Bluto has a provocative post below, about the actions of a British diplomat who compromised national security for the sake of his personal convictions about the use of intelligence obtain through torture. This fellow starts off by framing the position of his opponents as "pro-torture," so he's already dealt himself out of the debate by virtue of the fact that he doesn't frame it honestly. (Boy, was that a shock!)

I've always been a bit suspicious of the argument that "torture doesn't work," mainly because it's the kind of thing we'd like to believe so it'd be understandable if we applied an empirical filter that gives us that result. It's the sort of thing that happens all the time with methodoligally flawed scholarship. I'm guessing it does work, as does the occasional credible threat of torture. The question is whether there are alternatives that always work as well. If it genuinely didn't work then we wouldn't need a ban on it, we could just apply principles of professionalism to keep sadists out of the ranks of interrogators, and that'd be that.

Moreover, to some people practicing their piano lessons or studying calculus constitutes "torture." Yes, that's not what we're talking about here... but who can doubt that we would be talking about that eventually given the sort of wishful thinking one-sided "virtue" that dominates left-talk nowadays.

There's an argument for regime change in Uzbekistan, of course. Unfortunately most of those on the left can't bring themselves to use it, because it's the same one that justifies intervention in Iraq. But ultimately the paradigm is pretty simple, and it lies behind both the arguments against state torture and the arguments favoring the displacement of tyrants: respressive regimes breed group social pathologies, including terrorism. And there's also no doubt that the credible threat of a military intervention might serve to soften or replace a tyrannical regime once in awhile.

Actually the resolution I've proposed at various times would probably result in fewer instances of torture, or even near-torture, than would bans like those McCain supports. If the situation is sufficiently grave that you can obtain an uncoerced volunteer from your own service to undergo exactly the same treatment then "torture" is justified by the circumstances and odds of success. If you can't, then the situation isn't grave enough to justify it. That leaves the option open in extreme circumstances, reduces the overall instance of torture and cruel and unusual treatment, and gives us the moral high ground. But it would also evoke a lot of complaints from the morally bankrupt left who are less interested in results than in the appearance of superficial virtue.

For what it's worth it was none other than Cleveland Amory, animal rights activist and darling of the left, who first proposed something like the above. He suggested that the triggering codes that allowed a global thermonuclear launch be implanted next to the heart of an innocent person who would accompany the President at all times. Then, if the President were compelled by circumntances to order the use of our nuclear arsenal the only way he could do so would be by using a very sharp knife to "surgically remove the codes" himself, from the chest of a living victim (with no "help" from other service personnel). It's completely "barbaric" of course, but it reflects the barbarism of the choice and it therefore seemed entirely ethical. Score one for Cleveland. Today's "left" is just not made of the same stuff.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:58 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.