(no subject)
Jun. 27th, 2006 11:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semperfionaAlan Dershowitz on Morning Edition this morning talked about his belief that torture is sometimes valuable and necessary, however disgusting it might be (his word). He proposes that torture should remain illegal but still be available in special circumstances if the president signs a "torture warrant", and under "rules" for what kinds of torture are allowed. He continued by saying we should define whether waterboarding is allowed, whether to allow inserting a sterilized needle under someone's fingernails, etc.
He claims that being up front about the United States' use of torture will somehow alleviate the international scorn that has accrued since the discovery of the Abu Ghraib scandal. "Everyone knows" (his words) that torture is being endorsed from the top.
He kept insisting that it was actually possible to gain useful information by torturing "obviously guilty suspects", that there were cases where the Israeli military had prevented bus bombings and the like by using torture to gain information, but now that they're "not allowed to", the bombings have resumed.
I cannot agree with his premise--innumerable studies and the weight of history have proven that people will say anything to end the torture, from admitting to sex with the devil to making up terrorist plots out of thin air.
But even if you accept that it might work, if you don't care about the "obviously guilty" subjects of torture, what about the effect that inflicting torture has on the torturers?! The president, sign a "torture warrant" though he might, is not going to be the one who inflicts extreme pain and degradation on a prisoner. That's going to be a 19-year-old enlistee from Nebraska, who if they *did* sign up to join the Torture Service is clearly psychopathic, and if they did not, will become so after being forced to engage in such immoral and horrifying behavior.
He claims that being up front about the United States' use of torture will somehow alleviate the international scorn that has accrued since the discovery of the Abu Ghraib scandal. "Everyone knows" (his words) that torture is being endorsed from the top.
He kept insisting that it was actually possible to gain useful information by torturing "obviously guilty suspects", that there were cases where the Israeli military had prevented bus bombings and the like by using torture to gain information, but now that they're "not allowed to", the bombings have resumed.
I cannot agree with his premise--innumerable studies and the weight of history have proven that people will say anything to end the torture, from admitting to sex with the devil to making up terrorist plots out of thin air.
But even if you accept that it might work, if you don't care about the "obviously guilty" subjects of torture, what about the effect that inflicting torture has on the torturers?! The president, sign a "torture warrant" though he might, is not going to be the one who inflicts extreme pain and degradation on a prisoner. That's going to be a 19-year-old enlistee from Nebraska, who if they *did* sign up to join the Torture Service is clearly psychopathic, and if they did not, will become so after being forced to engage in such immoral and horrifying behavior.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 05:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 10:09 pm (UTC)Gee, I was always taught that there is a special word we use for this class of person.
Convicts.
We aren't allowed to torture convicts, either.
'Nuff said?
Torture
Date: 2006-06-29 01:30 am (UTC)My opinion remains that if you really think he knows, *enough to stick your neck on the line to save those people*, do it. If you were right, then you saved all those people, and I think the judge would call it a mitigating circumstance.
But institutionalizing it?
Naaaah.
Individual conscience.