From Ron Paul comes a new, brief discussion of torture:
“Enhanced interrogation” as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.
In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law. Legally valid information is freely given by someone of sound mind and body. Someone in excruciating pain, or brought close to death by some horrific procedure is not in any state of mind to give reliable information, and certainly no actions should be taken solely based upon it.
This short article is interesting in that it presents moral, legal, and practical arguments against torture, the former of which I’ve found to be more persuasive to those on the left and the latter two, sadly, to those on the right. I’m not sure how admirable it is to decide not to support the use of torture solely because it doesn’t work or is illegal under American constitutional, domestic, and treaty law, but in the short term, at least, I guess that’s better than supporting it. Read more here.
Also good on this topic is Laurence Vance, who writes about torture in light of morality and Christianity.Published in