http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/zubaydah-first-blood.html

If we allow ourselves to be reduced to a permissions based society then there is no longer a difference between us.

If you need permission to do something new you are living in the dark ages.

We fight to bring democracy and freedom abroad yet give up those same rights at home, sorry what are we fighting abroad for again?

Beware the man in the mirror, his apathy is your greatest enemy.

Random thoughts, offered without permission.
If permission is needed, we have failed our children.

Let’s take it from a different angle. You said the following…

The officer was discharged, but everyone knew it was the right thing for the officer to do in that situation.

Exactly.

The important part there is that the officer was discharged. It wasn’t condoned as an appropriate practice. That’s the point. I’m sure if there’s truly some scenario you suggest that somebody will break the rules and go Jack Bauer on them. And then that person will probably not be prosecuted.

But, again, when torture is legally condoned it can be used for ANYTHING and it only works to strengthen the enemy’s resolve because they’ve been able to pull us towards them, not the other way around.

By the way, what Michael said about civilization…yes, that.

Also, torture is always justified through the dishonest prism of “What if somebody has information to stop a horrible attack?”

So it is justified to stop a horrible attack? or its not? which is it? Has there never been a case where a terrorist knew about an upcoming horrible attack?

Well, how would you ever know if they have the info?

What if you intercepted a satellite phone call with the guy you have in captivity speaking in coded language about a horrible attack?

See, that is a scenario. Something like that is what I mean when I asked the question.

do you want to legalize torture as a rule of law?

As a rule, No. But I do believe their may be scenarios where torture can be morally justified. In those cases perhaps the judge can show discression.

There was a case where an army officer fired a gun next to the head of a captured Iraqi insurgent early in the war. It was an act in violation of the Army field manual but it led to the prevention of an ambush. The officer was discharged, but everyone knew it was the right thing for the officer to do in that situation. It happened a while ago, perhaps you remember it.

So to me, the question is to what degree did those 3 terrorist mastermids who were waterboarded in 2001 have information congruent to a legitimate ticking clock scenario. John Kirakou, a CIA officer who participated in the waterboarding of Abu Zabeda claims that in that case he did, and the intelligence led to the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the prevention of a truck bomb in Eritrea. Who knows if this is really true, but it is certainly worth considering.

this show has lulled many people into believing that such scenarios exists because they are manipulating your emotions into feeling that it’s reality.

To make the claim that a legitimate ticking clock scenario is against the laws of physics and is absolutely impossible in an age of global terrorism, and thus we never have to even consider it, is also an emotional and immature position.

So, I’ll answer the Dukakis question:

I wouldn’t just want to kill the murderer, I’d want to make it a slow and gruesome death. Which is why we don’t turn the drafting of laws over to enraged victims. I don’t quite see how we build a civilization if all decision-making is handed over to out-of-their-mind victims or to paranoids.

There’s a price to be paid for living in a civilization as opposed to living in the jungle. We minimize many risks, but we assume some others. We may have to swallow hard at times, but it’s the only way to have a civilization. Civilization, like freedom itself, isn’t free.

Also, torture is always justified through the dishonest prism of “What if somebody has information to stop a horrible attack?”

Well, how would you ever know if they have the info? Did somebody tell you they did? How do you know that person who told you was reliable? And how did you get the information out of them to now justify torturing this new person?

Do you see how quickly this descends?

Here’s the thing…Michael and I are both fiction writers (he much more successful than I) and that means we’ve studied storytelling techniques, structure, etc. So we understand that 24 is the classic “ticking clock” scenario. And those words, “ticking clock”, are actually a storytelling device that screenwriters are constantly employing to make their plots more compelling. In fact, “What’s the ticking clock? What propels the action?” is the question most writers are asked by people who read their stories because it’s one of the hardest things to accomplish. And 24 is BRILLIANT at it because, as mentioned, the whole premise for the show is a ticking clock. Every single minute counts in Jack Bauer’s world.

In other words, I COMPLETELY understand why people are seduced. Because they are appealing to you on an almost subconscious, DNA level. In many ways good stories can act on you like a drug because they get your pulse racing, your adrenaline pumping and fill you with an anxious, fun energy that you otherwise never would have. So you literally can’t wait to find out what happens next. And usually, at the end of the show, you can’t wait for the next episode. It’s the same with books that you “can’t put down.”

However, 24 doesn’t need to worry about laws, consequences, etc. And thus, this show has lulled many people into believing that such scenarios exists because they are manipulating your emotions into feeling that it’s reality. And many great stories feel as real to you as your own life would, but, at the end of the day, they’re simply lies based on reality that feel plausible enough to be entertaining. That’s it.

So here’s the real question Jimmy…do you want to legalize torture as a rule of law? Because that’s the choice we’re really talking about.

What say you?

So the question is, Why not torture everyone who might know of a crime about to be committed?

No, the question remains the same as the one you are avoiding. Are there any scenarios that would morally justify using torture techniques like waterboarding in an interrogation?

One could argue that a drug dealer is sure to kill innocent people if we don’t stop him. Therefore, torture drug dealers to reveal their connections.

How about a guy who sells guns illegally? Shouldn’t we torture him to reveal his buyers before they go out and kill with those weapons?

Torture can be rationalized not just in cases of terrorism — after all, terrorists are pretty small potatoes in terms of killings in the US. Torture can be rationalized in an almost endless number of scenarios.

So the question is, Why not torture everyone who might know of a crime about to be committed? Frankly, Jimmy the Dhimmi looks pretty suspicious to me. Can we afford to take a chance with him? Shouldn’t we find out everything he knows?

Which, when you think about it, is why we should probably choose to live by laws that defend our rights, and not according to the plot needs of dramatic TV shows.

To put it another way, this isn’t a TV show, we’re not facing a ticking clock

Every terrorist attack that ever occured was a result of a ticking clock – one that was not diffused before it went off.

Justin et al, It seems that you are basing your opposition to torture on the belief that these scenarios don’t exist. But what if they do? Is there any hypothetical situation that you could think of – any at all – that would morally justify using torture techniques like waterboarding in an interrogation?

Jake

If it comes down to drawing a line on what is acceptable is an interrogation method or having no line at all I’d rather have the former. Having no line is far too dangerous