We keep seeing hypothetical ethical situations about where and when one would approve of torture.
I those are the wrong framing for a useful discussion.
In the real world you never get metaphysical/God-like certainty about the tradeoff. The better analogy is POKER!
It's a complex cost-benefit analysis of each of the options and all of those options' ramifications.
SIDE NOTE: I'm avoiding the facile semantic debate about torture vs. "EIT" (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques). Waterboarding has always been considered to be torture (by everyone outside of the GWBush administration) worldwide for decades. And refusing to do standard rehydration (by mouth or IV) and instead doing forceable "Rectal Rehydration" is rape by any reasonable definition. And rape is always torture. This should be obvious to everyone.
OK, back to the ethical debate on Torture...
1) You think Torture results in more useful information from the tortured than alternative methods.
2) You think think the cost of false information given under Torture is minimal or worth it.
3) You think the world's diminished respect for those who Torture is minimal or worth it.
And I believe that this is a testable hypothesis that results in an objectively verifiable set of data.
Here are the responses to those 3 points:
• 1) The Senate Report (based on the CIA's own internal reports) confirms that all of the info used to kill Osama Bin Laden was collected through standard (non-EIT) interrogation before EIT were employed. There is not a single specific instances of actionable intelligence that was acquired solely through torture.
• 2) Senator McCain and countless others confirm that victims of torture will regularly lie and say whatever they think the torturers want to hear. The cost of exploring such lies is massive and also results in "opportunity costs" of not exploring better sources of intel. Check out CIA and other government reports pre-9/11 that all concluded that "torture doesn't work".
• 3) We went to war with Iraq's Saddam Hussein (and Syria's Assad) at least in part because they were torturers. Saddam had "Rape Rooms" that inspired armies worldwide to oppose him. Now that the world knows America anally rapes its captured with big tubes (to obscenely "rehydrate" contrary to all medical authorities) should we not expect armies worldwide to oppose us?
FINALLY: Look up what George Washington said about torture or how America dealt with the German enemies in WWI and WWII (even against the friggin Nazis!). Anyone who defends torture now should be ashamed of themselves. And if they want to rationalize "we gotta keep America safe no matter what" then they should accept the following:
• Keep Torture illegal knowing that if we ever do encounter the perfect hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenario that someone will step up and torture the suspect anyway. That torturer should accept the consequences of torturing (e.g. him being sentenced to prison) even if it resulted in heroic saving of American lives.
And if the torturer was completely right then either the jury will not convict or the president can commute/pardon him. But in every other situation the torturers and those who gave the orders should be convicted for such disgusting sadism. There is value and benefit in being "GOOD". Let's be good for goodness sake.
