What if you are running out of time? Which is certainly the case with many terrorist problems.
Then you'll have lots of options but not enough time to try them all. You'll still have avenues open to you other than torture.
Effective in the way that we get the information we need to defuse the bomb. Effective in the way that by torturing this terrorist, NOBODY will die.
So there is time to defuse the bomb. I got confused when you said there wasn't.
To back up a bit:
- I've got a suspected (or even confirmed) terrorist in my clutches. I can do whatever I want to him to stop the city blowing up/my family being executed/Goldfinger stealing all the gold from Fort Knox/what-have-you.
- I know for certain (how, I don't know) that he knows how to stop the bomb/the killers/Goldfinger's squadron of gas-carrying planes/etc.
- I also know that he's uncooperative enough that normal interrogation isn't working.
- I have to choose between torturing him to try to extract the information or not. As a rational person, I realize that he may do one of two things:
1. Tell the truth and lead me to the bomb/killers/gas planes
2. Lie and send me on a wild goose chase, allowing the terrorists/killers/Goldfinger to succeed in their dastardly plan.
Now... you've said before that in this special case, torture would be 100% effective. Here's the $64,000 question:
how would I know this with certainty
while I make my decision... i.e.
before I torture the guy?
In reality, the possibilities are that he's telling the truth, he's deliberately trying to mislead me, or he just doesn't know and is trying to get the torture to stop. When he says "Stop! Stop! The bomb's in ______", what possible way do I have to know that going
there is a better strategy than just throwing a dart at a map of the city?
I honestly do not understand this. I just don't understand how you would rather have a terrorist go without torture and have thousands of people die, over having the terrorist tortured and having those thousands of people live. Do you honestly think that letting thousands of innocent people die is more morally good than torturing the person who is behind the attack?
No, I honestly think that while the proverbial bomb is ticking, anyone telling me that torturing the guy in front of me is 100% certain to be effective is either lying to me or doesn't know what he's talking about.
But "do not torture a terrorist" is a principle that is not worth breaking if thousands of innocent lives would be saved by breaking it? Really?
This is still a false dilemma. Even if you happened to be in the one situation where torture was 100% effective, you wouldn't know it except in hindsight afterward.
I do see what you mean. But this is not really about the whole picture of torture.
Right, and in that regard, it's a mischaracterization.
If it was actually being debated then obviously all of the ifs would be examined and my question wouldn't really mean anything. I'm just curious as to how far people go with he whole "do not torture" thing. I'm not saying that if you agree that there are some situations where you would be for torture, then you must be completely for it.
But since the situation you describe can
never happen, it's completely irrelevant.