Centerfield

I don't think it should be legalized for these rare occasions. Rather, anyone who commits torture should be prepared to go to The Hague to justify their actions.

Agree and disagree. They should be prepared to face a criminal jury right here in America. I won't get into the definitional arguments--we've done that to death. But we do have laws against torture, and anyone violating them had better be able to convince a jury of necessity. Under VERY tight standards.

Drugs are much more effective and much less damaging than physical torture. Same principles should apply, though.

This is particularly disturbing because the question did describe the subjects of the torture as "suspected terrorists."

For my part, I would feel little compunction regarding the torture of confessed terrorists, but I am very reluctant to subscribe to torturing those merely "suspected" of being terrorists. My problem isn't with the quantum or nature of persuasive effort used to extract valuable information from one known to possess it. My problem is with using violent means in the attempt to extract valuable information from one who only might possess it.

Regarding the title of the post, I'm not entirely sure that we should equate "centrism" with "what's popular." Even if a poll does indicate that a majority of American voters supports a position, the position itself may be neither substantively nor procedurally centrist.

Maybe that should be the plot of next season's 24. Jack Bauer on trial. He tortures "often."

I don't know how you could fit that into the show's real-time format, though. He's on trial when terrorists unleash homicidal nanobots, so he has to beat up his guards and escape...

Echo/ JD's last para /echo off

Believe it or not, I'm actually mostly with Jaded on this one, depending on how you define torture. I have 2 main concerns. One is as Jaded noted, the wrongful application of really coercive procedures to those who are actually innocent. The other is the risk of producing false confessions or false information, when the subject of the procedures makes up stuff just to stop the pain or discomfort.

More or less the Andy Sipowicz method. He might hit somebody, but he wouldn't accept a bare confession. He wanted details that only the actual criminal could know, like the location of the murder weapon. You can't beat somebody into falsely giving you that kind of information. (Note, however, that what Sipowicz does is not actually permissible under the 4th and 5th amendments.)

Ditto also on what Jaded said about the centrist position not necessarily being the most popular position.

Torture should be legal, only it should be required to be approved by the President, Sec Def, Sec State, or Sec Homeland Security, and it should be required to be made public when it was approved. There needs to be a legal method to get information from KSM, Zarqawi, Zawahiri and other leaders with critical information. This is not a decision you leave to some "hero" who will go to jail to save us.

Ditto on much of the above. Torture should be used *extremely* rarely, for those "24"-like instances where time is absolutely of the essence, you have a *known* terrorist who you're fairly sure has the information you seek, and you don't have time for nicer methods.

That doesn't address the questions about the *effectiveness* of torture. That, to me, is possibly a more persuasive argument against its use than the "inhumanity" argument.

The authorization to torture must come from the highest levels, with the senior official taking written responsibility. And any information gathered through torture should be inadmissable in court.

And there needs to be a clear line between what is abuse and what is torture. Carefully applied torture to obtain information should not be allowed to devolve into abuse for abuse's sake.

new book proceeds to Walter Reed Army Medical Center

The book is called The Best and Worst Job I Ever Had (selected poems 1985-2005) and the publisher is Publish America (www.publishamerica.com).

Included in the book are the award winning poems An American with a Disability, September 1, 1939, why not to vote for Bush, The Bush Economy, Saddam vs al Qaeda and Hopeful Romantic.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. My name is John Hulse and I am a small town author with a new book coming out with proceeds going to The Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It is my dream to do something to help those wounded servicemen and women. I am hoping that you might mention its release on your web site.

I am a published author of seven books. The Best and Worst Job I Ever Had (selected poems 1985-2005) (2006),Villains of the Impeachment: Sex, Lies and $50 Million Taxpayer Dollars (2004), Democracy for Sale! : The Two Year Search for Extraterrestrials and Campaign Finance Reform (2002), From the Beats to the B Sides (1999) and Teachable Movies for Elementary and Middle School Classrooms (1998), Let’s play... (1996) and Somewhere West of the Fields (1992).

My short stories, essays, and poetry have appeared in more than two hundred magazines including Cinemagazine (Japan), Global Tapestry, Crescent Moon (England), Beneath the Surface (Canada), Rant, The New Press, True Love (NY), Deep, Chaminade Literary Review (HI), Touchstone (WI), Catharsis (CA), Catalyst (GA), Phase and Cycle (CO).

My work has also appeared in 25 anthologies including, Mythic America: An Anthology of New American Poetry (Crescent Moon--England). I am also a featured poet in the 1997 through 2000 editions of The Poet's Market and have received awards from The Bay Area Poets Association, The Southern Writer's Association and the International Library of Poetry including The International Poet of Merit Award, Editor’s Choice Award and The Shakespeare Trophy of Excellence.

I have also worked as a book editor in every genre imaginable. Titles include What's It All About?, dealing with world views on religion from the ancient Greeks to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Nothing Sacred (Women Respond to Religious Fundamentalism and Terror) about the treatment of women in Muslim countries, In the Shadows of the Holocaust and Communism for Transaction Publishers, American Methods: Torture and the Logic of Domination for South End Press, Easy Prey written by former Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen about the fleecing of America's senior citizens due to con artists and other scams.

