As of yet, I'm aware of no response to my challenge to the blogosphere over torture. Maybe it got lost in the mix? Maybe the thought of debating someone other than the usual straw man made the challenge too onerous? Perhaps I smell?
Anyway, here it is again. If you feel comfortable taking the following position and engaging in a blog-v.-blog debate, send an e-mail (it's at the top of the page):
Resolved: in fighting the war on terror, there are some circumstances where a U.S. government agent should be able to torture a prisoner without risking criminal or civil liability.
I'll take the other side, i.e., I'll be arguing that "in fighting the war on terror, there are no circumstances where a U.S. government agent should be able to torture a prisoner without risking criminal or civil liability."
Remember the caveats. The argument is not over the Geneva Convention, or last week's 24, or whether we should jail some nineteen-year-old who, having just survived seventy-two hours of straight combat, crossed some lawyer-line when dealing with a recently captured insurgent. The issue is whether, as a policy matter, it's wise for the U.S. government to engage in torture in an attempt to extract information relevant to the war on terror. I say, "no." You say ... ?
Finally, as a sweetener, think of the fun we'll have scuffling over the preliminaries! Viz., is Chinese water torture, in fact, torture? What if it's done with a high-pressure hose? What if it's done by an actual China-man? Are tacks on the thumbs O.K., but needles under the nails verboten? And what's that strange smell, anyway? ....
Wouldn't one of the caveats have to be an assumption that torture would actually work? My understanding is that you generally get no useful information through torture.
Posted by: crionna | January 11, 2005 at 05:43 PM
Would you accept, "There are some circumstances where a U.S. government agent should be able to torture a prisoner with a reasonable expectation of thereafter receiving a presidential pardon for his crime"?
Posted by: Brad DeLong | January 11, 2005 at 06:11 PM
Would you accept, "There are some circumstances where a U.S. government agent should be able to torture a prisoner with a reasonable expectation of thereafter receiving a presidential pardon for his crime"?
Though it'd be a thrill to debate Professor DeLong: sadly, no. I belong to the "torturers should always put their personal necks on the line when torturing" school of thought. This is not the same as the "if a torturer tortures his head should always be cut off" school of thought.
In other words, I accept that there are situations where torture may be justified or even required -- nuclear bomb in the subway / kid under fire in wartime & needing the location of the enemy to survive / etc. In those rare situations, I trust that either the prosecutor will not prosecute, the offense will be pardoned, or a viable defense will be raised (including the much-maligned defense of necessity). By making torture illegal in all cases -- though perhaps subject to defense -- we accomplish three goals:
1. We make torture inherently risky, thus discouraging it.
2. We make torture occur in the open, where we can discuss it.
3. If the stakes are high enough, we protect the individual with legitimate belief that torture was necessary for the greater good.
The purpose of my challenge is to call out those vociferous portions of the blogosphere who seem, well, eager to defend torture. And, yet, they seem to only define their position in contrast to some lefty-liberal
straw man.
(shouting to the room)
If you wish to make a case in support of a policy permitting torture, make it -- but against a realistic, pragmatic opponent, not against the straw man of your imagination.
Posted by: von | January 11, 2005 at 07:30 PM
" realistic, pragmatic opponent, not against the straw man of your imagination"
Please define what you mean by realistic, pragmatic opponent.
Is that person also a terrorist driving along the road in a car bomb?
Is that a person caught with a nuclear suitcase bomb?
Posted by: smlook | January 11, 2005 at 07:37 PM
Please define what you mean by realistic, pragmatic opponent.
Is that person also a terrorist driving along the road in a car bomb?
Oh come now, von isn't that bad.
(I am assuming that by realistic, pragmatic opponent von was referring to himself or a similar debater).
Posted by: felixrayman | January 11, 2005 at 07:47 PM
No, it's von. And I'm unaware of any instances in which von has been caught driving inside a car bomb or hefting nuclear suitcases.
Posted by: sidereal | January 11, 2005 at 07:49 PM
Von
goal #2 for making torture illegal doesn't make sense to me-
"2. We make torture occur in the open, where we can discuss it."
If something is illegal then the person doing it will usually try and conceal the fact that they did it. Even someone supporting legal torture may advocate concealing it for National Security or PR reasons.
Posted by: Jay Sundahl | January 11, 2005 at 08:37 PM
Von,
"If you wish to make a case in support of a policy
permitting torture, make it -- but against a realistic, pragmatic opponent, not against the straw man of your imagination."
Maybe you can clarify this for me. By realistic, pragmatic opponent I thought you were referring to a real life situation... someone has a home made bomb of some sort. I didn't think you were talking aobut yourself. I assumed by straw man you meant you didn't want to argue agaisnt someone who was going to argue... there's a guy with a nuclear bomb in NYC. We catch his partner... what do we do?
But, maybe you are referring to yourself. But, then who are you going to argue against. An opponent who wants to keep torture as a last ditch desperate option or a straw man that says torture is really okay.
Posted by: smlook | January 11, 2005 at 09:15 PM
Jeez folks, it's not that complicated: The "realistic, pragmatic opponent" you get to debate is Von as opposed to debating the "straw man of your imagination" which is some abstract prototypical liberal whose position you can freely invent in order to shoot it down.
If understanding the above is really that confusing, perhaps you should back slowly away from the debate challenge itself. Under the circumstances, I doubt it would be riveting.
Posted by: xanax | January 11, 2005 at 11:53 PM
Waxing nostalgic for the last days of Clinton is no way to approach a serious debate.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 12, 2005 at 12:04 AM
Waxing nostalgic for the last days of Clinton is no way to approach a serious debate.
heh, can't help but chuckle at that. Thanks Slarti.
Posted by: crionna | January 12, 2005 at 11:58 AM