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

Rhian

You aptly ask "...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."

Its pertinent to introduce a paper by Neil James, Exec Director, Australian Defence Association into the debate. The 2005 paper "Torture: An Unwarranted Case" http://www.ada.asn.au/defender/Winter%202005/Torture%20-%20An%20Unwarranted%20Case%20(Defender,%20Winter%202005).pdf is resoundly against the use of torture. Note that Neil cannot be stigmatised as being of the left, woolly headed or an academic.

He argues:

"Any professional interrogator, after noting that torture is both illegal and immoral, and that this is just a ‘given’, will go on to stress that it is also unnecessary. It is unnecessary for the three principal reasons that it is generally counter-productive, that given the right conditions the same information can almost invariably be gained by legal and morally acceptable means, and that the theoretical scenarios cited as justifying the use of torture are generally so unrealistic and unlikely as to not warrant serious consideration."

"After a moment’s thought, professional interrogators are also likely to add further objections, such as where would you find people willing to become torturers, how would you train them, and how could you control or eventually halt an institutionalised process of judicially approved torture."

"...professional interrogators know that torture is both unlikely to work and unnecessary as a purported form of intelligence gathering."

The abortive process of torturing inmates at Guantanamo (such as KSM, who admitted to every crime imaginable) underlines how torture can frustrate the process of extracting information rather than improving it.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Torture, eh? I'm not a philosopher, but a couple of thoughts occur to me...

If one side uses torture, doesn't that increase the likelihood that the other side will too?

And suppose I was a terrorist, planning an attack in a nation where judicial torture was sanctioned; what would I do? I'd plant some evidence on someone else - Edward Carson, maybe - and then give the authorities an anonymous "tip off". So while they wasted their efforts trying to get information from someone who doesn't know anything about it, I'd go my merry way and carry out my attack.

Of course, I'm sure the innocent would have nothing to fear in reality. Police and judges never make mistakes, do they?

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

I have no fear. I know what is morally acceptable and what isn't. The line between good and evil isn't wide. You have this Dragan serbian living amongst us who likely ordered the murder of innocent people like you and me in another country, sometimes patients in hospitals and the raping of women. And he is right here in Australia teaching golf to us!! An evil, despicable waste of a human freely living amongst us. He actually left Australia in the 1990s to go do this in Serbia, then came back. Unlike Hicks, who fought against these Serbian criminals on the side of the allies, US and Nato, he went to work for a criminal regime. Where is the media frenzy? Oh no, this guy wasn't a t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t, so he is barely newsworthy, despite these alleged war crimes, which are solid enough to get him extradited. Isn't the lazy media a sweet piece of work? Only this night on Lateline did you have the commentator associating Iran with Iraq to the degree that Al Qaeda was associated with Iraq right before the war in Iraq (there was actually no association). Also claiming that Iran imminently had the bomb. All from the commentator! I'm not even paid to investigate, but I know on both counts that those claims are flimsy in the extreme and/or simply untrue.

*"there was actually no association" should read as no evidence/baseless
*"commentator" should read presenter/anchor

Catherine
A question without notice please?

You said:
“Equally, the use of torture by the French against the insurgency in Algeria changed a situation which was arguably militarily winnable, into a complete loss. Less commonly cited but perhaps more pertinent, is the example of Vietnam. Viet Cong prisoners were routinely tortured by members of the South Vietnamese army and their American allies. Again, the historical evidence is that the use of torture was actually strategically disastrous for much the same reason as in Algeria”

In Algeria & Vietnam BOTH SIDES used torture & terror.
Actually the opposition to the French & Americans arguably used it more extensively , more frequently & more openly.

This being the case, why did its use ONLY rebound-on/undermine the American & French cause? Or is there something you missed in you analysis?

"In Algeria & Vietnam BOTH SIDES used torture & terror.
Actually the opposition to the French & Americans arguably used it more extensively , more frequently & more openly".

Evidence?

Matilda,
Not wanting to prepare a dish you didn’t order –or worse, one your constitution cannot assimilate.

WOULD YOU PLEASE RESTATE IN DETAIL YOUR REQUEST/ORDER ?

[Disclaimer:
All of my dishes contain the ingredient objectivity, which patrons brought-up on fast-food PC cuisine may find unpalatable]