by the idea that one could support one but not the other. So my response to your paragraph here is not to disagree with you, but again, to point out that the government apparently has the authority to cause far worse harm through CD (and in the case of WW2, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in a single targeted attack that we blame on our enemies for making necessary) than it would from the ability to torture in even more limited circumstances. > [@](#): > > Because the fact is, the government authorized torturers aren’t always going to be torturing “them”, they are going to be torturing US. You, your family, your neighbors, not just those people with strange accents and funny ideas and different complexions. Oh, you want to be able to torture foreigners, but not real Americans? How is that going to work, exactly? It’s not. But then, perhaps our acceptance of CD is premised on the idea that it will only ever affect foreigners? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/44 "2004-11-24T01:54:21Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > It’s not. But then, perhaps our acceptance of CD is premised on the idea that it will only ever affect foreigners? Not anymore. The next time a plane is hijacked and is headed for a tall builidng, don’t be surprised if the airforce shoots it down rather than let it crash into the building. We got caught with our thumbs up our asses last time. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/45 "2004-11-24T09:19:16Z")
I understand what you’re getting at **Apos** and I agree that its odd that we’re prepared to accept massive levels of CD but not even a slap to a known terrorist for a tangible gain. I think many posters are thinking along the lines that war is inevitable, CD is inevitable in wartime, therefore CD is inevitable: which is true but ignores the all important attempts to mitigate CD. An army can always do more to avoid civilian casualties. Of course, in many cases this would result in a far higher death toll among this army’s soldiers. So we (the people for whom the army is fighting) agree that civilians on THEIR side are more expendable than OUR professional fighters. Like it or lump, that is how it is done. In the case of torture then (and let’s, for the sake of argument limit this to enemy combatants who have, beyond doubt, been involved in fighting our troops), it does seem odd that we would baulk at inflicting a measured amount of pain - even if it were to save the lives of some of our troops. In other words, we’re prepared to kill innocent civilians to save our soldiers but not harm in any way enemy combatants once they are out of the field of combat. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/46 "2004-11-24T09:21:02Z")
… to achieve the same aim. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/47 "2004-11-24T19:12:13Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Like it or lump, Like it or lump? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/48 "2004-11-24T20:09:12Z")
I think I see the problem – you’re approaching this as an abstract, while the solution is a practical matter, as has been pointed out repeatedly. Well, abstractly speaking, maybe the problem is that a captured terrorist is under our protection – we have captured him, removed his liberty and his ability to defend himself from us, so an attack by us on a captive is in a sense a betrayal. Even though there’s no real contract between a captured terrorist and us, there’s a sense that how he’s treated while in our custody REFLECTS on who we are. Now the civilian populace of an enemy state is not in any sense ours, nor under our protection. It’s up to that other government to protect them. We won’t kill them unnecessarily, but it’s not really our job to preserve their lives. This is wispy stuff indeed compared to the practical realities of war, but may account for the inconguency you perceive. ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/49 "2004-11-24T21:41:12Z")
Another small problem with torture - some people might say anything, just to get the hurting to stop. Some people might purposely give the wrong information, just to spite the torturers. And some might die without saying anything at all because they’re so dedicated to the cause. And of course his friends on the outside might become slightly desperate - nobody wants to be captured alive only to be tortured to death. Yeah, war isn’t nice, and it’d be great if we didn’t do it. But if we’re going to fight, we’re going to try to fight nicely. If the civilian gets bombed because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, sorry, we didn’t mean to, and we’ll try to do better. A combatant who has surrendered/been captured is already in our power, and it would be counterproductive to hurt him or her further. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/50 "2004-11-25T00:13:19Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think I see the problem – you’re approaching this as an abstract, while the solution is a practical matter, as has been pointed out repeatedly. That depends on whether you think moral judgements should seek to maintain some sort of abstract consistency, or whether they should just basically be THEMSELVES a mean to an end: to make easier the paths and conventions we’ve already chosen. > [@](#): > > Well, abstractly speaking, maybe the problem is that a captured terrorist is under our protection – we have captured him, removed his liberty and his ability to defend himself from us, so an attack by us on a captive is in a sense a betrayal. Even though there’s no real contract between a captured terrorist and us, there’s a sense that how he’s treated while in our custody REFLECTS on who we are. I’m not sure, again, that this holds up. Under the Geneva convention, the people in Iraq are under our protection. Killing them in the course of a greater end could be seen as just as much of a betrayal. And again, this “contract” is largely subjective: I’m not sure why it should affect moral judgements of whose’s life or pain is worth more or less than other people’s. > [@](#): > > Now the civilian populace of an enemy state is not in any sense ours, nor under our protection. It’s up to that other government to protect them. We won’t kill them unnecessarily, but it’s not really our job to preserve their lives. While not precisely racism, this is basically the same idea: different people’s lives are worth different amounts depending on where they happen to live. I don’t think morality can take this seriously, given that the whole point of universal moral reasoning is to try cut out the irrelevancies of tribal affiliation, gender, and so on when considering the wrongs done to various people and weighing them. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/51 "2004-11-25T00:24:29Z")
