A Few Thoughts for the Day
Sullivan responds to Krauthammer's article detailing when torture is acceptable and not. 1. "ticking bomb scenario" 2. when interrogating high level terrorists (ie Khalid Sheik Mohammed). Sullivan's starry eyed arguments that the use of torture directly contradicts American ideals and values, and therefore should not be used do not dissuade me from my support of torture in the most dire of circumstances (ticking time bomb). His rhetoric and philosophically laden arguments against torture do not address practical reality enough for my opinion to change.
Torture is immoral, but sometimes states must choose between two evils, torture a captive terrorist who has intimate knowledge of an impending attack or let a potentially devastating attack occur. Many articles, books, and studies question the effectiveness of torture in obtaining information. My response: if there is the slightest chance that lifesaving information could be obtained, the state must weigh the consequences of inaction and act accordingly. Critics deride this line of reasoning with the argument that the chance of catching a terrorist who has impending knowledge of an attack is infinitesimal so the situation is irrelevant and should not effect the practice of torture. Every potential scenario must meticulously planned for, and situations where information could be obtained to save the lives of thousands especially so.
Abu Gharib and Guantanamo prison are atrocities. In no way, shape, or form do I condone the horrors at any of these places, but this occurred precisely because we don't acknowledge both the upside and downside of torture. The situations occur precisely because standards of conduct by interrogators are not either outlined or are just ignored with a wink from superiors. Appropriate congressional or judicial oversight independent of the military is desperately needed to prevent the horrors inflicted at Abu Gharib from becoming commonplace. The flip side is that torture would be allowed only in the most dire of circumstances, but would be overseen by appropriate auditors to prevent its spread.
Just a few thoughts on a very complex and challenging problem.
Torture is immoral, but sometimes states must choose between two evils, torture a captive terrorist who has intimate knowledge of an impending attack or let a potentially devastating attack occur. Many articles, books, and studies question the effectiveness of torture in obtaining information. My response: if there is the slightest chance that lifesaving information could be obtained, the state must weigh the consequences of inaction and act accordingly. Critics deride this line of reasoning with the argument that the chance of catching a terrorist who has impending knowledge of an attack is infinitesimal so the situation is irrelevant and should not effect the practice of torture. Every potential scenario must meticulously planned for, and situations where information could be obtained to save the lives of thousands especially so.
Abu Gharib and Guantanamo prison are atrocities. In no way, shape, or form do I condone the horrors at any of these places, but this occurred precisely because we don't acknowledge both the upside and downside of torture. The situations occur precisely because standards of conduct by interrogators are not either outlined or are just ignored with a wink from superiors. Appropriate congressional or judicial oversight independent of the military is desperately needed to prevent the horrors inflicted at Abu Gharib from becoming commonplace. The flip side is that torture would be allowed only in the most dire of circumstances, but would be overseen by appropriate auditors to prevent its spread.
Just a few thoughts on a very complex and challenging problem.
<< Home