Torture Allegations from Gitmo

Reading through the list of alleged abuses compiled by the ACLU, I'm generally not particularly impressed. I can understand that a person wouldn't want to be handcuffed or pushed to the ground, but that pretty much comes with being a prisoner. Maybe you should've considered that before you decided to join the Taliban.

As to the more extreme allegations, it's highly unlikely that all of the detainees are telling the truth. Of those that are lying, it's a lot easier to believe that a detainee would exaggerate treatment rather than minimize it. Nevertheless, as little sympathy as have for fascist Taliban nutbags, even the way we treat the world's worst scum says something about us as people and as a nation. Contrary what to some would have, we certainly shouldn't dismiss the allegations out of hand. There do need to be standards, and we need to adhere to them.

Some would say that even torture is justified if it would save lives. There is a classic conundrum that goes as follows:

1. There is a bomb in a building.

2. The bomb will kill thousands of people when it goes off.

3. You have a prisoner, and he knows where the bomb is.

4. If you torture him enough, he will tell you where the bomb is.

5. If he tells you where the bomb is, you will defuse the bomb and save thousands of people from death.

Do you torture him? Tough position to be in. Some would say it presents a strong case for torturing the prisoner. But in reality, could you ever really know that 1-5 are true? Presented from a slightly less certain perspective:

1. You believe there is a bomb somewhere, probably in a building.

2. If it goes off, it could potentially kill a lot of people, even hundreds or thousands.

3. You have a prisoner, and you believe he may know where the bomb is.

4. If there is a bomb, and you torture him enough, and he knows where the bomb is, you believe he may tell you where the bomb is.

5. If you find out where the bomb is, you may have an opportunity to save many lives.

I submit that, whatever you may think of the first hypothetical, the second hypothetical is not nearly as strong a case as the first. Now, let's look at a more realistic scenario:

1. You have a prisoner.

2. You believe the prisoner may know some people who are the type of people who could be planning to do something bad to someone at some point in time.

3. You believe the prisoner may have known the identities and whereabouts of these people some months ago.

4. If you learn the identities and previous whereabouts of these people, you may be able to identify and locate at least some of these people.

5. You believe the prisoner may tell you the identities and whereabouts of at least some of these people if you torture him enough.

6. If you do not identify and locate all of these people, you believe that some or all of them may do something untoward to someone at some point in time.

Whatever you may think of the first two hypotheticals, I submit that the case for torture--and by this, I mean "real" torture--under this third hypothetical is very weak, even from a purely value-neutral, pragmatic perspective. When moral considerations are factored in, I submit that there's not much to recommend torture of this prisoner, and much weighing against it.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a squish liberal anyway. . .