Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Torture is bad - killing innocent people is worse

By Mirko Bagaric - posted Friday, 28 December 2007


In more mundane situations, courts across the world have routinely thrown out confessions which are demonstrably true (because they are corroborated by objective evidence) on the basis that they were only made because the criminals were beaten up.

The second common objection to torture is that we can never be sure that the suspect has the relevant information. If that’s the case, simply don’t torture - in the same way that we’re not permitted to shoot in self-defence until we’re sure that the proposed target is up to no good.

It is also contended that life saving torture will lead down the slippery slope of other cruel practices. This is an intellectually defeatist argument. It tries to move the debate from what is on the table (life-saving torture) to situations where torture is used for reasons of domination and punishment - which is never justifiable.

Advertisement

A further common argument against torture is that it is inhumane and undemocratic. These are not reasons - just displays of venting. There could be nothing more inhumane than doing nothing as innocent people are being tortured to death.

Fanatics who oppose torture in all cases are adopting their own form of extremism. It is well-intentioned, but extremism in all its manifestations can lead to catastrophic consequences. Cruelty that is motivated by misguided kindness, hurts no less.

In order for the anti-torture extremists to move from the base of the moral mountain they need to accept that sometimes the only way to deal with evil is to hurt it and that evil is not transmittable. In the end, we must always act in a manner which maximises net flourishing and inform our moral choices by reason, not reflexive emotion - that is the closest it comes to an absolute moral principle.

Agent Kiriakou concedes that it was a tough call deciding that Zubayday should be tortured. But in the end he reasoned that he could not forgive himself if the CIA didn’t use torture on a suspect and therefore didn’t get “the nugget of information, and there was an attack”.

If agents in Australia refused to torture a suspect when it was apparent that it was the only means possible to save innocent lives, I don’t think we could forgive them either.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

49 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mirko Bagaric, BA LLB(Hons) LLM PhD (Monash), is a Croatian born Australian based author and lawyer who writes on law and moral and political philosophy. He is dean of law at Swinburne University and author of Australian Human Rights Law.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mirko Bagaric

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mirko Bagaric
Article Tools
Comment 49 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy