November 29, 2005
The case for torture
The norm, however, is how the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo have been treated. We give them three meals a day, superior medical care, and provision to pray five times a day. Our scrupulousness extends even to providing them with their own Korans, which is the only reason alleged abuses of the Koran at Guantanamo ever became an issue. That we should have provided those who kill innocents in the name of Islam with precisely the document that inspires their barbarism is a sign of the absurd lengths to which we often go in extending undeserved humanity to terrorist prisoners.Th[en], there is the terrorist with information. Here the issue of torture gets complicated and the easy pieties don't so easily apply. Let's take the textbook case. Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking.
Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?
Now, on most issues regarding torture, I confess tentativeness and uncertainty. But on this issue, there can be no uncertainty: Not only is it permissible to hang this miscreant by his thumbs. It is a moral duty.
Read Charles Krauthammer's article here.
Posted by Carine at November 29, 2005 11:33 AMThen there was Abu Ghraib. After the publication of the appalling photographs of naked, humiliated, abused American prisoners in Iraq, we read the memoranda from Justice Department and Defense Department lawyers arguing in elaborate detail that Americans could torture prisoners and avoid criminal charges for doing so. Those memoranda opened the way to the crimes of Abu Ghraib. They argued explicitly that the President was not required to comply with laws passed by Congress, much less treaties, when it came to handling war prisoners. Professor Yoo defended the torture memoranda in a piece for the Los Angeles Times. He said the memos were right to argue that someone accused of torture could effectively argue self-defense, meaning defense of the country—an argument that could kindly be called preposterous.
Posted by: Freedom at December 5, 2005 06:18 PMFreedom,
Any links?
we read the memoranda from Justice Department and Defense Department lawyers arguing in elaborate detail that Americans could torture prisoners and avoid criminal charges for doing so. Those memoranda opened the way to the crimes of Abu Ghraib.
And will you denie that those responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib have been/are being prosecuted?
They argued explicitly that the President was not required to comply with laws passed by Congress, much less treaties, when it came to handling war prisoners.
Please, give me your definition of a "war prisoner". No, don't waste my time. Better yet, refer to the article I linked to. It's pretty clear.
Posted by: Carine at December 5, 2005 07:05 PM
