Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

UPDATE if you came here from the Dissenting Justice link it was wrong. The actual post you want is here but this post does have some background on the subject.

I’ll have to find the podcast but it looks like this was something heated and full of passion. I saw only the tail end and it was something.

Here is my personal take, there are two sides to this a legal and a moral one:

Legally there are two questions, what protections if any are the prisoners entitled to and are the tactics actually used defined as torture, not by the opinion of various people but under the legal definition of torture.

As far as protections go since our foes have not signed the Geneva conventions and do not act under their provisions concerning uniform, targeting of civilians etc they are entitled to no protection under it. The on air sawing off of heads is a bit of a give away there as well.

If they don’t fall under Geneva then what do they fall under? If they are simply criminals then they would fall under civilian law and have the protection within the specific country. Depending on the country they are held by those protections may stink.

If they are military then it would be under military control and rules set by them apply. One can use harsh methods with such people, however such techniques would be subject to the laws of the state that limits the particular military.

Tactics that are forbidden to that military by the countries law would then be not allowed.

There are three definitions of Torture listed here. The ads on the page don’t apply. The functional one would be the 2nd. The question becomes: Is a technique that doesn’t meet the dictionary definition considered torture, and or has the method been either forbidden by law or defined by law as torture?

If not then under the law it would be permitted. I would point out that in 8 days all three branches of government will be controlled by Democrats so if they believe say water-boarding is torture it can be specifically forbidden by law. It will be interesting to see what they do.

As for the moral argument.

Morally in the abstract torture shouldn’t be allowed. That is a no brainer. The big question that is always asked is this. Is torture allowed to stop the “ticking time bomb”?

The question frankly is much like the argument about children and sex. Our friends on the left often say we should for example give condoms to our children because we can’t stop them from having sex so we have to deal with it. I would argue instead that we would forbid it. (I have three simple rules for my kids that i drill into them. No Drugs, No Booze, No Sex Period. I keep it simple. If those rules are broken I will deal with it harshly.)

This is frankly how I would deal with the torture issue. I think it is important to be strict along that line. This is important because when the line is crossed (and it will be crossed) there has to be a damn good reason and the person crossing it needs to be able to say to themselves I did it and I’ll take my medicine because it was necessary to save many lives. If we loosen the laws then it becomes common and accepted. The line moves and will be crossed again and again without proper cause.

The choice has to be a tough one. It should have consequences when chosen. That is the only way that it will be actually used only when no other choice to save lives exists. There have been thousands of people through our hands over the last 8 years. 3 have been water-boarded (we will for the sake of this argument define it as torture) and that led to the saving of thousands of lives. It has also been a scandal and a drag on the administration and subject of a huge debate. I would maintain that those three cases were necessary but I would also maintain that the long debate was even more so. It is that debate and agonizing that will keep it a last resort.

Any leader who has the lives of hundreds of millions to protect will have to make nasty choices during a time of war. If one is not willing to make those choices or accept those consequences that come with them then they ought not to lead.