TPM Reader ZN with a follow up …
I think DOK is taking some liberties in summarizing the torture article in the Atlantic. It actually came to the conclusion that systemic and routine torture don’t work. If there is a definite time constraint, and the admissibility isn’t an issue, i.e. stopping a ticking bomb, then torture may help get the information. The author thinks torture should remain illegal because if it is legalized even in this specific situation the possibility of abuse is to great. If it is illegal and the men and women who would commit it know that then they have to decide that the benefit is worth the possible penalty before they do it. If it is ever legal then stretching and interpretation of the situation come into play. If it is never legal then jury nullification or prosecutorial discretion is the only defense.
I think ZN’s take on the relationship between the rule of law, the wrongness of torture and the role of the far-fetched hypothetical that is often introduced into the debate is the closest to my own.
It’s a point I discussed at some length in this post in June 2004.
TPM Reader BC has this follow up …
Besides prosecutorial discretion and jury nullification, there is always the presidential pardon option. To me, this demonstrates that Bush doesnât have in mind rare cases of torture- which, if proved vital, or event useful, could be pardoned. He wants it to be a regular procedure, for which pardons would be unwieldy given the number of people needing them.
I think that’s it exactly.
