The morality of torture: An Osama bin Laden scenario

[Slartibartfast]

I notice you have to hang a lot of conditions on this to make the scenario work, it's impossibly loaded now.

IF you know for certain this WILL work, that it WILL save lives and that it is the ONLY way of doing so, would you do it?

I don't really think he meant so much as that torture WILL work, as that if it is an effective interrogation method (as in, there is a good chance that the information *if* you manage to extract it will be truthful instead of just any shit the prisoner will say to stop torture).

[Slartibartfast]

Disregard my last post.

[Predator]

Okay firstly before I answer this I guess I better post what the Just war consists of, just in case anyone dosn't know.

The definition you provide is fine, but I think you're getting too caught up in the "legal" definition of the term rather than the moral principles behind it. It seems like you're concerned with the letter of the law, so to say, rather than the spirit of the law.

I wont go through JWT on a point by point basis, because I'm more interested in the foundation of the theory. That foundaiton seems to me to be one of the-ends-justify-the-means, however as a theory it has, for practical purposes, been written in with strict criteria - if you want to apply a moral principle through a system, and not have it used in sluggish, open-to-dispute case by case basis, you need a formal definition with lmitaitons. The translation from philosophy into law is never perfect - there'll always be the risk of instances where the two are at odds, but it's a practical necessity to write down a formal code with little wiggle room. That's what I think has been done in the case of JWT.

still all on all on the face of the skewed position here would seem to hold up. Except the Just War theory is based upon the actions of nations state versus State, not on the personal level. So while it can be used in regards to how states should operate, it is weak in regards to how a state should deal with a single citizen. It is not a part of the greator theory, and so no cannot be applied to the question as presented here.

How is the state vs citizen delineation not arbitrary? In fact, why do you credit the authors of JWT with such authority to add each of the provisos present in the theory when, presumably, you would not credit me with the same authority to create a Just Torture Theory, written in a similar fashion, complete with restrictions for its use?

So would I torture one man to save the planet...

I cannot honestly answer that question, on the one hand my values scream at me to say no, on the otherhand, a part of me knows that to be a flippent answer. I will say that Moral relativty when it comes to numbers is a bad game to start playing. 5Billion lives are at risk... Yes, how about 4 4 Billion, 1 Million where do you draw the line? I don't want to have to draw a line.

Once again, I have to point out that, JWT or no, it is strange to support war, which could be considred a form of national torture, torture on a large scale, yet considering individual torture (potentially non-lethal) completely off limits even when the stakes are... everything.

[Sokartawi]

Apparantly the US government is already commiting torturous actions on other people, what follows is a ragtag translation of my newspaper, the original is available at the washington post website for subscribers:

Pentagon deems torture of terrorist suspects legal

New York - The American government does not deem itself bound to laws if it desires to torture terrorist suspects, a report of the American ministery of Defence reveals. In case of national security issues, unconventional interrogationmethods will be allowed, Wall Street Journal found in the secret Pentagon-document.

The Pentagon created the document since it was found at the end of 2002 that many prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay remained stubbornly silent during interrogation. In the first version of the document dating from march 2003 military and civilian jurists advocated that the American minister of Defence could order to put extreme pressure on inmates. Even torture would be allowed under such circumstances.

The document also gives government officials charged for torture several ways to officially defend themselves in court. Amongst other things they are allowed to justify their actions by saying they followed orders or because of defence of the state.

Guantanamo

"Guantanamo is a professional and humane camp, where detention and interrogation take place in concordance with the law and the American spirit", general James Hill commented to the newspapers. The responsible official for the prison in Guantanamo said that in April 2003 he had received instructions of which interrogation methods are allowed by minister Donald Rummsfeld. For four of these methods authorisation has to be asked to the minister, and these particular methods have been applied to two prisoners so far, according to the general.

Without authorisation of the minister the prison staff is amongst other things allowed to withhold food, sleep and clothing to the inmated for limited periods of time, perform regular full-cavity searches. Also they are allowed to chain inmated in unnatural positions for long periods of time. It is unknown which other methods require only authorisation from Rumsfelt and which require presidential authorisation.

Leaked

Critics hold the opinion that the leaked documents go against the promise of the government that they will obey the UN Convention which forbids torture. The US ratified this convention in 1994. The documents were ment for Rumsfeld. It is unknown if president Bush has seen it himself. The American government has always persisted that it does not torture prisoners.