Reopening the Torture Debate

[David Sklansky]

The situation in Iraq with missing soldiers and captured prisoners who admit they were part of taking those prisoners, reminds me of a question I think I asked a while back. But I don't remember the answers. So I am going to repeat it.

A serial killer who buries his victims alive in a coffin is captured shortly after his latest victim goes missing. He ADMITS he took her and buried her. She is still certainly alive and will be for a few more hours. He REFUSES to divulge her whereabouts. There is a horrible torture technique that ALMOST ALWAYS gets the information required. Using that technique, or torture in general, is against the law. Should it be used anyway?

For those who say no, I ask if they can produce a reason other than something vague like, "if we torture we are no better than he is."

For those who say yes, I ask whether you would be in favor of changing the law for cases like these. Or would it be better to keep the laws as they are and simply look away in these very rare cases.

Finally is there anyone out there who would be opposed to the torture for the sole reason that it is illegal? And would thus change his position if it wasn't?