Was out of town, in a big city. Went to see a movie, but I had the time wrong, by an hour too early. The lobby of the multiplex stank of fake butter-flavor, so I decided to hop out and grab a quick beer before the show. Lucky I did, since I've been thinking about the recent Abu Ghraib and Gitmo abuse, and rendition issues lately...
I walked past a booth with two fifty-ish guys who looked like construction workers, and sat down. My back was to the guys, but I could hear their conversation. It turned out to be in a way the most rational analysis of the "Ticking Bomb Versus Tortured Terrorist" scenario that I'd ever heard (swearing aside), or seen in print.
The bigger, older, balder, man did most of the talking. The one with the mustache mostly listened. Both had accents that I think of as "Soprano" speak — not necessarily Italian, but definitely New York City area and well-laced with profanity, which I will bowdlerize with asterisks, below the fold.
Baldy: "F*** dat torchurin' s**t."
Mustache: "But ya got a terr'rist who's gonna blow up a city, an' only he knows how ta stop da bomb. Tell me dat ya ain't gonna allow tortchure in a case like dat. Dat's why ya gotta make tortchure legal, to let da good guys tortchure if dey need ta."
Baldy: "You dumb son-of-a-b****! It's stoopid to make torchure legal, an' I'll tell ya why."
Mustache (interrupting): "But whad if da terr'rist got a bomb strapped onta ya ol' lady an' ya kids, an' ya caught him but ya don't know where dey are, an' da bomb's gonna blow 'em all up. What would chu do? Ya'd tortchure 'im!"
Baldy: "a' Course I'd tortchure 'im if I had ta, ya dumb f***, if I t'ought he knew how ta save my fam'ly. I'd start off by usin' my nailgun to nail his b**ls to da chair, an' dat would gimme time ta t'ink a' somethin' really painful ta do."
Mustache: "So ya DO think torcha should be legal!"
Baldy: "Ain' chu been lis'nin? No, I don' t'ink tortchure should be legal. If I was in such a desp'rit sitchuashin dat I hadda tortchure da guy, I'd just DO it. An' I wouldn't worry about da cops, I'd be too busy worryin' about my fam'ly. An' doin' what I t'ought was necess'ry, no matta what. An if da president, or da spy guys, or da gen'rals, or whoevuh, are in da same sitchuashin, well, dey should do what dey t'ink needs ta be done."
Mustache (taken aback, thinking): "Hmmm..."
Baldy: "Cause if dey really b'lieved dat da torthure needed ta be done, no jury would convict 'em. And if dey didn't really b'lieve it should be done, dey was just lookin' aroun' anywheres fa infamation, den dey shouldn't do da torchurin' at all. 'Cuz da bottom line is dis: If dey care as much about da country as I do 'bout my fam'ly, dey'll do what's right, when it mattas. An' if dey ain't willin' ta risk goin' ta jail to save da country, dey shouldn't be on dat job in da firs' place. Dat's why da torchure shud'n't be legal. Makin' it legal makes it too easy ta do, when it ain't needed... An' dat makes da country look bad, you know dat as well as I do."
They went on to other topics, and I went on to my movie. But I felt that they had the issue fairly well nailed, if you'll pardon the reference to a rather nasty-sounding use of a nailing machine...even though it doesn't mention the well-known fact that torture produces unreliable information, or the fact that up to this day, the Ticking Bomb Scenario has not, to anyone's knowledge, arisen. Or the (relatively) widely-held belief that our beloved nation should be above torture. These omissions aside, it does make a point about the "legalization" of torture that I'd never really considered.
Anyone agree or disagree?
UPDATE
I apologize for any confusion regarding this diary -- it was not meant, in any way, to condone torture.
Rather, it was intended to be about accountability, and perhaps to provide a riposte to those who think that torture should, in select cases, be determined to be legal in advance of its use.
I do think it worthwhile to examine the concept that if anyone (in a military or political or espionage role) was or is tempted to torture for any reason -- would knowing that they could be held accountable in a civilian court of law affect their decision to torture, or not to torture?
Many of us, in the most extreme and horrendous and unlikely of conditions (to save the life of a loved one, for instance), might indeed choose to employ torture if it seemed to have any chance of working. And the fear of a later court trial would be known, understood, evaluated, and overridden (if it seemed imperative).
(Those that say "no" to this have my greatest respect, if they are sincerely and devoutly non-violent and not simply platitudinous.)
The diary also (with thanks to poster Alpraz below, for noticing and mentioning this where I should have) can offer a response to a wingnut who thinks that if torture is illegal, we are at greater risk from the terrorists. Since it's clear that a patriotic soldier or politician or spy would put love of country over fear of a jail cell in an extreme situation (should one, unlikely as it is, arise) -- there is no need to make torture legal in any situation. And keeping it illegal will help to prevent its unwise, hasty, or unconsidered use.
Please also note that the original diary includes the:
well-known fact that torture produces unreliable information, or the fact that up to this day, the Ticking Bomb Scenario has not, to anyone's knowledge, arisen. Or the (relatively) widely-held belief that our beloved nation should be above torture.