A Consequentialist Argument against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists

Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D.

Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics
January 30-31, 2003, Springfield, Virginia



Introduction
Since the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, much support for torture interrogation of terrorists has emerged in the public forum, largely based on the “ticking bomb” scenario. National polls have reported 45% and 32% approval; a large web-site vote indicated 65% approval. The appeal is that rare use of torture interrogation of key terrorists could thwart terrorist plans of mass destruction at minimal cost to civil liberties and democratic process. Moreover, a strictly monitored legal program is expected to replace current, illegal covert programs.

Ethicist John Rawls proposed that consequentialist moral argument for a program of action should include assessment of the practices required to implement that program. For with careful attention to implementation, there is less danger of adopting means that do not actually reach the desired ends. As a social psychologist, this is the course I pursue. I pass over foundational issues, such as the definition of “torture” and the morality of torture per se. I do not reach as far as state-level issues, such as international covenants banning torture. Rather, I draw from criminology, organizational theory, the historical record, and my own interviews to explore the design, implementation, and consequences of such a program. This strategy makes visible the mid-level social processes that lead from an official program of torture interrogation to serious dysfunctions in major institutions—health care and biomedical research, police and the judiciary, and the military and government.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Arrigo03.html

1. one more kick

this woman knows her stuff!!!