> [@dotchan](#): > > Another small problem with torture - some people might say anything, just to get the hurting to stop. Some people might purposely give the wrong information, just to spite the torturers. And some might die without saying anything at all because they’re so dedicated to the cause. I believe we’ve already covered this. Yes, just as the efficacy of specific military attacks can be questioned because the CD might be too high, the efficacy of certain tortures might be questioned because the subject might be too well-trained or not well informed. But this is, again, just a matter of haggling over the relative price of the acts in specific situations, which is not the same thing as saying one is permissible and the other is not. Even if it is far less likely that we’ll find ourselves in a situation in which torture is worth the risk of trying it, that doesn’t make torture less viable or justifiable as an option: it just means that the chance comes up less. > [@](#): > > And of course his friends on the outside might become slightly desperate - nobody wants to be captured alive only to be tortured to death. This raises another moral bizzarity, namely, that people are willing to countencence KILLING someone in order to deter other murders, but not torturing people to deter crime. They are willing to set people up in situations where they are miserable (prison) or commonly subject to things as excruiatingly similar to torture as brutal rape, but not to actually directly torture them. Are prisoners and convicted murderers to be treated as means to ends or not? > [@](#): > > Yeah, war isn’t nice, and it’d be great if we didn’t do it. But if we’re going to fight, we’re going to try to fight nicely. If the civilian gets bombed because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, sorry, we didn’t mean to, and we’ll try to do better. A combatant who has surrendered/been captured is already in our power, and it would be counterproductive to hurt him or her further. But the whole point is that it is NOT always counter-productive. What I fear is that we see and the messiness of war as more acceptable than torture merely because of convention and historical accident rather than any sort of consistent moral standard. And what deeply worries me is that I can see lots of similar bizarrities in many of our moral decisions, many of which the philosopher Peter Unger has written about (where some seemingly morally irrelevant but psychologically influential criteria), or Peter Singer has brought to the public attention (i.e. that we are OURSELVES willing to agree that 10$ is better spent on a starving child than on a lousy night at the movies, and yet feel no moral imperative to give away that 10$ to the child and are unwilling to consider someone who chooses the movie over the child a monster, even though they WOULD be willing to call a monster who didn’t spend 10$ to buy a rope to save a drowning child or an epi-pen to save an allergic child). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Truth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Truth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Truth)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/52 "2004-11-25T00:30:25Z")
Are we _really_ against torture ? Who knows what goes on, when certain “ally” countries, with terrible human rights records interogates terrorists for example. Would we turn down valuable info, if it was known that it came from some lowlife terrorist who had the info extracted from him/her using various techniques that certain whiny people find objectionable? I doubt it. I support both torture and collatoral damage. It all depends on the circumstances of course. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/53 "2004-11-25T07:51:23Z")
> [@The Truth](#): > > Who knows what goes on, when certain “ally” countries, with terrible human rights records interogates terrorists for example. Would we turn down valuable info, if it was known that it came from some lowlife terrorist who had the info extracted from him/her. Interesting point. Didn’t the US send several Iraqi detainees to Egypt soon after the recent invasion for that very purpose? > [@The Truth](#): > > I support both torture and collatoral damage. I support neither, for the record. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/54 "2004-11-25T07:56:32Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Well, abstractly speaking, maybe the problem is that a captured terrorist is under our protection. As mentioned earlier in the thread, if a domestic airliner were to be hijacked again over US soil, the air force would not hesitate to shoot it down. Would those passengers not also be under the protection of the US government? They would be sacrificed for the greater good. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/55 "2004-11-25T08:47:12Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > As mentioned earlier in the thread, if a domestic airliner were to be hijacked again over US soil, the air force would not hesitate to shoot it down. Would those passengers not also be under the protection of the US government? > They would be sacrificed for the greater good. Of course, that’s not the best example, since those passengers are likely to die anyway. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/56 "2004-11-25T10:32:21Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > And what deeply worries me is that I can see lots of similar bizarrities in many of our moral decisions, many of which the philosopher Peter Unger has written about (where some seemingly morally irrelevant but psychologically influential criteria), or Peter Singer has brought to the public attention (i.e. that we are OURSELVES willing to agree that 10$ is better spent on a starving child than on a lousy night at the movies, and yet feel no moral imperative to give away that 10$ to the child and are unwilling to consider someone who chooses the movie over the child a monster, even though they WOULD be willing to call a monster who didn’t spend 10$ to buy a rope to save a drowning child or an epi-pen to save an allergic child). But indeed, our morals aren’t consistent. They’re mostly based on gut reaction, ingrained social norms, upbringing, propaganda, etc…It certainly is upsettling when you take the time to think about it (I wish I could not think about it), but if you pit gut reaction against logic, gut reaction is going to win 99% of the time. We’ve to learn to live with that, because there’s no way we’re going to find an internally consistent moral system anytime soon. Or more exactly, maybe we could find one, but we would perceive it as abhorent. Even if it objectively resulted in less harm being done. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/57 "2004-11-25T11:00:29Z")
