Yes, but the ticking bomb terrorist is a very rare occurance. Politician dissants (which may someday include gun owners), unpopular ethnic groups, etc are much more common.
I agree, on both counts.
The former point requires some examination, however. Is there a number of potential casualties greater than 1, but less than the human population of Earth*, at which torturing the suspect is justifiable? Is letting a bandstand full of limey musicians go "boom" something one wouldn't torture for, but a city of one million currently holding the annual Special Olympics worth going at it with hammer & tongs?
The "No torture under any circumstances" position is undergirded more by faith and moral dogma than it is by practical concerns, though, and ought to be subject to such questions. (If a confirmation class student can ask the minister, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" the "no torture under any circumstances" dogmatists get to tell us just how many humans get to die to preserve the dogmatists' moral standing.)
* End of human life on Earth
I recall a case of an American officer pulling out his sidearm, firing a round into the ground next to a gentleman recently captured, and send the next one was going in his head if the gentleman did not cough up the location of a mortar team. This is an example of heat of the moment stretching of the Geneva Conventions, a far more realistic example than "terrorist with a nuclear weapon."
Does the officer deserve to be tossed in the clink? Of course not, any reasonable person understands that under stressful situations (and getting shot at definitely counts) folks deserve some leeway. Some leeway does not mean they are immune to the UCMJ, the War Crimes Act (look it up), and the GC/Hague.
Plus One.
I am willing to grant those on the pointy end of the spear some leeway, too.
Systemic institutionalized torture is a different story. It is pure evil, on the moral side. It is a pure waste of time, on the practical side. I remember being told by indigenous folks that you torture for three reasons. Entertainment, revenge or to force a confession. Not sure how much I'd agree, but they had practical experience where I did not. So there you go. None of them expected torture to yield much or any useful information. There are far superior methods of gathering reliable intelligence.
I agree, mostly. Systemic institutionalized torture is evil, but what some folks are (re)defining as torture is not.
Also, just because some folks are exercising their cultural diversity by torturing for reasons other than data gathering, does not mean that others can not glean useful information from it.
Well there is that pesky notion of intent. Intent matters. The ends matter. If torture is the only method left available to discover the location of a nuclear weapon that will kill 1000's or even millions then it is justified. Of course in the absolutist world it is preferable to just let the million's die - after all in their minds, since the question, where does one draw the line is not answerable we just won't answer it and will let the die fall where it may. Kinda like the notion many anti-gunners have that a naked, raped and dead woman in an alley is preferable to her having shot and killed her assailant.
People love to toss that "terrorist with a nuclear weapon" example out there to legitimize illegal, unethical and immoral behavior. Here's a reality check. There are no terrorists with a functional nuclear warhead. None. Zip. Notta. Unlike in Hollywood, nuclear weapons cannot be assembled by slapping random electronics onto a 1kg chunk of uranium, and pressing a button on some ueber-ultra sophisticated triggering device to cause a explosion that blows the world into two halves, causes global warming and kicks a puppy. Nuclear weapons ain't the easiest to use, deploy and maintain even if you have the best technology on the planet. And few countries, including Russia, have nuclear technology remotely close to the US's level.
What are the limits of torture? Just mental/emotional abuse? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse? Rape? According to the Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (aka, the Taguba Report), these have already occurred. I can think of no reason why a soldier found guilty in a clear cut charge of rape of a detainee should not be executed, in public.
No terrorists have used a nuke or other WMD in a successful operation yet. Projecting such failure on their part into the future is a losing proposition. It is gonna happen, sure as night follows day.
What is torture? Some folks have tried to define torture down to the point where I try to find out if an author is writing about torture or "torture."
I think that today we have the worst of any solution. Sen John McCain wants stern law against both torture and "torture," but he expects our soldiers or agents to break the law in the "ticking time bomb" scenario and tear into the suspect. That is the most morally cowardly position a legislator could possibly come up with. Congress needs to lay down just where we, as a nation, stand on the issue and not place that responsibility on to a 1LT, SPC, or agent in the field.
Would that be institutionalized? Yep. But, I think it best to give our men clear guidance. Making it illegal but expecting our boys the do it anyway is the wrong answer.
