The argument for torture reversed

(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at: lawrence@krubner.com, or follow me on Twitter.

[ this post was originally published on a weblog called What Is Liberalism ]

Jim Henley makes a good point about a law about torture:

So if it’s ticking bombs that worry you, what do we need laws permitting torture for? Do the crime, save the lives, then do the time. Leave possible pardons aside. We are hard men for hard times and we want hard make-believe conundra.

Don’t talk to me about the suffering you’d bravely inflict on someone else. Tell me the cost you yourself would pay. Those are the “tough choices.” Next time the subject comes up, ask your interlocutor to make one.

Someone in the comments emphasizes the cowardice on display by the pro-torture crowd:

there’s this little thing called extenuating circumstances that would certainly be considered in a court of law were our square-jawed heroes to actually prevent a nuclear catastrophe by performing the Passion on some evil-doers.

Of course, there’s the rub. If your not certain enough to face the consequences of being wrong, then you certainly shouldn’t be certain enough to torture a person. But this is exactly what these folks want — all the risks to be beared by the other guy, the powerless guy without the backing of law enforcement.

Post external references

  1. 1
    http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/01/16/4804
Source