Reply #29: That does not answer my objections to torture

[Jack Rabbit]

According to some accounts of the matter which I read, Galileo was never actually tortured; he was merely shown the rack. As the chess player Nimzovich once said, the threat can be stronger than the execution.

When we're speaking of torture, the threat is as immoral as the execution. Torture is something of which we would like to rid the world. Therefore, it should be neither used nor threatened. Moreover, the threat is meaningless unless one intends to execute it. Consequently, threatening with no intent of executing defeats the purpose. If one is going to threaten torture as a means to and end, then one should torture.

If one side in a conflict uses torture to get useful information from those on the other it believes possess it, it is saying this is acceptable behavior for a civilized society. That, of course, implies that it would be acceptable for the other side to use it against those that it detains. Therefore, when one engages in torture of one's enemy, one consents to the possibility that one's own comrades will be tortured should they fall into enemy hands.

Of course, that's the moral argument. Since some people believe in moral double standards and attempt to deny that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, we will go to the pragmatic argument.

You agree that torture is abominable and that it should be used only in extreme circumstances. Dershowitz illustrates this with the ticking bomb scenario and you have given a variation of that theme with the child hostage. However, these have an element of urgency in that time is a factor. All the terrorist need do is withstand pain for a length of time or employ delaying tactics such as providing a false lead and he can easily defeat the torture.

If the element of urgency is removed, then torture becomes unnecessary. If time is not a factor, then there is time to use conventional investigative methods. Dershowitz removes urgency as a factor in the one real-life case he cites, that of Hakim Abdul Marud in the Philippines. If Filipino agents had sixty days to work Marud over to get information out of him, then they had sixty days to follow the same leads that made him a suspect with conventional methods. As a case to support the assertion that the occasional use of torture yields benefits that conventional methods do not, this one is unconvincing.

Finally, Dershowitz says, and you do also, that if torture is to be employed it should be done under court supervision. The authorities would have to get a warrant to authorize the use of torture on a suspect. Yet in an urgent situation, that would only consume valuable time. Therefore, the system defeats the purpose.

Torture is both immoral and impractical. We would do better to simply not use it.