Devaluing our honor by cheapening torture
by Jack GrantWhat is written at Marginal Revolution encapsulates my view as to why the position of the administration on making “exceptions on torture for extraordinary circumstances” is dead wrong:
But it does not follow from the “ticking time bomb” argument that torture should be legal. The problem with making torture legal is that the government will abuse its powers. I do not trust the government, any government, to use this power responsibly. Leviathan must be heavily restrained, especially when it comes to torture.
Here is where economics can make a contribution. By making torture illegal we are raising the price of torture but we are not raising the price to infinity. If the President or the head of the CIA thinks that torture is required to stop the ticking time bomb then they ought to approve it knowing full well that they face possible prosecution. Only if the price of torture is very high can we expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.
The very fact that there is a discussion of “torture lite” being taken seriously shows how far the definitions of “honor” and “morality” have descended among those who spend their time talking more than anyone else about the concepts of honor and morality.
What is most disgusting about the advocacy of “torture lite” is that it often comes from those who express outrage when our troops are treated with anything less than respect bordering on idolatry. Would they call it “torture lite” when perpetrated on our troops by our enemies?
What, it’s only “torture lite” when we are practicing it on those who are the “bad guys”?
Who decides who are the “bad guys”?
Those in power, with no independent judicial review and no habeas corpus?
Right, that works… to keep those in power in power.
Did we learn nothing in the 20th century?
We would regret this, maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives.
By making torture acceptable in any way in our laws, we are dishonoring ourselves and those who fight for us more than any unbathed dipstick who burns a flag while shouting, “Bush is worse than Hitler!” could ever do.
This brings to mind a series of books by Susan R. Matthews set in a science-fiction universe where there is interstellar travel and a government that has institutionalized torture as a means of interrogation and execution. The torture is strictly regulated by “the Bench” in judicial system that is a Constitutional originalists’ dream. Torture had prescribed “levels” and if a confession for a certain type of crime (for example, a misdemeanor) was not obtained after the level of torture set for that crime, the suspect was released. The result was a nightmare society where torture was used to get “confessions” that frequently had little to do with the truth and more to do with the desires of the torturer.
I was taught that cruelty is always wrong, and that a moral, honorable man did not add to the cruelty already overwhelmingly present in the world.
Cheapening the price of torture devalues our honor, which is beyond price and all too easily stained.
—
Link to the post at Marginal Revolution from Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information.
Line about regret was stolen from Casablanca for those who don’t appreciate the film enough to recognize it.
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)


















Devaluing our honor by cheapening torture
What is written at Marginal Revolution encapsulates my view as to why the position of the administration on making “exceptions on torture for extra…
By The Moderate Voice on 11.15.05 22:29
[...] My post “Devaluing our honor by cheapening torture” which was cross-posted at The Moderate Voice has been accused of being “destructive rhetoric” by the first two commenters there. [...]
By Random Fate » Seeing the world through the lens of your own preferences on 11.15.05 23:46
What is moral about letting a hundred die so you can avoid torturing the five. Three of whom are probably innocent?
Please explain your moral calculus.
By M. Simon on 11.20.05 01:48
People have a natural aversion to killing and hurting others who they see as similar to themselves.
Which is why during WW2 we had Japs and Huns. Have to if we are going to prevail. Sorry. So verry sorry. ‘S the truth. And now that the war is over we have Japanese and Germans. And count them as friends.
So it comes down to this - if we are to prevail we must see our enemies as subhuman and not worthy of respect. And in truth compared to how we treat women and sexual minorities and different religions we are better.
We were better than the Japs, we were better than the Huns. We were better than the Soviets. We are better than the Islamic fascists.
We are fighting scum. And the fight, like our fight with the Jap and SS scum, is going to be vicious and ugly.
And why should we prevail? Because we are perfect or near it? No.
It is a simple calculation: which is better, which is worse.
John Stuart Mill:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.???
My take: more lives will be saved and the war ended sooner if torture is allowed in at least some cases.
It will save lives. If we are not fighting to save lives and improve people’s lot in life then why bother? Surrender and learn sharia.
Are some folks going to get badly screwed in the deal through no fault of their own? I always thought that it was in the nature of war. It was not a respecter of property or lives.
I guess I have read too many history books and not enough quantum physics.
By M. Simon on 11.20.05 02:10
What is the morality of allowing one to be tortured for no reason?
There is enough ambiguity to go around.
Moral calculus is very dangerous, because it can send you quickly on the path to Hell that is paved with good intentions.
As I wrote, the price of using torture needs to be high enough to where it is only used in only the most extreme circumstances, where the practitioners know they might be prosecuted.
Do you seriously believe any jury will convict those who used these horrid methods if a REAL danger was revealed?
Do you seriously believe that the “exceptions” to torture will NOT be abused if there is no REAL danger they will NOT be prosecuted?
I ask you to make the consideration.
By Jack Grant on 11.20.05 02:14