For instance, in your example of the man who has an epi pen in his pocket he has no use for and let a kid who need it dying on his doorstep, using the line : “What? I gave 20 $ to a charity that feed starving children in Africa yesterday. I’m better than you!!” will bring him nowhere. He will be viewed as an heartless smartass. You try and publish an article in a paper congratulating him for his high morals. He’s perfectly right, though. He did more good than you. You might be able to talk yourself into thinking he’s right, but try having a dinner with him and not thinking “He left a kid dying at his doorstep yesterday. He left a kid dying at his doorstep yesterday. He left…”. Have fun. And maybe it’s a good thing. Because I can’t help thinking that someone who is systematically guided by his intellect rather than by his gut feeling is someone who doesn’t have any empathy. IOW, a sociopath. He’s excellent mass-murderer material if he can think of a good reason (a reason that you might not like). ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/58 "2004-11-25T16:36:48Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Of course, that’s not the best example, since those passengers are likely to die anyway. Innocent civilians in, say, Falujah are likely to do die too. Admittedly not as likely as passengers in an airliner used as a missile, but likely none the less. Also, I can quite easily conceive of a situation in which hijackers’ motives are unclear - a situation in which, if the hijacked plane had not been shot down, it could have landed without loss of life. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/59 "2004-11-25T17:16:01Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > We engage in military operations all the time to kill enemies in which the deaths of innocent civilians are inevitable and predictable. Yet we also refuse to torture those same enemies even if it will save lives. I don’t see how these two concepts can coincide. > > When we engage in military operations, our goal is to kill people, and the price we inevitably pay, especially in places like Iraq where our enemies use innocents for cover, is the death of innocent people. While generally inevitable, we conscience it as a matter of course. > > When we consider torture, our goal is to get information that might save lives, and the price we pay is some transitory pain done to some rather unsavory characters. > > It’s hard to see how we can accept the first price (the death of a lot of children, families, and other incredible heartwrenching and irreperable damages) and not accept the other (finite pain that a person can recover from later), especially when the goal of the first is merely to kill people and the goal of the other is to save innocent people. > > There are, of course, other common objections to torture, but in comparison to collateral damage, none of them seem to add up. The information gleaned from torture can often be unreliable, but then so can targeting information for bombing campaigns or missle strikes: we’ve many times simply ended up killing innocent people and missing the enemy. We still accept the overall policy as a matter of course. > > Likewise one could argue that we shouldn’t torture because we don’t want to have others torturing our soldiers. But then, one could argue that we wouldn’t want people risking killing civilians when fighting our troops. The “message we send” objection works in both cases, and hence gets us nowhere. > > Why are we against torture again? I know what you mean to say, but I have some challenges: - the goal of military action is not about “killing people”. It is to achieve a political result. If you threaten someone and they back down, you can achieve your objective without violence. In addition, highly effective miltary action (killing lots of people) can lead to stiffer resistance. For example, one of the major problems with the US in Iraq is that the political objectives were and are terribly muddled. (The only reason for invading initially was the immediate threat of WMD’s. This turned out to be bogus. So suddenly the reason becomes regime change. This is illegal under UN laws. In addition, how do you tell terrorists apart from Iraqi loyalists who consider they are defending their homeland? When will US troops leave? What will constitute a legal Government? It’s worrying to see US forces bombing Iraqi cities. How does this accomplish peace?) - you state “torture is to get information that ‘might’ save lives?” How do you feel about torturing someone who doesn’t have the information? What does it say aobut your society that you are willing to use torture? - you state “we’ve many times simply ended up killing innocent people and missing the enemy. We still accept the overall policy as a matter of course.” Some of us **don’t** accept this. Do you also accept ‘friendly fire’ as a natural consequence of US military action? - one of the problems of having the most powerful armed forces is that politicians tend to think that should be the first response to problems. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/60 "2004-11-25T17:21:58Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > The thing, we DO accept torture in specific instances if it is understood to be warranted. Think of the big blockbuster where the hero has to save the heroine tied up next to a bomb and he has to extract info from the baddie asap. > No-one blinks an eye if he resorts to a punch in the face or a gun to the head. > But its tricky to mandate, simply because it is so open to abuse. Actually human rights organisations and various legal systems **do** object strongly to this. ANd it’s not tricky to mandate. The worrying thing to me is that you think we all support this ‘hero’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253.md?page=4)