The Gangs of New York which was the basis for Martin Scorsese's film, Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, the autobiography of 60's R&B singer Eric Burdon, Bonfire of the Humanities and Ludwig von Mises: Economist for Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The Best American Movie Writing 2001 edited by director John Landis. Voices of Summer: Baseball's Greatest Announcers, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel: Man of Spirit, Man of Action, Jews of the Amazon, Synagogues Without Jews by The Jewish Publication Society.

Damn Yankees: Yogi, Whitey and the Mick for Grolier Publishing, The Story of American Golf for Callaway Publishing, A Pocket Guide to Environmental Bad Guys for Neuwirth & Associates, Brushes with History, Campaign America '96, African History for Young Readers, Offbeat, Vibrations, Storied Stadiums for Thunders Mouth Press, Kerouac and Friends, CyberShock, written by Winn Schwatau about computer hacking, Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign for Fromm International.

I did my master’s work at New York University and have made dozens
of short films from 1984 to a current project, which is the completion of a documentary about epilepsy for The Sundance Film Festival. While attending NYU I won an essay contest that asked the question, “Why do we miss Andy Warhol?” My award-winning essay consisted of four words: “Because he is dead.”

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

John Hulse
723 Longfellow Rd
Anderson, IN 46011
jhulse23@insightbb.com

For copies of my book The Best and Worst Job I Ever Had (selected poems 1985-2005)

www.amazon.com

There was an argument posted a few months bnack about this. The idea is to make the cost of torture extremely high, by keeping it illegal. If a soldier really believes that lives will be saved by torturing a person, then he does it, but must face the full consequences. The threat of prosecution makes him less likely to want to commit illegal acts. It's really hard to flatly say that you wouldn't torture someone if you know you'd save lives, but it's equally hard to commit to go down that slope that justifies torture.

If torture is made easier to commit, then it's more likely to occur, at least it seems that way, based on the argument.

I think Sullivan's article is silly. Saying people support (don't oppose) torture under certain circumstances is not the same as saying they "approve" of it. I suspect that "24" has influenced people's feeling about torture. In "24", Jack only tortures for a reason (and, of course, he is generally correct).

I would never absolutely rule out anything under the proper circumstances, ie, But, that's such an unlikely scenario that it really is besides the point. But, as Tully has mentioned on several occasions, the devil is in the details? What is torture? Is what Andy Sipowicz did torture? Is torture any kind of coercive interrogation? That's the problem with surveys like this; unless you clarify what you mean by torture and the context in which you would use it, what does it mean? If I was starving and my kid had no food, I would probably rob a bank; that doesn't mean I "approve" of robbing banks.

And the connection between Christianity and approval of torture is equally silly. What it really is is a question of your politics rather than religion. I suspect that more conservative people are more likely to approve of torture in the abstract than liberals in the same way that they are more likely to support the death penalty. And conservatives tend to be more self-identified as Christians. (I'm not making a normative judgement here about the relative morality of either position.)

It bothers me that Sullivan--whom I normally respect for his good sense--uses something like this to impugn, in a sense, the morality of Americans in such a simplistic manner. And, I'm not one that sees Americans as inherently more moral than others. During the Cold War, many Americans would presumably have said they support using nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union under certain circumstances--that doesn't mean that they thought we should go out and nuke them on a whim.

I'm against torture. Of anybody. We shouldn't go down that road. If we do we have already lost the moral justification we used to go to war in the first place.

At least that's one of the lessons I learn in church each week.

I agree with Rafique, and I've discussed it with many before. I think the only sensible policy is the realpolitik, Clintonesque, don't ask, don't tell version.

Keep it illegal to keep it rare. Yet in your heart acknowledge that in rare instances someone may choose to do it anyway. Anyone who makes the choice to torture will never be given permission by legal authority. Should a torturer fell in his or her heart of hearts that his or her official responsibility requires them to torture due to urgent expedince or extraordinarily high stakes, they should expect to ask not for permission, but for forgiveness.

For myself, I honestly prefer to believe that I would never do it under any circumstances. But just as honestly, I must acknowledge that I might not be able to toe the line of my ideals under every circumstance.

For example, there was an episode of the Shield where a child molester had been caught, and the whereabouts of a child he had kidnapped were unknown. Faced with this, might I in fact choose to beat the crap out of the guy to get an address, even if I didn't know whether the tactic would work? Yes, I might. So while I'd like to think I know what I'd do, I dn't really know what I'd do depending on the nature of the situation I actually faced. That's the root of the conundrum.

I don't think it should be legalized for these rare occasions. Rather, anyone who commits torture should be prepared to go to The Hague to justify their actions.

That is absolutely correct.

There is no reason for us to torture. It doesn't glean good information, in general. It also lowers us..sullies us. We're not terrorists. We're not bad guys. Torture is the providence of those who do evil.

bk's scenario above is interesting..and as a mother I can understand the raw, animal feelings of protection for a child. But removing our moral standards to beat the crap out of someone, knowing we likely won't get the information anyway--is playing to our most base, evil instincts. Its simply unacceptable.

In other words, if you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic. Christians for torture: it's a new constituency. Another part of the Bush legacy.