Torture

This one will be short and to the point...

The issue of torture has been in and out of the news recently and particularly has shown up in Republican presidential debates. There have been numerous allegations of use of torture in Guantanamo Bay and through repressive regimes in Egypt, East Europe, and Uzbekistan. Of course there was also the Abu Graib scandal. Some cable news networks have devoted discussions as to whether certain practices (water-boarding, forced standing, sleep deprivation, etc.) should be classified as torture.

Central to any of the recent debates about torture have been two questions:
1. What constitutes torture?
2. Are there situations when the use of torture is permissible?

I believe the first question is irrelevant. The only reason to carefully define torture is in order to inflict punishments that are borderline "not torture." Luckily for us, there is no reason we need to engage in such discussions. This is because the issue was already solved 200 years ago. The Bill of Rights 8th amendment prohibits the use "cruel and unusual punishment." Thus, we don't need to define torture, we need to define cruel and unusual punishment. I'll leave that to the courts, but we all know that all of the borderline practices being practiced in Guantanamo ARE cruel and unusual. As such, they are illegal if they are being inflicted on U.S. citizens, and should not be practiced if they are being used on enemy combatants. End of story. The entire torture debate is like trying to decide if asking who married Cain is blasphemy: it's completely outside the realms of our legal system and somewhat esoteric.

The second question is not a question at all. It's a rhetorical device. Torture or cruel and unusual punishment should not be used at all by anyone. Additionally, it is illegal for our government to use it against its citizens and illegal under international law (to the extent that international law has any jurisdiction in the United States) to use it against enemy combatants. Yet, talking heads keep asking the hypothetical question that goes something like this: "Suppose we caught a member of a terrorist cell trying to attack a major metropolitan area. Should we tie our hands and not allow intelligence personnel to use whatever means necessary to figure out the details of the plans even if it would cost perhaps thousands of American lives?" It's a nice little question that has no relation to reality and seems like a good plot for an action movie. Such a scenario has never happened and probably will never happen. If it does happen, you can bet that the terrorist will be subjected to "any means necessary" to get him to talk. After the torture, whoever green-lighted it would probably be absolved. In reality, it's a non-issue with such a specific set of circumstances that it is almost meaningless. So why does it keep coming up? Because they understand that the slippery slope goes both ways. Because torture in some outlandish scenario would be somewhat reasonable, one could argue that it could be justified in other, more realistic scenarios. Before you know it, "terrorists" are being tortured for all kinds of rationales. Asking the question is an argumentative tool for convincing people that torture is ok. Of course, in specific circumstances just about any action could be justified to some degree, but that doesn't give it legitimacy as public policy. Torture, as a matter of principle, should never be used for any purpose.