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?