On the morality (and utility) of torture

[Theophylact]

Interesting musings by Eugene Volokh. (The 7:12 pm post.)

[ClubMed]

The US government denounces torture and places certain countries under embargoes for using such sadistic measures. But, on the other hand it sends prisoners to certain Arab countries to be questioned when it needs to. How respectably Machiavellian

All such interrogations, whether conducted in China, Iraq or the US or indeed any other country, have torture as part of the routine.

The pathetic part is the US Military will not admit what it does while openly critisizing the Chinese and calling them barbaric.

This Al Quida dude will be tortured by the CIA/US Military either directly (if they feel they can get away with it) or they will contract it out to some other country.

[M_Six]

The US courts system would never allow a jury full of murder victim relatives to pass judgment in a murder case, for obvious reasons. But in this case, the man's "jury" is the US population who are, in effect, all relatives of murder victims. And this guy was the head murderer. He hasn't got a prayer.

[daveleau]

I don't agree with torture, but I don't agree with much of what this guy says. I don't see a link between a rise in torture of POWs or terrorists and activists in the US. I agree with point 2, but I don't see any constitutional blockage of torture. I wish he had expanded on this "We do have a constitutional norm against torture, and a wise one" because I don't see where he is coming from.

[Theophylact]

It's called "cruel and unususl punishment" and it's in the Eighth Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ent08/05.html#

''Cruel and Unusual Punishments'' .--''Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive], and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.''

But you knew that, daveleau, didn't you?

[daveleau]

I do not believe the Constitution applies to people outside the country. POWs are not protected by the Constitution. They are protected by the Geneva Convention. People in the US would of course be protected by this, of course.

[willy_ph]

The individual would not be protected by domestic US law, however they would be protected via International Law via, the Geneva Convention, the Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration on Cruel, Inhumane, and Unusual Punishment (I'm not sure if that's the right title.)

Ironically, tortured prisoners reveal less information and lower quality information than other forms of interrogation.

In the present case, my guess is that nothing of value will be revealed because of the dynamic nature of these terrorist networks.

[Theophylact]

daveleau, he didn't say it did apply outside the country. He spoke of "Constitutional norms", and suggested that Americans have a well-founded, Constitutionally-based distaste for torture.