[lbo-talk] Scalia, Supreme Court Justice of Torture

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at aapt.net.au
Wed Mar 19 20:21:06 PDT 2008


At 7:07 PM -0700 19/3/08, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>Bill Bartlett writes:
>
>> Because of course any intelligent analysis of the
>> cost/benefit of torture can only conclude that the costs
>> far exceed the benefits.
>
>I think this is wishful thinking. It's precisely this kind of
>cost/benefit analysis which leads otherwise-right-thinking-people to
>conclude that "sometimes that's what you gotta do" -- it's only by
>*resisting* a cost/benefit calculation in the first place that you can
>deal with the "torture question" on a moral basis.
>
>The problem is that this kind of behavior is much more like venture
>investing than picking which pants to buy: if you lose 99/100 $5M bets
>you make but the 100th one returns $5B ... is anyone *sure* that the
>initial $495M was mis-spent? And of course: you can't know what it will
>return until you do it.
>
>That's the "one percent solution" for you.

I have no idea what you are trying to explain here, but let me just spell out for you what the problem is.

Yes, using torture you can get most people to confess anything, say anything, that you want them to say. The problem is, you can get most people to confess anything, say anything, that you want them to say. At best, no use whatsoever.

However, once it is known that you Americans use torture as a policing tool, no-one can have the least confidence in your system of justice. Decent people will have nothing to do with you at all, they won't co-operate, they won't provide you information and of course they will hate you. This will last a long time.

Which is an extra downside, on top of the fact that you get no benefits out of torture that are any value. You certainly can't get reliable intelligence. Yes, you can get information, any information you want really. Because, as has already been established, you can get people to tell you anything they think you want to hear if you torture them. But precisely because of that, the information is totally unreliable.

So why bother? Why not just forge a confession and/or statement from them saying what you want them to say? Save all the expense. At least that reduces the risk that you might actually believe that they really mean it genuinely.

Courts used to accept these blatantly false confessions without blinking an eye. No need to bother with torture. Though that sometimes went on in the cop shop as well. Which brings up another point, what's the benefit of making torture legal, as you Americans have done? It doesn't need to be legal, only idiots would try to justify it officially. Just do it and pretend you aren't.

But you aren't even pretending. The height of arrogance and stupidity.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list