AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

AP via Tampa Bay Online ^ | Dec 6 2005 | WILL LESTER

[Vicomte13]

"Since I reject any notion of legal immunity, this argument is irrelevant."

In ANY circumstance?
No immunity from arrest for Congressmen?
No grants of immunity by the prosecutors in order to get evidence to convict someone more prominent and dangerous?

[steve-b]

I mean in the context of this discussion, obviously.

[Vicomte13]

But why limit it to this discussion?

I mean, if we are going to give legal immunity to public officials who are not making life or death decisions, and we're going to give legal immunity to scumbag criminals in order to get indictments of more important people, why shouldn't we bite the bullet and give legal immunity to our security officials who are presented with the "do or die" situation of getting information from a terrorist to stop a big attack? Why should we require themselves to become eventual martyrs to the legal system because we won't extend immunity to them for doing something we think is NECESSARY.

Let's be clear: not giving immunity means that if I have in my possession a terrorist who has planted a nuclear bomb in New York, and I am not in New York and don't have anyone close to me in New York, you're asking me to risk life in prison or even the death penalty in order to extract information from him through torture, but you're NOT willing to bend the legal system to grant me the protection from the destruction of my life by the legal system I'm trying to protect?

The "right" thing to do in such a circumstance?
Obey the law.
New York burns and 11 million people die.
Don't want that result? Then change the law.
If I've taken an oath to the law and the Constitution, then I'm going to follow the law and the Constitution unless there is some compelling PERSONAL reason for which I am willing to become a death-row bound felon. The Constitution and the law are clear as a bell: no torture.
So, if I decide to be a criminal and torture, it would only be because of a personal stake in the matter.
No personal stake, I obey the law, and I cannot be prosecuted.
Don't like that result? Then protect me and I'll protect you.

[steve-b]

doing something we think is NECESSARY

Because the only way of limiting it to cases where it is NECESSARY is to require the guy making the decision to consider the possibility that if he can't convince a court of law (or the President) that it was indeed necessary, he's going to spend his days as the Sweetheart Of Cellblock 13.

(Don't waste my time arguing that the legal system can be trusted to empower Federal agents only when they legitimately need such powers, unless it's on a thread titled "Lon Horiuchi Begins Prison Term".)

Why should we require themselves to become eventual martyrs to the legal system

Why should we require our soldiers and sailors to die and be maimed?

That's life. Life ain't fair.

but you're NOT willing to bend the legal system to grant me the protection from the destruction of my life by the legal system

The legal system already has all that you need -- IF you can make a legitimate case for yourself -- in two forms: "jury nullification" and "presidential pardon".

So, if I decide to be a criminal and torture, it would only be because of a personal stake in the matter.

If you make these decisions on the basis of personal gain, then you are unfit for the job in any case, and any negative consequences that may ensue may be laid at your feet and the feet of whoever let such an unfit person get into that position.

[steve-b]

Don't want that result? Then change the law.

The world is full of examples that prove that there is no need to change the law.

We don't want someone to starve to death because he genuinely has no way to get food other than to steal it. We don't change the laws against theft -- but we decline to prosecute people in situations like the recent Katrina debacle.

We don't want to let a political party bent on the defeat of America get into power. We don't change the laws against political corruption to make sure they don't win -- but we can always find a G. Gordon Liddy who will do what he considers necessary and go to prison for it without whining.

[Vicomte13]

Interesting interpretations of the law and the oath.

I've taken a few of these oaths myself, more than once.

The oath is to a Constitution, a system of law.
There's no override in the law.

The difference between the situation of the soldier potentially being killed on the battlefield and the torturer is that the soldier is not prosecuted for murder doing his job, if he succeeds, and is not shot by his own side for expedience.
But you are saying that the torturer should be.
Indeed, you've held up G. Gordon Liddy as a ROLE MODEL for what a good agent of the government should be!

Nowhere to go with that other than to disagree.
When one takes an oath, there isn't a "necessity" exemption from the terms of it.

[steve-b]

There's no override in the law.

And yet people don't starve in situations like Katrina -- they loot survival supplies, and the authorities let it slide (if they genuinely were looting for survival rather than for luxuries).

Similarly, someone who deals with a genuine ticking-time-bomb scenario by pulling a few fingernails would be off the hook -- the jury would refuse to convict, or the President would issue a pardon -- but the law would remain in place, and thus prevent the otherwise inevitable abusive use of a legal free pass.

Indeed, you've held up G. Gordon Liddy as a ROLE MODEL for what a good agent of the government should be!

Liddy erred in supposing that the Democratic Party in 1972 was a threat to the Republic (for one thing, they couldn't have won the election in any case). If there had been such a genuine threat, then he was a man who did what had to be done.