So the subject of “enhanced interrogation” arises once again. My attitude on it is a little different than most. When someone brings up the “ticking time bomb” scenario, I find it pointless to argue with them about efficiency and effectiveness.
The truth is that if I was in a room with a suspected terrorist, and a nuclear weapon that could destroy the city was counting down to zero, I can imagine losing my shit and doing all kinds of things. Human beings are like that.
But you know what I wouldn’t do?
I wouldn’t expect the court to say “cool.” So…no matter what, efficiency and effectiveness off the table, I wouldn’t trust anyone who says they would need it to be legal or…what? They wouldn’t save a million people, including themselves? Really? That suggests to me that they never really believed it was necessary. If I did it, I would
1) be desperate enough that my logic was breaking down and
2) be doing it to protect a society.
And guess what? I WOULDN’T be as interested in protecting a society that would make torture legal. Largely because there is NO way it would only be used on “guilty” people, and no way that it would be applied fairly and impartially.
People who look like me would be disproportionately dragged into the dungeon. So…even if I thought it was effective and efficient, I wouldn’t trust it to be legal, and I would never trust the ethics and morals of someone unwilling to be imprisoned to save millions of lives.