Laws About Torture

I am convinced that laws about torture are necessary for a civilized society, and that they need to be applied to political leaders just as they apply to everyone else. For the record, I also think that water boarding is clearly torture. But I also recognize that a law is always a blunt instrument. In the making of any law or constitution we cannot take into consideration every possible context in which it might be applied, and therefore a law should not necessarily always be obeyed.

This is true even of good laws. The fact that we are willing to break a law does not suggest that we think a law is invalid or unnecessary.

In the case of a leader of a country authorizing torture, it should remain illegal to do so. But most of us can imagine a scenario in which we would be willing to torture someone in order to save lives. Say, for example, that your child is locked in a room underground by a kidnapper, and is running out of oxygen. You don't know where she is, but have captured the kidnapper. If all else fails, isn't it possible that you would torture the guy to get him to tell you where your daughter is? It seems likely.

More than just likely though, and depending on the total context (time limit, crimes committed by the man, likelihood of success in torturing a confession out of him, how badly you have to hurt him, and so on), it seems like the moral thing to do. Hurting the kidnapper to prevent the death by suffocation of your daughter - that seems okay to me.

So although I disagree with what has been done in most real cases of torture, and I would even vote to prosecute those involved, I understand the argument. On the other hand, the fact that something is illegal does not ever mean it can't be done. This is an important point, as I'll show in the following example.

The mayor is faced with a terrorist plot to blow up New York City, and the man who knows where the bomb is has been captured but refuses to talk. Of course it is rarely this simple in reality, but lets assume this is the scenario. Should the mayor authorize torture to get the location of the bomb and save millions of lives? I would say yes, and he could! For better and worse, a law does not prevent the action it makes illegal, as we well know from history.

Now once the deed is done, and results in saving the city, don't you think prosecutors would take into account the context in deciding whether to put the mayor in jail? Probably. On the other hand, if the mayor had started torturing all sorts of potential suspects because of a rumor of a plot, he would probably be sent away for a while - as he should be.

What I'm saying is that we need some laws even if they cannot and should not be obeyed in all circumstances. I'm also suggesting that we need leaders who have the courage to do what is right - even if they have to face the legal consequences. Is it really a problem if a president is someday thrown in jail for a year for wrongly torturing people? Or is the bigger problem that a gutless president would hesitate to do what is right when he could save millions of lives, just because he might have to break a law and face some consequences?

Have laws about torture. Make it illegal for governments to torture anyone for any reason. Then elect men of courage, and when the time comes judge violations in context and assign blame or praise or time in prison accordingly.