His answer: no.

Setting aside the legal reasons (treaties and the like) to oppose torture, I like to focus on the moral question because it informs the legal argument. The problem with the moral approach, though, is that morality is personal. Some find their morality in god and/or the Bible, others in some broadly accepted rules that have been established over time, and still others on philosophical (utilitarian or consequentialist) grounds.

The only rational argument FOR torture, to me, is based on utility and consequences: if we can save innocent life by torturing then it should be allowed. But this is a HUGE ‘if’ because I think the evidence is quite clear that:

a. those being tortured will tell those doing the torturing anything to make the pain and suffering stop.

b. the direct connection between the information gained (marginally credible per ‘a’ above) and the saving of innocent life is not proven reliable.

c. information gained through torture is often available through less onerous means.

Also, if we are to take consequences into consideration, then we must consider the consequences to ourselves, our nation, and our fellow citizens from our decision to commit torture. How does using torture affect our moral standing in the world? How do we rightly argue against torture committed against our fellow citizens (military, journalists, and others) if we ourselves use torture?

I argue, therefore, that torture should never be allowed as the negatives greatly outweigh the positives, and the positives are unproven. As for those that argue in favor, like Alan Dershowitz, I take them at their word that they are people of good faith who are simply unconvincing and, well, wrong.

Now, obviously, in a purely philsophical discussion, a utilitarian or other kind of consequentialist might have a leg to stand on. But American and international law have always recognized torture as a human rights violation and have not tolerated it. To change course requires some explanation as to why the United States should not abide by its own traditions or established international law, and it’s also going to require some evidence that doing so would represent a net benefit to the United States (given, I assume, a consquentialist argument for torture, it would be nice to see some actual proof that torture even leads to the consequences its apologists would have us believe).

All that said, I think it can be less than useful to try and abstract from emotion in moral discussions. Our intuitive moral judgments are things we should listen to. They are not a perfectly reliable guide and obviously vary substantially from person to person, but so do the assumptions that undergird any analytical moral theories. Our traditions have grown around a revulsion to torture, and any conservative worth his salt must surely recognize that rejecting those traditions represents something quite radical.

And any liberal worth his salt must surely recognize that handing this kind of power over to the state is a substantial blow to liberty. Those who would have us torture advocate a position that is pretty distinctly un-American, and we shouldn’t feel bad just because we get a little emotional when we call them on it.

I’m not interested in having a “serious” argument about what constitutes torture or how much is acceptable. Every previous administration, as well as all of international law, have rejected waterboarding as beyond the pale. That we’re even at a point where we can discuss torture as something that might possibly be okay is sign of complete depravity.

On that note . . .

Read my lips: McCain will not will MA. Despite the truth of Ginger’s comments, the bumbling inadequacy of Deval Patrick will have no material affect on Obama’s ability to win the State – even given the similarity of their vacuous catch phrases. Aside from Ronald Reagan, this State doesn’t go for Republican presidential candidates.

That’s great (if true).

Hundred have been severely beaten, or subjected to treatment that, by existing legal standards, amounts to torture. Dozens have died in the process. Doubtless, they were all “high level” Al Qaeda operatives, like that Afghan cab driver.

These are, of course, the folks we know about.

I presume the ghost detainees, that we don’t allow the ICRC to see, are subjected to far worse. And let’s not forget that (as with much of our manufacturing), we’ve taken to outsourcing torture to other countries, who can do it cheaper and more efficiently.

Is Bush Hitler? No.

But I used to think we aspired to a higher standard than that.