May 11, 2004
The absolutist point of view (this is always wrong, we cannot ever condone it or even accept it) appears to be the dominant view among the Milbloggers, as it runs counter to their training (which is damned gratifying). I'm just not sure it encompasses all the truth.
For more, see Sensing's comments thread, in which some people explain why torture may be justified under some circumstances. Not fun reading, but important, I think. The best comment was from someone named Yehudit (whose home page is here):
I also agree with Donald that torture should never be officially sanctioned. This may have been in the Atlantic article: they interviewed an Israeli human rights worker who said that in her experience, if any torture is allowed (even by special warrant) it always grows into gratuitous abuse, it is never restrained to the specific case. She said you have to make it illegal, knowing it will go on anyway, but make sure the interrogators know they will face heavy punishment if they are caught. If they are convinced it is necessary anyway, if they are willing to take that risk, then they will go ahead, but they will be much less likely to use it gratuitously.
I don't happen to think this applies to the current situation, in which the guards were apparently trying to keep the Iraqis awake, and either went over the line or were ordered over the line (I want to see the evidence presented at trial) but it's probably the best balance between letting thousands die for our principles in a ticking time-bomb scenario vs. becoming the thing we are supposedly fighting against.
Hat tip: James, who doubtless disagrees with me heartily on this score. (I may stop actually writing and just link to Outside the Beltway from now on; it would certainly save time. Or I could re-title my blog the OTB Amplification Page.)
Posted by: Attila at
01:31 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.
206 queries taking 0.2282 seconds, 436 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








