A good article. A better example to illustrate these points would have been Israel’s internal security organ, Shin Bet, which legally has the right to commit torture. This has hardly made Israel safe from suicide attacks. Indeed during the period of its occupation of southern Lebanon Israel ran a particularly vicious prison camp, in which torture was practised, the existence of which helped to rally the Hezbollah insurgency against the occupation. So, Israel would be the paradigm example of the non utilitarian (sorry to use the phrase) basis of the use of torture in a “war on terror”.

But what happens when you apply the argument in reverse? The US is engaging in a military buildup in the Persian Gulf, which is accompanied with war like rhetoric directed against Iran. Was Iran therefore justified under the “emergency” claim to torture the UK sailors? Assuming rationality our justifiers of torture would have to say yes. If not, these are pseudo arguments designed to back up state (particular ones at that) policy

I believe this article is a courageous antidote to the fear-addled confusion which dominates so much of today's public debate.

ah yes...

and what about the young russian soldier of 18
who was at tank school ...really a kid

and had his legs, penis, and some fingers removed

from bullying.....New Year 2007
I think he is still alive...

which in real fact this is an accumlative process

of being tortured and bullied carried down through
the society

all comes from the initial , to tolerate abuse ?

JHH

Good article - clear, well written and persuasive.

Catherine still takes a consequentialist line, however – torture is bad because it is ineffective, corrupting, and inflicts broader damager than its proponents recognise. This rather begs the question of whether torture would be acceptable if it could be shown to be effective, limited in institutional and similar side-effects, and delivering a demonstrable net benefit.

Is there any moral philosopher out there who takes an ontological line on this issues – torture is wrong simply because it is wrong, regardless of the consequences?

If not, we’ll always be vulnerable to the seemingly exceptional case where prospective torturers believe (even if mistakenly) that they definitely have the right culprit and definitely can predict the outcome.

I especially liked the comment "we should also count the loss of benefit to those who support the actions of the bomber"
...err yeah, let me think about that for a while.

"pro-torture advocates frequently insist that they … only seek to justify torture in “emergency” situations. This is meant to forestall some of the adverse consequences to legal institutions."

No it's not. It simply means that while torture is a completely warranted and justifiable action, it, like capital punishment, should be held back and only used, openly in court, in those specific situations where the crime or potential crime is so abhorrent that this exceptional but still appropriate response is called for.
It's easy to bring about the argument that torture is a shameful thing if you start off with the premise that torture is a shameful thing.

“[against civilians killed] we should measure (b) the corruption of key social institutions including the practice of law and medicine; …the ruination of torturers;… the corruption of international laws and treaties”

Again a tautology. These arguments are only valid on the premise that torture is immoral. But if it is a premise that it is immoral then why are you debating it anyway?
P.S. get volunteers to do the torturing. I’m sure there are enough relatives of the Bali and Twin Towers and London Underground bombings around who would volunteer.

“It has the implication that we are justified in killing individuals whenever doing so produces a greater gain to others. So, a la Monty Python, we would be justified in killing healthy individuals to harvest their organs.”
Sorry but in 'The Meaning of Life' I don't remember Doris's husband Alf, the chap strapped down and forcibly having his kidneys removed, as being identified as probably a potential mass murderer.

“…the likelihood that torture will generate still further bombings and the number of lives likely to be lost in such bombings” It’s not like we’re torturing their women and children. They’re military combatants or spies trying to kill us who get the water treatment.

ah deary me

assault, physical and mental against another is a crime

thats why I mention, tolerance

if australians tolerate violence, including mental, under any
circumstances

the society we live in will become used to tolerating violence,
and eventually one will reach the position as with the russian
kid above.....

its simply about, growing and or propagating violence

I for one will stand up for the rights of standing up to our
laws of assault out here

one cannot physically abuse, and or mentally abuse another

it is a crime, and one can go to jail for it

JHH

this young soldier, and many others, are still being treated, in similar manners....
however in his case the system, charged for it....
for a change... and the fellows got quite a few years jail

probably the first case that has been judged for years...
good to see too

ps we cannot afford to tolerate violence in australia,
under any circumstances.....

and we should always voice our opinion, on same

it is very well known, that children bought up with abuse,
will abuse later on......

ps a very good reason, to make jails - tertiary colleges
for all inmates....

if the youngsters in jail, did school all day,
and particularly english, and writing...... they would come
out of jail with much better skills...
which they have missed out on in their upbringings