T O R T U R E D - L O G I C

[hoffmanmotors]

You say you're against torture, and as a nation we should never endorse its use. But what if a nuclear weapon is set to go off in Manhattan within hours and you have a terrorist in custody who knows where the bomb is? He's not talking. Do you torture him for information?

Of course you do! Do you see the error of your ways? How foolish you've been - do you think for a moment that torture isn't a necessary tool in our war on abstract nouns? In this simple scenario, the intellects on the right have rendered your bleeding heart supposition - that torture is in itself evil - into American-hating "Michael Moore think". You godless, Christiane Amanpour loving bastard!

Unless......perhaps you were employing reasoning that is a tad more sophisticated than the question posed above. Is that it? Is it possible that the masters of right wing rhetorical reasoning like Dick Cheney may have missed some logical construct that would make the above scenario seem both stupid and simplistic beyond measure?

Gasp! I think I know where you're coming from. For example: if you were holding two people and only one had the information about the location of the bomb - but you didn't know which one - would you torture both people? And for that matter, what if there were 200 people in custody and you didn't know which one had the information? What about 2,000? Hey, the moral ambiguity here is starting to vaporize. And here's one for you - what if the "terrorist" has an innocent 14 year-old pregnant daughter who doesn't know where the bomb is, but if you tortured her...the terrorist dad might spill his guts?

Indeed, while you're making up scenarios - why not make up one where we actually know where the bomb IS! It doesn't take too much contemplation to realize that the simple scenario offered by the fans of torture is not only simple-minded, but dishonest.


The New Symbol of America

Imagine if you will that our nation had a total ban on torture; that it was forbidden in law and was not even secretly tolerated (you've got to cover all bases with this administration). Now, imagine the original scenario from above. Suppose you said to hell with the law I'm going to ram a cattle prod up his bunghole until he sings "New York New York". Let's pretend that this could actually work - though, as you should know, torture usually produces bad intelligence. But let's say he does sing, and he tells you the location of the bomb...and someone like Bruce Willis or Kiefer Sutherland gets there just in time to defuse it. You are now credited with saving Manhattan. What fate do you suppose would await you in the New York court system?

I think I have an idea of what would happen. Not only would you not be convicted, you - in all probability - would never face a trial. They'd be building statues to you and giving you Yankee box seats. Your likeness would be on subway tokens, and hookers would be lined up with freebees.

Now suppose we banned torture but left in some caveat that allowed acts that didn't "shock the conscience". "Whose conscience", you might wonder. In a nation whose chief law enforcement officer dismisses civilized behavior as "quaint", it is difficult to assess what would "shock" this administration.

"Dang, I thought there was a bomb. My bad! Hey, those toe nails will grow back. Oh, and sorry about your village."

Why shouldn't we allow torture? Because we are civilized. Because we subscribe to values that not only have moral implications, but practical ones - we don't want others torturing our soldiers either. Over the years, what has sustained Americans during conflicts has been the conviction that we are better than our enemy. And when you allow exceptions to a ban on the evil of torture, you are only telling the world that you have compromised your values. Because once you've establish that you're a whore, all that is left is haggling over price.

[Thorandmjolnir]

1. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

It always pisses me off when people use that silly "bomb scenario".

There is no excuse for torture, none, not even the bomb scenario.

Chances are, that if you know that someone has planted a bomb, you have that person in custody and you know it is about to go off (how the hell you would know that is beyond me) then there is a pretty good chance you also know where the actual bomb is.

[hoffmanmotors]

17. People can think of a scenario to justify any lame brain action.

I know people who do not wear seat belts because they imagine a scenario where it would be better to be thrown from the car than to be trapped in it. And for that infinitesimal probability they will risk death in the far more likely every day jeopardy that people face on the road.

[ewagner]

2. Excellent Piece!

:applause:

May I reprint it?

[hoffmanmotors]

4. Sure, no problem...

It's currently the editorial on our site The Blue Republic (www.thebluerepublic.com)

[ewagner]

14. Posted here

http://woodcodems.blogspot.com/

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. I thought about it differently

Same "bomb in Manhattan" scenario, but it occurs to me that any agent whose foremost thought is, "gosh, I wish there were something I could do, but I wouldn't want to lose my job," shouldn't be in the agency to begin with.

Under the posited scenario (i.e., bomb, one terrorist that knows where the bomb is), yeah, I'd say torture the bastard to save lives, but prosecute the torturer and use the fact that he saved 8 million lives as a mitigation factor in the trial.

[sandnsea]

5. They're brainwashed to commit SUICIDE

How in the world is torture going to be effective in that scenario?? Me thinks you need a different tactic against that kind of mind set.

[Stockholm]

6. You just made DU a little better...

kick and nominated

[Maine-ah]

7. i know it's a little late

but welcome to DU kicked, nominated...

:hi:

[hoffmanmotors]

13. Thanks...

Thanks Stockholm and Maine-ah. DU is a great site.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. Exactly

I wish people would think through the "ticking bomb" scenario a little more, as you have. Great work. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

9. Good post hoffmanmotors,

welcome to D.U. :hi: Kicked and nominated.:kick:

[The Donkey]

10. Just a thought . . . . .

Perhaps if we were a little more hesitant to implement policies that advocate the wanton dishing out of pain with little discrimination upon others for our own short-term gain, there would be fewer people who would want to blow us up in the first place.

But then again, I'm nuts.

[4_TN_TITANS]

11. Very nice.......

Bravo....
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[txaslftist]

12. Furthermore, we're spitting in our own eye.

After WWII, at Nuremburg, the prosecutors, judges and people defining what constituted a war crime were largely Americans and their British allies. The reason for this is that during WWII, to a much greater extent than other participants, Americans had risen above the fray and fought "by the rules".

We had the moral high ground that permitted us to make the rules. In 1995 when we extended the torture ban to non-soldiers, it was OUR idea. Again, we had the moral high ground.

Now one lunatic and his cabal of enablers has ceded the moral high ground without even a debate.

Another freedom fought for in WWII is gone.

[ieoeja]

15. I have a simpler answer?

Did the people we tortured in Iraq know where a nuclear bomb was planted in New York or something remotely like that? And if they did, why did we turn 90% of them loose afterwards?

[many a good man]

16. "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario

That's the official handle of the scenario they present.

Government's sanction of torture and the DP is the most glaring example of the barbarity of the American people.