The Case For Enhanced Interrogation: Redux

[_cksalmon]

At what point, or under what conditions, should "torture" be allowed, or, perhaps more to the point, under what conditions would the moral restraints and normative civilizational principles that, under most conditions, would prohibit enhanced interrogation be forced to confront a moral conflict in which not to torture becomes, when contrasted to the moral implications of torture, the morally indefensible position?

Are there any conditions whatever, under which torture should be administered for the purpose of stopping violence, and especially, mass violence, including large scale atrocities such as the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings etc.

"Torture" is always permissible so long as the perpetrators of such do not overstep the rightful bounds of their manifest dhimmitude.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think beastie's hypothetical conclusion that torture would not be immoral is premature, but it is true that if torture does not lead to reliable information, then the defense that you have used no longer works.

I think you meant my conclusion that torture WOULD be immoral.

Whoops! Yes, that's what I meant.

I'm skeptical, too, that anyone could come up with a defense of torture if the useful information element were removed.

[_moksha]

Loran, thank you for acknowledging my question. I am wondering if I would have been more accurate if I had asked about selective morality, instead of asking about relative morality. What would be your take on that?

This issue of enhanced interrogation does seen to be of a timeless quality, being as important now as when the laws of war and the crimes of war were first codified at the Hague and in Geneva. How we treat our fellow human beings says so much about our values as a people and our current state of true morality, don't you agree?

[_EAllusion]

I'm skeptical, too, that anyone could come up with a defense of torture if the useful information element were removed.

It would require a retributive theory of justice. As I'm sure you know, that has its own severe problems with justification. However, it parallels nicely with how some people, disproportionately conservative, feel about justice.

[_Uncle Dale]

...it parallels nicely with how some people, disproportionately
conservative, feel about justice.

So far as I can gather, that "feeling" is -- the people must rise up and
take matters into their own hands, because the Law is insufficient.

This position also implies that the Law (and enforcement thereof) cannot
be improved upon, because "bad people" hold the governmental reins.

Thus we have the Klu Klux Klan organizing and rising up -- ostensibly to
protect "Christian virtues" in a godless society (but actually, to insure
the predominance of "white" vigilante power).

Mormons go on and on about how the "mobs" of wicked Gentiles have
persecuted them, all through history. Mobs operating outside of the
law frequently assert that they are administering quick "justice."

I see little difference between these various agencies, seeking to
operate outside of the Law -- no matter the justification.

"We must protect white female virtue!"
"We must torture the terrorists!"
"We must exterminate the Mormons!"
"We must murder the Fancer wagon-train pioneers!"
"Grandison Newell must be put out of the way!"

It all sounds about the same to my ears.

UD