This is a re-post, from http://www.dailykos.com/... but I think it's important enough that I feel it should get more exposure in case some of you missed it.
Recently I wrote a diary condemning the use of torture except in extraordinarily rare circumstances. I advocated the torture of Heinrich Himmler in a hypothetical situation in hopes of the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives in a concentration camp. And I believed that an exception to my principle was ok in this rare circumstance.
I find I must retract my stand.
Recently I wrote a diary condemning the use of torture except in extraordinarily rare circumstances.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
I advocated the torture of Heinrich Himmler in a hypothetical situation in hopes of the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives in a concentration camp. And I believed that an exception to my principle was ok in this rare circumstance.
I find I must retract my stand.
First off, torturing is unproductive; In most cases you will end up with your victim telling you anything you want to hear to stop the pain.
More importantly, though, we have or at least should act under principles; principles that respect human rights. And when you deliberately break a principle of yours -- even once -- in what you deem a justifiable, extrordinary circumstance, you are nevertheless violating that principle.
What I was doing was arguing a very rare instance in which torture was necessary -- in other words, was the right thing -- a good thing in that rare context. But it then becomes a slippery slope. When you argue about what is "good" or "bad" torture, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of torture.
And that I cannot do.
I thank those who contributed, even belligerantly, to that diary.