Reply #34: There's a far better response to the Torture hypothetical ...

[TahitiNut]

"Tell me this, Tim. Let's say that YOU are the interrogator who believes that the prisoner has specific knowledge of where the alleged nuclear bomb is located. Would you, as a decent human being and loyal citizen, let the threat of prosecution prevent you from torturing that prisoner to get that information? How sure would you be? Do you think you'd be prosecuted if you were correct and it saved millions of lives? Would you be willing to accept the punishment, including imprisonment, if you were WRONG?

"It's NOT a question of policy, Tim. It's a question of whether you can (1) be so certain he knows and (2) that torture would work to obtain the information. Just how much are YOU willing to rely on what YOU say is a reason to engage in torture? Experts say such certainty is a myth.

If you think someone can be so certain, then no policy that allows torture should be needed. If you cannot be so certain, then no such policy is even remotely reasonable or ethical, even under the most ridiculous of hypotheticals."